Rivian bets the farm on its new $5 billion plant. But they already lose $40,000 per vehicle sold.

Photo above - A Google search for "worst lifted Rivian" immediately produced this gem. If you can find anything funnier, please post it in your replies.

If you’re like me, you might see (maybe) 1 Rivian truck per week. There’s a guy who has a Rivian at the parking lot where I work. I don’t know what he paid for it, but no matter what it was, he should consider himself a lottery winner. Rivians cost $40,000 more to make than what he paid for it. (see link below)

Rivian has a plan to fix all that. A new $5 Billion plant in Georgia. This probably means a non-unionized workforce, which is the bright spot for this troubled automaker. Although robots might work cheaper and demand no health benefits or pension plan.

Rivian announced plans for this new factory in 2021, right after Biden’s inauguration, amidst giddy excitement over new/expanded/continued EV tax credits. But they’re just breaking ground now, more than 4 years later. The press release on the factory groundbreaking doesn’t go into specifics about the delay. Perhaps profits, or lack of them?

Rivian sold 50,000 vehicles in 2024. This year they plan on selling LESS (40-45,000). I’m guessing that lack of production capacity is not the problem here, since they already produce 20% more in previous years. So why the new factory?

Rivian is possibly anticipating a Gavin Newsom victory in the 2028 presidential election, and restoration of the EV tax credits? That is one huge bet. If you amortize that $5 billion factory over 20 years, and 50,000 vehicles per year, it increases the loss per vehicle by another $5,000 . . . on top of what they’re already losing.

There are at least 2 dozen abandoned auto plants Rivian could have picked up for a song. Presumably these would cost more to renovate than new construction. Or those plants could be in high tax/high crime locations with an unreliable workforce.

Rivian may be hoping that they will own the EV truck market when the dust settles. Ram has completely cancelled their battery pickup truck, and is pivoting to hybrids. Ford cancelled a giant battery factory even before Trump won the election last year. Don’t get me started on the Tesla Cyber Truck.

I don’t wish any misfortune on aspiring Rivian workers from “The Goober State” (peanuts, Georgia’s official state crop. It’s not peaches, despite what you may have heard. Google Jimmy Carter for details).

I don’t wish any misfortune on Rivian investors either. The stock (RIVN) is already down 90% - to $13, from it’s all time high of $130. They’ve suffered enough. If they want to stop their pain and suffering they should possibly vote differently at shareholder meetings?

I’m just sayin’ . . .

It's 'do or die' for electric vehicle maker Rivian as it breaks ground on a $5 billion plant

Rivian Slashes 2025 Sales Forecast By Up To 13%, But Secret Stockpile Could Help | Carscoops

How Much Does Rivian Lose Per Vehicle? A Detailed Breakdown - Accounting Insights

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

exchrist · 36-40

I maintain electric vehicles were a big risk to begin with. It might turn around; unfortunately given the weight of batteries and the cost of production it is unlikely that the safety risks that are part of operation and ownership will permit the industry to be profitable in timetables sooner than 50+ years and or 3 to 5 generations. Big risk lot of unknowns

PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M

@exchrist This is true of literally every big shift in tech though. Early ICE cars were useless toys for rich people. Same with computers.

Hell most of the apps for the orignal iPhone were farts and whip noises and a beer pouring simulator.

And EVs have alot of the basic tech already ironed out and Lithium Ion is likely to be at most a stop gap. We are already seeing bigger advances in battery tech in the last 5 years than probably the last 30 since laptops switched to Lithium ion.

The North American market is also being unofficially hobbled because they refuse to do business with the country that is at the cutting edge of tech over childish temp tantrums, and thinking you can compete globally by banning your competitors while they leave you 20 years behind.

exchrist · 36-40

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow strong points and as noted starting industries take time to perfect and troubleshoot therefore going all in this early in a burgeoning industry seems Destined for failure better to have prototypes for several decades prior to going into mass production. Simple economics really! Based on industry patterns. the first electric car was in 1888 in Germany

wildbill83 · 41-45, M

@exchrist not to mention that lithium batteries have already peaked to the point they're investing in alternatives (Al-ion, Na+, etc.) that are cheaper, easier to produce, and consequently less efficient and durable. Lithium is just too difficult to source and mine, expensive to process, and too finicky.

Others have said it years ago, as have I; chemical batteries are a dead end technology; It over-promises, under-delivers, and prey's upon the naïve...

exchrist · 36-40

@wildbill83 strongly agree plus it’s just too heavy

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@wildbill83 the usa has 2 million metric tons of lithium in the ground. we are one of the 5 largest nations with lithium reserves. see link below:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/lithium-reserves-by-country

PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M

@SusanInFlorida It doesn't actually matter because of a couple of factors.

1. US strategy on any strategic mineral wealth from oil to lithium and everything else is to exploit foreign reserves and preserve American reserves.

2. Capitalism. If you exploit a country like Argentina you don't have to worry about American wages, or unions, or basic worker safety and it all goes to profits.

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow i think an analysis of energy policy will prove this is untrue.

our strategy (at least under Trump and Bush) has been to drill, build pipelines, and harvest the votes of oil workers, oil company execs, and grateful commuters.

PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M

@SusanInFlorida What you believe doesn't really matter. It has been the overall trend for longer than any of us have been alive. You might have a handful of years where things change but it doesn't change the overall strategic posture.

It is why the US has been mixed up in ME oil for the last century.

Again, those are at most 8 year blips over the last 100 years. Short term PR and campaign stunts. And just because drilling is happening on American soil doesn't mean it is directly benefiting Americans outside the PR space for the GOP. For example nearly all the fracking operations in the northern states were sold off to Canadian oil companies after the 2011 earthquake in Virginia caused a massive shift on fracking.

wildbill83 · 41-45, M

@SusanInFlorida producing 1 ton of lithium requires mining and processing about 500 tons of earth & 1-2 million gallons of water; it's one of the most resource intensive products to extract (aka, not very "green")

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@wildbill83 so to sum up - it's about the same as steel, aluminum, copper, etc.

what's your point?

wildbill83 · 41-45, M

@SusanInFlorida I'm tired of this false facade they build around EV's to convince people that they're somehow "green" and/or zero emission.

the majority of the pollution that a vehicle generates is during it's construction, and EV's generate more (and in most cases, more than It'll offset in it's lifetime vs conventional vehicles)

So my point is that it's pretty ignorant and naïve to only consider their environmental impact after they've already been built, and only up until the point that they're disposed of. By that logic, ICE powered vehicles are zero emission too during the majority of their life, when they're sitting in your driveway/garage not running... 🤔

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@wildbill83 there's an emerging theory that hybrids are LESS polluting than pure EVs. because most electric power still comes from coal. Hybrids use gasoline, with a lot of anti-pollution tech in place.

PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M

@SusanInFlorida That is kind of nonsense because that would apply almost exclusively to the USA which is determined to remain on an 18th century power infrastructure so they can continue to gaslight coal miners in WV.

This doesn't mean EVs are the problem it means the US is being left behind as a relic of history.