Well, just spitballing here, you can get a used X9 series harvester for about a million bucks, but that’s the diesel version. So, let’s say the battery powered one is twice that.
So, assuming the battery version can run for 8 hours (optimistic), you’ve got 3x$2MM = $6MM increase in cost for the harvester.
The cost of the generator would depend heavily on the output required, but let’s say 24KVA would do the trick, so say 30K with a trailer. Add another 5K for a tank and that’s under 50K all in.
The diesel service would be the same as the current fuel bill, so let’s net that out of the equation. Looks like the biggest cost would be the backup harvesters, since there are no replacable “swap out” battery packs.
So in round numbers, it would be a +/- $6.5 to $7MM operating cost increase every couple of years per farmer. The suits at Deere probably figure the increased sales would be great, but in reality, it would put all of their customers out of business pretty quick, so maybe I should sell all of my Deere stock, now that I think of it.
The REAL benefit of all of this can be seen in Sri Lanka, where they banned nitrogen fertilizer, resulting in widespread crop failures. This strategy puts pressure on the opposite side of the agricultural equation. Banning fertilizer depresses yields, and this initiative from Deere would effectively prevent whatever crops are grown from being harvested. Sort of like nuking everything from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure.
Claus Schwab would be proud of himself.
Such a small price to pay for multinational corporate virtue-signaling. </sarcasm>