“Struggling” implies the American Auto industry is at least trying to keep pace. But really, they aren’t trying at all. They are content to sit back thinking their current flock of geese will lay golden eggs forever even as more and more of those geese drop dead from old age.
That‘s the main problem in Europe as well. I don‘t mind tariffs on heavily subsidized cars that are designed not to make profit but to destroy our industries. However, even then our manufacturers are in a constant crisis mode and unable to adapt. It‘s really pathetic.
But hey, when the car lobby is dead maybe that means more trains and cycling paths in the long run? Perhaps there‘s an opportunity here.
If it has to be forced, then it probably isn’t a good idea.
We’re only just now. Like this year just now, seeing batteries that can be made much cheaper and last much longer (sodium ion) and batteries that will last the actual lifetime of a vehicle (solid state lithiums, allegedly). The cars the past 5 years that have had LifePO4 batts will last decently long. Up until now you’ve been looking at EV’s that cost more, with batteries that will go bad in them that cost huge amounts of money to replace. A 10 year old Tesla with 200,000 miles on it is essentially garbage. No one will pay much for it because it’s about to need a $15,000 battery, and when it fails it’s going to the junk yard. My little ice car has nearly 300,000 miles on it and is old enough to vote. If the engine blows up I could buy a working used one for like $500 and install it myself, or pay somebody else a couple grand to deal with it all for me.
Passenger cars aren’t the end all be all to global warming or the environment, either. They aren’t the main cause. Most countries grid systems couldn’t handle a complete EV swap by 2035. Look at the issues these stupid ai server farms are causing grid systems.
My point is, no one should need to force ev. At this point it will become the better and obvious choice over ice on its own. It isn’t there yet for tons of people or countries.
If it has to be forced, then it probably isn’t a good idea
It’s not like people want to do that for shits and giggles.
A different perspective is the market shift is inevitable. We can work with it to make the transition smooth, to help existing manufacturers retool, to more quickly build out the necessary infrastructure, ensuring least disruption and existing manufacturers are still in business. Or we can let the market be disrupted by new companies predominantly in other countries. The transition will be longer and rougher as jobs are lost, infrastructure lags, existing manufacturers cling to old technology, until eventually that entire industrial base collapses
Or of course there’s the perspective of acknowledging long term climate trends and understand the responsibility to our children, our society, our descendants, to make small steps to mitigate the harm we do them
We’re (the world) is currently massively back ordered on transformers by many years and no one is ramping up production. Let alone the rest of the infrastructure, or what people in apartments and others with no garages are set to do. Were too far out to solve those problems. Even 20 years out.
Maybe, but there’s a lot more chance to solve it 20 years out
More importantly, generating and transmitting more power is not the only option. It is for ai since a datacenter needs huge power continuously. However EVs need much smaller amounts of power intermittently. If I plug in overnight, I don’t care when it charges or how fast as long as it’s done by morning. Not everyone does that at the same time, and we ought to be able to create a “smart” solution to coordinate this and minimize the impact
EV potentially could coordinate with the grid so we don’t need much or any additional power but just use it at different times
You still have to look at the millions of people with no garages, that park on streets and apartment parking lots, and who won’t have means to charge outside of going and charging at fast charge stations away from where they live. These will all take massive amounts of high current power at peak times, not overnight. The people in their single family houses with their double car garages won’t be an issue for overnight charging. It will be an issue for all the others. Imagine places like Kansas city or Chicago or LA.
Tesla already has fast chargers with megapack, and with solar. There are fast chargers that don’t impact the grid much
we definitely need to build out destination chargers. Charging at work is no different from at home, except for when. And build out of solar can make peak energy available just when needed
there are proposed answers such as streetlight chargers
Obviously we don’t have an answer yet, haven’t built out the infrastructure, but we do have options
Imagine places like Kansas city or Chicago or LA.
I’m imagining park and ride stations with fairly slow charging. People in the suburbs can leave their car on a slow charger all day and take a train into the city.
My home charger is 50a which is too fast for this.
My work has 30a chargers and most people take turns for half a day
so we’re talking 15-20a, or again, something smart enough to spread the load
No one will pay much for it because it’s about to need a $15,000 battery,
That’s pretty rare though. Less than 5% of EVs need a battery replacement after 10 years (including those with defective batteries), and modern EV batteries should last at least 20 years, after which they’re still estimated to have around 65-70% capacity.
That’s not pretty rare, and with lithium batteries it’s also a guaranteed capacity loss, even if there’s not many power cycles to them. Age is a huge determinate factor in capacity and power loss in lithium batteries. The capacity loss also isn’t on a straight line scale. It increases with time. One or two percent a year loss for the first 5 years and then it will get bigger and bigger. Unlike an ice vehicle that’s kept in a garage and taken care of that can got well over 200,000 miles almost regardless of age, an EV currently can’t do that. They’re terrible in the 2nd and third hand market. A 20 year old EV will be useless.
While battery degradation is real, one thing people often overlook is that most of these mandates include PHEVs under the umbrella of electric vehicles. PHEVs have way smaller batteries which make them lighter, cheaper, and they aren’t subject to range anxiety. The only downside is the extra cost and the continued maintenance required of an ICE (but ICE buyers are used to it and don’t care about that).
That’s quite false, buddy. In fact it’s an outright lie. For Europe and for the US, so I don’t know where you’re talking about this “most of” is at.
The EU bill was for a complete ICE ban by 2035, and the reversal that Germany was pushing for in removing that ban was for it to be a 90% emissions reduction instead of a ban. This was wanted by Germany for the sole purpose of still allowing hybrids after 2035.
In shorter fashion: It didn’t include hybrids. Now it’s going to.
My mistake, it always allowed PHEVs in Canada and I made the assumption it was similar elsewhere as a full blown EV mandate is a really though sell. Thanks for clarifying.
People are already bitching and moaning about how hard it is to build out charging, when it’s based on existing electric system that’s is already everywhere. You really think it’s at all practical to build out everywhere a network of station with a large inventory of one ton batteries to fit every age of every vehicle in every location no matter how rural and heavy automated equipment to maneuver them? You want to hold battery technology stagnant to support this? You want to lose the efficiency and reliability benefits of structural batteries.
The reality is current batteries already last longer than the first owner keeps a vehicle and newer ones easily exceed lifespan of ice vehicles. The reality is charging is already more convenient that battery swapping. The reality is building out chargers is much easier than any other infrastructure
You really think it’s at all practical to build out everywhere a network of station
It works with propane tanks.
one ton batteries to fit every age of every vehicle in every location no matter how rural and heavy automated equipment to maneuver them?
That’s where standardization comes in. All vehicles would use the same cells, or maybe a couple sizes depending on use case. No reason they have to way a ton either a car could have multiple cells sized for a person to be able to handle themselves. This would also allow you to “top up” if they can get the cells to drain sequentially.
You want to hold battery technology stagnant to support this? You want to lose the efficiency and reliability benefits of structural batteries.
As long as new technology connects to the old connections then they can change whatever they want inside the cells. That’s how batteries have been for pretty much the entire history of batteries. And no I don’t want to lose anything. I was merely asking a question.
The reality is current batteries already last longer than the first owner keeps a vehicle and newer ones easily exceed lifespan of ice vehicles.
I’d very much like to know what the actual numbers are for “how long the first owner keeps a vehicle” and the “lifespan of ice vehicles”. I’ve had my car for 15 years and I’m the first owner. My dad had a truck that’s coming up on 40 and is still kicking. EVs haven’t even been around long enough to prove that
Everyone has different definition of lifetime and very few keep theirs 40 years
I personally buy new and keep it for its lifetime, as defined by “needing more work than its value “. That has worked out to be 12-15 years for ICE cars. For an EV I’m reasonably confident the battery will last longer than I own the vehicle and it will still have some amount of resale value based on batteries degrade rather than die
Tesla is ahead there too. Its average EV lifespan is 20.3 years, whereas the average electric vehicle has a lifespan of 18.4 years. By comparison, the average gas-powered vehicle’s lifespan is 18.7 years.
Tesla’s haven’t existed for 20 years. How can that be the average lifespan? At best it’s theoretical. Most likely it’s some musk stooge making shit up.
There was at least one company several years ago that was trying. Go to a place and pay a fee, kind of like how you’d swap out a propane gas bbq grill tank. They’d forklift out the empty batt and forklift in the charged one, was their game plan.
The tech is all too knew for standardization. Too many chemistries and voltages and places to figure out where to stick batteries.
If what catl is producing right now is correct and true, we should be all set in the coming future. Supposed sodium batteries at 175wh per kilogram and over 10,000 charge cycles and very fast charging. Great for sub 300 mile range small econo vehicles. Then the solid state lithiums they’re working on are also supposed to have a high amount of charge cycles and energy densities close to 500wh\kg, which will give plenty of range and make the cars lighter, which is really needed to ease up on suspension and efficiency and tread wear.
our manufacturers are in a constant crisis mode and unable to adapt
in 2023, Tesla released all the specs to move EVs to a 48V architecture to Detroit, saving a tremendous amount of wiring and eliminating the need for most sub systems and secondary computers. Detroit just ignored it, until 2026, and now Ford invented 48V architecture.
China has the battery production technologies and capabilities, the electric motor production, an unbelievable economy of scale, and insane levels of automation in their EV Factories, those are the main reasons behind their pricing and not “subsidies to destroy our industries”. Most subsidies, AFAIK, were tax cuts to purchases in China.
Are the subsidies specifically for destroying foreign markets? (😈MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!)
Maybe, maybe not. I’m not a huge fan of the Chinese government, but I don’t think their subsidies program are intended to directly destroy foreign markets so much as put the country at the forefront of development and production… which can be perceived as the above.
As the study goes into in depth, tax credits are just one part of the system. There’s also direct subsidies(funding) for R&D, which is understandably very expensive, and below market value land sales among other things. In 2019 China put the equivalent of 1.73% of their GDP into industrial support, with below market land sales being a substantial portion of that. Next highest on the graphic is Korea at 0.67% GDP equivalent.
Moving away from the subsidies thing.
China has the battery production technologies and capabilities, the electric motor production, an unbelievable economy of scale, and insane levels of automation in their EV Factories,
(Found this out awhile ago when I was watching a video on how actually ridiculous the whole US - Greenland thing was.)
China has ~90% of the rare earth refinement capacity. Even if Trump wants/wanted Greenland for it’s resources, it would be over a decade to spin up enough refinement infrastructure to process whatever they would hypothetically extract.
China has invested HEAVILY in the entire supply chain from resource extraction to final product for a wide swath of GreenTech. When a lot of the rest of the world has switched from a majority production/export to majority consumption/import economy, or focused on soft products/research/etc of course they would see a country flooding their markets with products as adversarial. Regardless of if those foreign products are superior. Especially if the government of said foreign country is often interfering in political processes, intimidating other countries citizens, setting up extra judicial secret police networks in many countries, economic coercion…etc etc etc.
I’m not entirely convinced that the subsidy system is malicious, but the CCP isn’t above playing dirty. So I can fully understand the common reaction being that it is.
While I’m positive they are playing dirty in many ways, the fundamental difference is they saw a long term transition, welcomed it, guided it. Whereas us sees a long term transition, pulls our head into our shell, holds on tighter to old ways of doing things, keeps focussing shorter and shorter term. Whatever China may be doing to “cheat”, it really seems like this is mostly self-inflicted
the fundamental difference is they saw a long term transition, welcomed it, guided it. Whereas us sees a long term transition, pulls our head into our shell
That’s one of the advantages of having a single party in power for a very long time, I don’t think China qualifies as a proper dictatorship, but it shares the advantage of the ability to plan decades in advance. The US is hobbled by the 4-8 year cycle of the next person totally erasing all the work of the previous. So there’s an incentive for whoever is in power to keep the status quo and keep any changes small enough or “bipartisan” enough that the next person doesn’t repeal it.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that from what’s visible outside the information confines of the CCP is cheating. They have a well defined goal, and no sight of the end of party rule means they can effectively do whatever they want to achieve it.
wouldn’t necessarily say that from what’s visible outside the information confines of the CCP is cheating.
I do have to say I’m skeptical of all the claims that they are subsidizing industry and this is a problem. They are. In the open. And that’s normal. I have yet to read a convincing story that they are doing this enough to be substantially different from every other country. And being consistent over multiple years is clearly not cheating
Chinese companies have a deserved reputation for industrial espionage and not respecting intellectual property. I haven’t read complaints recently so does that mean they’ve cleaned up their act?
I mean, the claims as I understand them, is that the government is subsidising these EVs and Solar-PV etc. to the point where they are being sold below cost of manufacturing. Making any competition next to impossible in any countries where parts supply chains are more costly than in China. Not sure I believe that to the extent claimed, but they definitely are, very clearly and without hiding it, heavily subsidising these industries. Without someone smarter with numbers than me and very trustworthy looking at the actual flow of money from the government to these companies? There’s no way to actually know what is in fact happening.
I’ve read the same but am skeptical because no one ever pulls out any numbers. I know every country does that same thing to some extent so just saying they do it doesn’t mean anything.
I’ll believe it when I see actual data
It’s also not necessary for the current reality to have happened. Following the K.I.S.S. principal, the current Chinese car industry is explainable by consistent government policy over many years, out in the open, so why are we blaming it on things we don’t o ow or don’t see? I’m not saying it’s not there, just that we’d be in the same boat whether it is or not
GM’s biggest sales increases are with Cadillac EVs last year.
Detroit followed the Tesla model, with the highest profit margins in the industry because their CEO convinced simps EVs should be expensive. So they jumped in early with poorly designed and expensive vehicles, thinking Tesla stans were everywhere.
There was a time, worldwide, if you just wanted a reliable and low cost sedan, you bought a Ford or Chevy, and they sold millions. But round 2016, Detroit lost interest in lower cost vehicles, and by 2020, they got addicted to price gouging cheap vehicles to make them expensive, and why not, people were paying $70,000+ for a Jeep and just taking it up the ass.
Given Detroit abandoned that part of the market, they shouldn’t care if Chinese EVs arrive, right? Because their $60,000 EVs are a better product, right?
Tesla was a tech leader before Musk showed up. As soon as he weasled his way in and declared himself a founder retroactively, the best engineers left and started Rivian and Lucid, both of which make better vehicles. On his watch, they made that stupid SUV with gullwing doors no one can open in a garage, then the Cybertruck.
The Teslas that are made in China are noticeably higher quality than the ones made in the USA. Fewer panel gaps and better fit and finish.
The only reason Teslas are decent quality is because the majority of them are made in China. Over 50% of Teslas are made in China, using over 90% local (Chinese) parts.
“Struggling” implies the American Auto industry is at least trying to keep pace. But really, they aren’t trying at all. They are content to sit back thinking their current flock of geese will lay golden eggs forever even as more and more of those geese drop dead from old age.
That‘s the main problem in Europe as well. I don‘t mind tariffs on heavily subsidized cars that are designed not to make profit but to destroy our industries. However, even then our manufacturers are in a constant crisis mode and unable to adapt. It‘s really pathetic.
But hey, when the car lobby is dead maybe that means more trains and cycling paths in the long run? Perhaps there‘s an opportunity here.
It’s all thanks to Germany though. They are the ones who have succeeded in scrapping the bill to ban new ICE vehicle sales after 2035
Canada did the same thing. We also got rid of the carbon levy.
If it has to be forced, then it probably isn’t a good idea.
We’re only just now. Like this year just now, seeing batteries that can be made much cheaper and last much longer (sodium ion) and batteries that will last the actual lifetime of a vehicle (solid state lithiums, allegedly). The cars the past 5 years that have had LifePO4 batts will last decently long. Up until now you’ve been looking at EV’s that cost more, with batteries that will go bad in them that cost huge amounts of money to replace. A 10 year old Tesla with 200,000 miles on it is essentially garbage. No one will pay much for it because it’s about to need a $15,000 battery, and when it fails it’s going to the junk yard. My little ice car has nearly 300,000 miles on it and is old enough to vote. If the engine blows up I could buy a working used one for like $500 and install it myself, or pay somebody else a couple grand to deal with it all for me.
Passenger cars aren’t the end all be all to global warming or the environment, either. They aren’t the main cause. Most countries grid systems couldn’t handle a complete EV swap by 2035. Look at the issues these stupid ai server farms are causing grid systems.
My point is, no one should need to force ev. At this point it will become the better and obvious choice over ice on its own. It isn’t there yet for tons of people or countries.
It’s not like people want to do that for shits and giggles.
A different perspective is the market shift is inevitable. We can work with it to make the transition smooth, to help existing manufacturers retool, to more quickly build out the necessary infrastructure, ensuring least disruption and existing manufacturers are still in business. Or we can let the market be disrupted by new companies predominantly in other countries. The transition will be longer and rougher as jobs are lost, infrastructure lags, existing manufacturers cling to old technology, until eventually that entire industrial base collapses
Or of course there’s the perspective of acknowledging long term climate trends and understand the responsibility to our children, our society, our descendants, to make small steps to mitigate the harm we do them
While we’re so stagnant it would be a challenge, do you not see the difference between
You can plan for a well known and couple decades timeframe, or the failure is yours. It’s harder to plan for surprises
We’re (the world) is currently massively back ordered on transformers by many years and no one is ramping up production. Let alone the rest of the infrastructure, or what people in apartments and others with no garages are set to do. Were too far out to solve those problems. Even 20 years out.
Maybe, but there’s a lot more chance to solve it 20 years out
More importantly, generating and transmitting more power is not the only option. It is for ai since a datacenter needs huge power continuously. However EVs need much smaller amounts of power intermittently. If I plug in overnight, I don’t care when it charges or how fast as long as it’s done by morning. Not everyone does that at the same time, and we ought to be able to create a “smart” solution to coordinate this and minimize the impact
EV potentially could coordinate with the grid so we don’t need much or any additional power but just use it at different times
You still have to look at the millions of people with no garages, that park on streets and apartment parking lots, and who won’t have means to charge outside of going and charging at fast charge stations away from where they live. These will all take massive amounts of high current power at peak times, not overnight. The people in their single family houses with their double car garages won’t be an issue for overnight charging. It will be an issue for all the others. Imagine places like Kansas city or Chicago or LA.
Fast chargers aren’t the only option
Obviously we don’t have an answer yet, haven’t built out the infrastructure, but we do have options
I’m imagining park and ride stations with fairly slow charging. People in the suburbs can leave their car on a slow charger all day and take a train into the city.
That’s pretty rare though. Less than 5% of EVs need a battery replacement after 10 years (including those with defective batteries), and modern EV batteries should last at least 20 years, after which they’re still estimated to have around 65-70% capacity.
That’s not pretty rare, and with lithium batteries it’s also a guaranteed capacity loss, even if there’s not many power cycles to them. Age is a huge determinate factor in capacity and power loss in lithium batteries. The capacity loss also isn’t on a straight line scale. It increases with time. One or two percent a year loss for the first 5 years and then it will get bigger and bigger. Unlike an ice vehicle that’s kept in a garage and taken care of that can got well over 200,000 miles almost regardless of age, an EV currently can’t do that. They’re terrible in the 2nd and third hand market. A 20 year old EV will be useless.
While battery degradation is real, one thing people often overlook is that most of these mandates include PHEVs under the umbrella of electric vehicles. PHEVs have way smaller batteries which make them lighter, cheaper, and they aren’t subject to range anxiety. The only downside is the extra cost and the continued maintenance required of an ICE (but ICE buyers are used to it and don’t care about that).
That’s quite false, buddy. In fact it’s an outright lie. For Europe and for the US, so I don’t know where you’re talking about this “most of” is at.
The EU bill was for a complete ICE ban by 2035, and the reversal that Germany was pushing for in removing that ban was for it to be a 90% emissions reduction instead of a ban. This was wanted by Germany for the sole purpose of still allowing hybrids after 2035.
In shorter fashion: It didn’t include hybrids. Now it’s going to.
My mistake, it always allowed PHEVs in Canada and I made the assumption it was similar elsewhere as a full blown EV mandate is a really though sell. Thanks for clarifying.
The ban for ICE vehicles was only for new registrations. ICE cars registered before 2035 were still allowed to be driven after 2035.
Never understood why EVs aren’t made with standardized hot swappable cells. Would solve the range problem and the wear problem.
Not practical, no one wants it.
People are already bitching and moaning about how hard it is to build out charging, when it’s based on existing electric system that’s is already everywhere. You really think it’s at all practical to build out everywhere a network of station with a large inventory of one ton batteries to fit every age of every vehicle in every location no matter how rural and heavy automated equipment to maneuver them? You want to hold battery technology stagnant to support this? You want to lose the efficiency and reliability benefits of structural batteries.
The reality is current batteries already last longer than the first owner keeps a vehicle and newer ones easily exceed lifespan of ice vehicles. The reality is charging is already more convenient that battery swapping. The reality is building out chargers is much easier than any other infrastructure
It works with propane tanks.
That’s where standardization comes in. All vehicles would use the same cells, or maybe a couple sizes depending on use case. No reason they have to way a ton either a car could have multiple cells sized for a person to be able to handle themselves. This would also allow you to “top up” if they can get the cells to drain sequentially.
As long as new technology connects to the old connections then they can change whatever they want inside the cells. That’s how batteries have been for pretty much the entire history of batteries. And no I don’t want to lose anything. I was merely asking a question.
I’d very much like to know what the actual numbers are for “how long the first owner keeps a vehicle” and the “lifespan of ice vehicles”. I’ve had my car for 15 years and I’m the first owner. My dad had a truck that’s coming up on 40 and is still kicking. EVs haven’t even been around long enough to prove that
Everyone has different definition of lifetime and very few keep theirs 40 years
I personally buy new and keep it for its lifetime, as defined by “needing more work than its value “. That has worked out to be 12-15 years for ICE cars. For an EV I’m reasonably confident the battery will last longer than I own the vehicle and it will still have some amount of resale value based on batteries degrade rather than die
Also I’ve seen quite a few articles like
Tesla’s haven’t existed for 20 years. How can that be the average lifespan? At best it’s theoretical. Most likely it’s some musk stooge making shit up.
There was at least one company several years ago that was trying. Go to a place and pay a fee, kind of like how you’d swap out a propane gas bbq grill tank. They’d forklift out the empty batt and forklift in the charged one, was their game plan.
The tech is all too knew for standardization. Too many chemistries and voltages and places to figure out where to stick batteries.
If what catl is producing right now is correct and true, we should be all set in the coming future. Supposed sodium batteries at 175wh per kilogram and over 10,000 charge cycles and very fast charging. Great for sub 300 mile range small econo vehicles. Then the solid state lithiums they’re working on are also supposed to have a high amount of charge cycles and energy densities close to 500wh\kg, which will give plenty of range and make the cars lighter, which is really needed to ease up on suspension and efficiency and tread wear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_battery_station
Isn’t profit supposed to bring prices down?
Looks like crapitalists are scared to shit of free market competition.
in 2023, Tesla released all the specs to move EVs to a 48V architecture to Detroit, saving a tremendous amount of wiring and eliminating the need for most sub systems and secondary computers. Detroit just ignored it, until 2026, and now Ford invented 48V architecture.
China has the battery production technologies and capabilities, the electric motor production, an unbelievable economy of scale, and insane levels of automation in their EV Factories, those are the main reasons behind their pricing and not “subsidies to destroy our industries”. Most subsidies, AFAIK, were tax cuts to purchases in China.
Are the subsidies specifically for destroying foreign markets? (😈MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!)
Maybe, maybe not. I’m not a huge fan of the Chinese government, but I don’t think their subsidies program are intended to directly destroy foreign markets so much as put the country at the forefront of development and production… which can be perceived as the above.
In depth study of the Chinese GreenTech subsidy system.
As the study goes into in depth, tax credits are just one part of the system. There’s also direct subsidies(funding) for R&D, which is understandably very expensive, and below market value land sales among other things. In 2019 China put the equivalent of 1.73% of their GDP into industrial support, with below market land sales being a substantial portion of that. Next highest on the graphic is Korea at 0.67% GDP equivalent.
Moving away from the subsidies thing.
(Found this out awhile ago when I was watching a video on how actually ridiculous the whole US - Greenland thing was.)
China has ~90% of the rare earth refinement capacity. Even if Trump wants/wanted Greenland for it’s resources, it would be over a decade to spin up enough refinement infrastructure to process whatever they would hypothetically extract.
China has invested HEAVILY in the entire supply chain from resource extraction to final product for a wide swath of GreenTech. When a lot of the rest of the world has switched from a majority production/export to majority consumption/import economy, or focused on soft products/research/etc of course they would see a country flooding their markets with products as adversarial. Regardless of if those foreign products are superior. Especially if the government of said foreign country is often interfering in political processes, intimidating other countries citizens, setting up extra judicial secret police networks in many countries, economic coercion…etc etc etc.
I’m not entirely convinced that the subsidy system is malicious, but the CCP isn’t above playing dirty. So I can fully understand the common reaction being that it is.
While I’m positive they are playing dirty in many ways, the fundamental difference is they saw a long term transition, welcomed it, guided it. Whereas us sees a long term transition, pulls our head into our shell, holds on tighter to old ways of doing things, keeps focussing shorter and shorter term. Whatever China may be doing to “cheat”, it really seems like this is mostly self-inflicted
That’s one of the advantages of having a single party in power for a very long time, I don’t think China qualifies as a proper dictatorship, but it shares the advantage of the ability to plan decades in advance. The US is hobbled by the 4-8 year cycle of the next person totally erasing all the work of the previous. So there’s an incentive for whoever is in power to keep the status quo and keep any changes small enough or “bipartisan” enough that the next person doesn’t repeal it.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that from what’s visible outside the information confines of the CCP is cheating. They have a well defined goal, and no sight of the end of party rule means they can effectively do whatever they want to achieve it.
I do have to say I’m skeptical of all the claims that they are subsidizing industry and this is a problem. They are. In the open. And that’s normal. I have yet to read a convincing story that they are doing this enough to be substantially different from every other country. And being consistent over multiple years is clearly not cheating
Chinese companies have a deserved reputation for industrial espionage and not respecting intellectual property. I haven’t read complaints recently so does that mean they’ve cleaned up their act?
I mean, the claims as I understand them, is that the government is subsidising these EVs and Solar-PV etc. to the point where they are being sold below cost of manufacturing. Making any competition next to impossible in any countries where parts supply chains are more costly than in China. Not sure I believe that to the extent claimed, but they definitely are, very clearly and without hiding it, heavily subsidising these industries. Without someone smarter with numbers than me and very trustworthy looking at the actual flow of money from the government to these companies? There’s no way to actually know what is in fact happening.
I’ve read the same but am skeptical because no one ever pulls out any numbers. I know every country does that same thing to some extent so just saying they do it doesn’t mean anything.
I’ll believe it when I see actual data
It’s also not necessary for the current reality to have happened. Following the K.I.S.S. principal, the current Chinese car industry is explainable by consistent government policy over many years, out in the open, so why are we blaming it on things we don’t o ow or don’t see? I’m not saying it’s not there, just that we’d be in the same boat whether it is or not
GM’s biggest sales increases are with Cadillac EVs last year.
Detroit followed the Tesla model, with the highest profit margins in the industry because their CEO convinced simps EVs should be expensive. So they jumped in early with poorly designed and expensive vehicles, thinking Tesla stans were everywhere.
There was a time, worldwide, if you just wanted a reliable and low cost sedan, you bought a Ford or Chevy, and they sold millions. But round 2016, Detroit lost interest in lower cost vehicles, and by 2020, they got addicted to price gouging cheap vehicles to make them expensive, and why not, people were paying $70,000+ for a Jeep and just taking it up the ass.
Given Detroit abandoned that part of the market, they shouldn’t care if Chinese EVs arrive, right? Because their $60,000 EVs are a better product, right?
Tesla was definitely trying…
Ah Tesla… I too attempt to accomplish tasks by being a leader and going completely insane.
Tesla was a tech leader before Musk showed up. As soon as he weasled his way in and declared himself a founder retroactively, the best engineers left and started Rivian and Lucid, both of which make better vehicles. On his watch, they made that stupid SUV with gullwing doors no one can open in a garage, then the Cybertruck.
People only prefer BYD to Cybertrucks because the government is not adding ketamine to drinking water.
Half of the Tesla vehicles are made in China, they are not competing with the Chinese EVs but they are the Chinese EVs themselves instead
The Teslas that are made in China are noticeably higher quality than the ones made in the USA. Fewer panel gaps and better fit and finish.
The only reason Teslas are decent quality is because the majority of them are made in China. Over 50% of Teslas are made in China, using over 90% local (Chinese) parts.