I wish if this U.S. administration and U.S. carmakers don't care to promote EVs, that they'd at least let in the Chinese manufacturers that are interested in them.
They view EVs as a moral threat. Can't get cognitive dissonance about your neighbor's dope new EV with perks your new ICE doesn't have, if your neighbor can't get EVs either. Loads of examples of "this is worse, so we're going to make it worse, so we're sure that it is worse".
IMO, the biggest perk is dependent on the ability to charge at home. If you can, then the price per mile is about half (if Google is right that California rates are about $0.30/kWh) or less than for an ICE. But even if the $/mile were equal, never needing to visit a gas station again is itself the biggest perk.
And sure there are people for whom an EV won't meet their range needs, but probably way fewer than think that's the case for them.
It’s closer to 0.40-0.70c/kwh. My lowest rate is $0.40c/kwh and that goes away insanely fast just doing almost nothing. PGE is criminally priced in CA. I get maybe 200kwh before it jumps to $0.50/kwh rate and will keep jumping.
I don’t have AC. I don’t have anything. That’s just a fridge, computer, and a little bit of cooking. Genuinely have no idea how I even hit 10kwh/day because I have nearly nothing on in this place.
Home electricity in California is about 45¢/kWh. If your F150 mileage is typical, you're getting about 2 miles per kWh. 600 miles would cost about $135 here in California. Meanwhile, a 20 mpg gas car would cost about $110/month at $3.65/gallon.
You must be paying about 4.7 cents per kWh, or about 90% less than you'd pay here.
They also view the Chinese as a moral threat. They'd rather set the country on fire than cede the territory that small Chinese EVs could take (which, given current American consumer preferences, would likely be rather small.
>> they'd at least let in the Chinese manufacturers that are interested in them.
China's anti-market tactics in EV/battery supply-chain past 15 years haven't exactly helped promote EVs outside China -- they are now countervailed not only in the US, but also the EU, Canada, Turkiye; even in China-friendly nations, such as Brazil and Russia now are imposing restrictions on Chinese EV imports. Not very realistic.
What anti-market tactics? My understanding is they poured money over the whole market in a way that helped it grow faster, but didn't pick winners and doesn't subsidize the current pricing.
Yeah this is an outdated talking point, because people can’t accept how far ahead Chinese auto are. They now just have a more advanced, innovative & competitive auto industry, with little subsidies.
Don't like posting a long comment, but re-posting a high-level chronological view of the problems past 15 years:
1) forced technology transfer/IP theft -- all foreign automakers/EV battery producers forced to give up IP to access China's market (and subsidies). This was litigated before the WTO by the EU in 2018 (see WT/DS549):
Hybrid in a Trade Squeeze, Keith Bradsher, Sept 5, 2011, NYT
... The Chinese government is refusing to let the Volt qualify for subsidies totaling up to $19,300 a car unless G.M. agrees to transfer the engineering secrets for one of the Volt’s three main technologies to a joint venture in China with a Chinese automaker, G.M. officials said.
2) Once foreign battery producers made IPR/IP concessions to access China's growing EV market and significant investment in battery production in China, they were effectively banned. All domestic, foreign automakers were likewise forced to switch to local champions, namely CATL/BYD, promoted under MIIT's 2015 "Regulation on the Standards of the Automotive Power Battery Industry”:
Power Play, Trefor Moss, May 17, 2018, WSJ
... China requires auto makers to use batteries from one of its approved suppliers if they want to be cleared to mass-produce electric cars and plug-in hybrids and to qualify for subsidies. These suppliers are all Chinese, so such global leaders as South Korea’s LG Chem Ltd and Japan’s Panasonic Corp. are excluded.
... Foreign batteries aren’t officially banned in China, but auto executives say that since 2016 they have been warned by government officials that they must use Chinese batteries in their China-built cars, or face repercussions. That has forced them to spend millions of dollars to redesign cars to work with inferior Chinese batteries, they say.
... “We want to comply, and we have to comply,” said one executive with a foreign car maker. “There’s no other option.”
3) Picking winners and losers: made sure no Chinese consumers had access to EVs with batteries from foreign EV battery producers effectively creating a captive market of buyers for CATL/BYD.
Why a Chinese Company Dominates Electric Car Batteries. Keith Bradsher and Michael Forsythe, Dec 22, 2021, NYT
The government soon said electric car buyers could get subsidies only if the battery was made by a Chinese company. G.M., which had not been notified of the rule, started shipping Buick Velite electric cars in 2016 with batteries made in China by LG, a South Korean company.
Angry consumers and dealers complained that local officials were denying them subsidies, people familiar with the episode said. G.M. switched heavily to CATL for the huge Chinese market.
4) another fairly recent example of China's arbitrary regulatory barriers to keep out foreign competition, which was later dropped after the gov't found out their local "champion," CATL, couldn't pass the EV battery safety test:
Why a Chinese Company Dominates Electric Car Batteries. Keith Bradsher and Michael Forsythe, Dec 22, 2021, NYT
... A rival had released a video suggesting that a technology used by the company, CATL, and other manufacturers could cause car fires. Imitating a Chinese government safety test, the rival had driven a nail through a battery cell, one of many in a typical electric car battery. The cell exploded in a fireball.
Chinese officials took swift action — by dropping the nail test, according to documents reviewed by The New York Times. The new regulation, released two months later, listed who had drafted it: First on the list, ahead of the government’s own vehicle testing agency, was CATL.
Then, you also have China weaponizing their EV raw-material supply-chain, such as EV-grade graphite used as battery's anode material. China torpedo'ed Swedish battery company, Northvolt, with an export ban in 2020 because Sweden protected Chinese dissidents and called out human rights violation. Northvolt went bankrupt last year.
re: subsidies. China's consumer direct purchase subsidy ended in Dec 2022, but was extended again as tax credit for another 4 years in Jun 2023. Just to be sure though, there are many other subsidies besides the consumer subsidies at every layer of China's EV/battery supply-chain. The EU's anti-subsidy probe last year (see Regulation 2024/1866) for instance evolved around "export subsidies."
1) I'm unsure if that's more anti or pro market to be honest.
2,3) Okay, yes, half-separating China from the rest of the world is anti-market. But then they did a lot inside the country that was pro-market. With a population of over a billion, I don't consider that picking winners.
4) That's obnoxious of them but doesn't really affect what I was saying.
subsidies) I was unaware of extensions, and I thought the supply chain subsidies were already gone? But okay, let's assume this is accurate, 17% duty on BYD. Man. As I've said before when Trump was talking about 25% on everything, I wish the US was putting 25% tariffs on Chinese EVs instead of whatever dumb number it is.
1) anti-market. China was likewise taken to the WTO in 2018 and agreed to end their restriction on market access/forced tech transfer, implemented in 2020/2021. Tesla is however still the only foreign automaker operating without a forced JV to this date.
2) restricting market access (and subsidies) to foreign automakers isn't exactly pro-market -- especially to those who were already in China and manufacturing products that local "champions" weren't able to mass-produce. All domestic, foreign Automakers forced to source inferior, yet also costlier, batteries. ie, anti-market.
3) demonstrates Chinese consumers wanted GM Velites with LG, but their choice was denied. Limiting 1.5B consumers' choice in the name of promoting national "champions"? anti-consumer and anti-market. Definitely picking winners and loser, or foreign over domestic.
4) just another example of arbitrary safety regulation restricting market access to foreign companies. ie, anti-market.
re: subsidies. China's EV subsidies have been around since 2009; renewed/extended every 2-4 years. That's also in addition to provisional subsidies thrown around time to time, eg, ICE-to-EV conversion subsidies between May-Dec 2024 to prop up slowing EV sales.
EU is quite silly with countervailing measures against China's dumping/anti-subsidies. Despite 100+ ACTIVE counter measures, the EU Commission still think the targeted approach against China's anti-market/mercantile practices can work. The EU should also consider imposing country-specific tariff rate of 100%, akin to Biden's tariff.
China's export ban against Sweden has shown that their NEV initiatives aren't really aimed at addressing environmental problem or benefiting their population.
1) it was anti-market and that's why they were taken to the WTO, not the other around.
This violation is also explicitly spelt out in Section 7 Non-Tariff Measures of China's 2001 WTO Accession Protocol. Not sure what point you are making with "stolen data," but subsidies must be given to all or none -- no picking winners or losers. The key idea here is a level playing field.
2) Restricting subsidies to some, but not others based on "local" vs "foreign"?-- ie, anti-market. All NEV subsidies were further conditioned on using Chinese batteries by local Chinese battery "champions" only to funnel them back to local battery industry is an industrial policy, definitely anti-market and anti-consumer.
3) what "two" markets? We are talking strictly about China's internal EV market and the Chinese gov't's anti-market policies; not the rest of the the World.
4) Sure, and the Chinese govt makes the "market regulation" in China. China's NEV market is likewise anti-market, anti-consumer, and corrupt.
1) Let me make a hypothetical. If you take tech from 2 companies and give it to 50 companies, that is both pro-market and something you will get sued for and lose.
2) You seem to be refusing to acknowledge that some actions have mixed consequences. Having many of those subsidies helped the market. Restricting them hurt the market compared to not restricting them. You can't look at just the restrictions to make the judgement, you have to look at the whole picture. Without the restrictions, they wouldn't have enacted the same subsidies.
3) If we're looking at just the internal market, then those policies made many more companies prosper and compete. I don't see how you can possibly say that they hurt the internal Chinese market! The EV market internal to China is far stronger than it would have been if the Chinese government sat there and did nothing.
1) Sure, no problem with private individual companies sharing their tech with other companies/competitors via licensing or "voluntary" joint-venture; or seeking legal remedy to get compensated or to ban further infringement. This is perfectly fine in a functioning market. In China's case, however, we are talking Chinese gov't forcing compulsory terms in negotiation between private companies and actively restricting market access conditioned on tech transfer from private foreign companies to local companies. And by refusing to enforce IPR of foreigners, preventing any legal remedy. In other word, anti-market.
That's also why Japanese + Korean who hold 80% of all ACTIVE lithium ion battery patents are pursing legal actions OUTSIDE China, in neutral regions such as the EU. For instance, Japan + Korea patent pool, Tulip Innovation, in Hungary started enforcing their IP this year and already won significant legal victories and sales injunctions in Germany. Sunwoda, EV battery suppliers to Dacia, considered a low-hanging fruit of China's battery industry, was the first to go; and there wil be many more to come, such as CATL/BYD protected by China's "corruption," to borrow your word, aren't too safe in functioning markets outside China where IPR is enforced.
You seem very hung up on the fallacy of numbers, as if benefiting 50 companies justifies the means. If any, that sheer number of companies demonstrates that the industry is at infant stage. And, as the industry matures, that number is likely whittle down to a dozen or fewer. Your Chinese gov't certainly does not want all 100+ EV companies still in business today, already down from nearly 500 not too long ago. In the EV battery sector, however, China's alreadu had preordained national champions all along, namely CATL/BYD, everyone else in the business is there for window dressing. Otherwise, this means very little.
Finally, no matter how much China try to fake it, everything you are describing here is called mercantilism, or nationalistic policies of protecting domestic champions from import, or foreign competition, and maximizing exports/profit -- perhaps, the 18th Century British Empire and the East India Company ring a bell for you? This isn't very compatible with the market economies outside China.
2) Not about consequences, but how we get there.
3) Again, that's what China's neo-mercantilism is.
Thank you for playing, but I suspect we are going to make any progress at this point.
Sure, my initially argument was that it was good for China, but bad for the rest of the world because of China's anti-market practices that only benefited China. In other word, 2/3 of the world came out losing because of China's mercantile practices -- it's had negative net effect for the world.
There have been many demonstrations that F150, cybertruck, and others have short ranges when loaded and even shorter ranges when towing (I saw sub 40 miles on a full charge claimed by some people).
If you use your truck as a truck, that’s simply not feasible. If you just use it as expensive transportation, you probably still try to convince yourself by thinking about how you might use it as a truck sometimes and won’t buy an electric truck either.
There’s not much of a market, so leaving makes sense.
> sub 40 miles on a full charge claimed by some people
See, that's what you get for believing whatever you read on the internet that confirms what you already wanted to believe.
Back in reality, towing does demolish the range, you end up around 1.0 to 1.2 miles per kWh if you put a travel trailer behind a Lightning. Normal 70-75 mph driving is about 2.0 miles/kWh. Around town, depending on your habits, it's 3.5-4 mi/kWh. The battery is 131 kWh. So range can very quite a lot based on your current activity, but someone who told you sub-40 miles was jerking your chain (or had their own motivation for lying).
I think the issue is that the administration is in an adversarial relationship with China. Risky to allow a foreign power have a kill switch on critical infrastructure.
Just to clarify: We accept the security risk of kill switches in networking equipment, smartphones, laptops, servers, clouds, processors, bluetooth firmware and nvidia driver blobs, but we draw the line at civillian cars?
And in contrast to the listed items above, for civillian cars you can choose from dozens of countries who produce them. And if you cannot accept security risk of owning a "kill switch" car then you can still go back to gasoline or diesel.
I feel it's crazy to collectively accept security risks in vital electric equipment but suddenly cars are the one product that becomes a political issue. An unlike cars there are very limited alternatives with electrical equipment.
This doesn’t seem that crazy to me - a broadly applicable coordinated OTA zero day applied across cars during US rush hours has the potential to result in likely hundreds of thousands of deaths in a few hours if safety critical systems like airbags can be tampered/inhibited by OTA-capable systems.
The scale of car travel plus the inherent kinetic energy involved make a correlated risk particularly likely to lead to a mass casualty event. There are very few information system vulnerabilities with that magnitude of short-term worst case outcome.
Sure but you could just nuke us too, given that the response to a mass civilian death event would be the same. Same reason the US would be foolish to destroy the Three Gorges Dam.
It doesn't need to be a mass civilian death event. They can wait, collect data and kill 90% of our most important soldiers, heads of state, spies and everyone needed to maintain critical sectors of our economy. They could kill everyone who is anti-china. They could kill all the members of one political party (any one) as a false flag and cause a civil war.
Surveillance technology is nessisarially selective, so these "all or nothing" hypotheticals do not apply.
There was already a million vehicle recall for a vulnerability that allowed remote control of safety features (steering/breaking/acceleration control) that could be abused by anyone with a sprint mobile sim.
.... and the second US civil war starts up and one side has hacked into the automobile kill switches ...
"security" and "war" come in all sizes and shapes. Even inter-national warfare can be of the "cold" variety, in which nobody is nuking anybody else, but making automobiles randomly unreliable could be extremely effective (for a while, anyway).
Not really convinced by your argument. If you want to achieve your scenario you just take a sysadmin from the Tesla shanghai plant and next time they go to the US HQ they gain access to a coworkers laptop and deploy an OTA update to the tesla fleet. And this is assuming that the Tesla OTA update deployment mechanism is actually separated between countries, and not simply accessible from the Tesla intranet.
No need to design & ship another low-cost car model for this.
The security risk of backdoors in your IT may drive you crazy, but backdoors in your car may drive you off a bridge.
I agree with your point. But cars are the last line of defense, and they are technology most people understand. With computers, you can just unplug them at the end of the day. A backdoor in a car or a drone or something just kills you.
Cars are not critical infrastructure, also, the idea that China would turn off their EVs or starting to use them as weapons from the other side of the world is borderline absurd.
Occam's razor suggests that the simplest solution is the most probable: they are scared of the competition, because they know that if those cars enter the market they will dominate it.
If that's a normal thing to do, why aren't we hijacking russian teslas right now? Why haven't we made Microsoft push an OTA update to windows to bluescreen all military PCs in Russia? Why haven't we made Google and Apple push Android/iOS updates that cause all phones in Russia to crash?
I'm confident that even if at war with China, the US would not hijack random civilian cars, yes. That's absolutely absurd.
Of course we fucking would. Maybe not in a shooting match, which I guess means a proxy war. But if we went to war? If Americans were dying? It would be ridiculous not to.
Do you think China would permit vehicles it could disable to allow Americans to travel to and from jobs that might involve attacking it? Do you think they have some moral obligation to allow that?
The issue is that the administration is in an adversarial relationship with “woke”. That EVs and renewable energy somehow fall into this category is one of the dumbest parts of this timeline.
