Automakers Are Asking China To Slow Down Electric Car Quotas (electrek.co) 304
New submitter Kant shares a report from Electrek: The auto industry is once again attempting to slow down the rollout of electric vehicles. Virtually all automakers, except for Tesla of course, have sent a letter to the Chinese government in an attempt to have them drastically weaken their zero-emission vehicle mandate. As we previously reported, China, the world's biggest car market, has somewhat of an aggressive ZEV mandate that would force automakers to have zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) represent 8% of new car sales as soon as 2018 and quickly ramp up to 12% by 2020. Now Germany's WirtschaftsWoche magazine (via Auto News) reports that the American Automotive Policy Council (AAPC), which represents Chrysler/Fiat, Ford, and GM, the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA), which represents all major European automakers, the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association (JAMA) and the Korea Automobile Manufacturers Association (KAMA), have all sent a joint letter to China's Minister of Industry and Information Technology to ask for several significant changes to the mandate.
The "six recommended modifications" include slowing the rollout of the mandate by 1 to 3 years, reconsidering the penalty system if they don't meet the quota, having credits not only for all-electric cars but also plug-in hybrid cars, and basically making the whole mandate weaker so that they don't have to produce as many electric cars.
The "six recommended modifications" include slowing the rollout of the mandate by 1 to 3 years, reconsidering the penalty system if they don't meet the quota, having credits not only for all-electric cars but also plug-in hybrid cars, and basically making the whole mandate weaker so that they don't have to produce as many electric cars.
Why am I not surprised? (Score:2)
Re:Why am I not surprised? (Score:5, Informative)
n/t
Lots of typical knee-jerk reactions to this story. Most automakers do not have EV and car battery manufacturing facilities in China and China has reduced or removed subsidies making imports much less attractive. It seems, after a bit of quick basic research, that the slowdown request is to allow non-chinese car companies time to be able to ramp up the ability to product EVs on a large scale in China. It's not a plot to stay on old tech or to derail EV cars.
https://electrek.co/2017/05/08... [electrek.co]
http://insights.globalspec.com... [globalspec.com]
https://electrek.co/2017/04/27... [electrek.co]
https://cleantechnica.com/2017... [cleantechnica.com]
Likely Tesla hasn't complained because they are wrapping up their first manufacturing partnership in China and probably expect to be able to meet sales requirements.
http://fortune.com/2017/06/19/... [fortune.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
At this point, you'd have to be a complete moron to be leading a car company and be against rolling out electric engines.
They're just ENGINES. Just ONE component of the entire car. That'd be like advocating to ban automatic transmissions because you make 5-speeds. The consumers are moving toward electric. Consumers are moving toward reduced pollution.
Make a product your consumer wants.
Rocket science!
Re: (Score:2)
Consumers also want rockets, but they need to be affordable and competitive with alternative forms of transport already available.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is not with having electrict cars or building them, but specifically having to build them in China.
let them breath cake (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's about sales longterm.
Electrical engines will dramatically increase the lifespan of a car.
Automobile industry will shrink enormously due to electrical, because there's far less maintenance, far less aftermarket (oils, gearings).
I remember decades ago a friend's father Me
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's about sales longterm. Electrical engines will dramatically increase the lifespan of a car.
Still, business lessons of the recent years are that you should try and cannibalize your own market, because if you don't, somebody else will.
Re: (Score:3)
They're just ENGINES. Just ONE component of the entire car.
That's an incredibly naive view. Sorry to be harsh, but you come off sounding like an expert and I don't think people should consider you one. The drivetrain is what the entire car is designed around, and the attributes (shape, weight, etc) of the drivetrain are driven by the engine technology. Toyota has been making the Camry since the early 80s, with incremental improvements over 35 years. An electric version would need to be a ground-up redesign. From a manufacturing standpoint, it would be no big deal.
Re: (Score:3)
At this point, you'd have to be a complete moron to be leading a car company and be against rolling out electric engines.
s/engines/motors/gi
Re:Why am I not surprised? (Score:5, Informative)
At this point, you'd have to be a complete moron to be leading a car company and be against rolling out electric engines.
They're just ENGINES. Just ONE component of the entire car.
First of all, they are not engines. They are motors. Second, the switch to an electric motor immediately implies other major design changes. No more need for a gearbox, distributor, alternator, CCV, muffler, tailpipe,... . New need for massive battery, power management system, charging control system, ...
Re: (Score:3)
They're just ENGINES. Just ONE component of the entire car. That'd be like advocating to ban automatic transmissions because you make 5-speeds.
There's a lot more than just the engine - in general, there isn't a transmission that shifts gears (just differentials), obviously there's no fuel tank, exhaust, and other parts.
Here's the thing: Many of the systems which have been removed (engine, shifting transmission) are the ones which require the most maintenance and repair. Many manufacturers (especially European ones) require exclusive brand (and model) specific tools to work on the cars in the first place -- the whole point being to drive customers
Re: Why am I not surprised? (Score:4, Interesting)
1) Learn the difference between energy and power.
2) A gas-powered car is not just a few dozen liters of gasoline. The gasoline is a trivial fraction of its mass. Acting like the only thing that matters in a vehicle comparison is the weight of the energy source (gasoline vs. batteries) is absurd. Other parts of an ICE vehicle, such as the drivetrain, take up much more of the mass and are much heavier than their ev equivalents.
So great, gasoline has 50 times the energy density as good li-ions, equating to around 10-15x difference after taking into account efficiency. So that means that the gasoline car goes 10-15x further, right? Of course it doesn't, because cars are not just "gasoline" or "batteries", it's a fraction of their total weight.
What's the actual range difference? Comparing seating and 0-60 times, the Model 3 is a rough equivalent of the Ford Mustang (depending on the model of each). The baseline Model 3 does 0-60 in 5,6 sec like the newer Ecoboost Mustangs, while the 75kwh version will be faster.. They're also roughly the same on price. Now, with a 16 gallon tank and 21-28mpg highway, that's 336 to 448 miles range. The 60kwh model 3 has a highway range of 215mi (plus a small emergency reserve), while the 75kwh would scale linearly to 269mi (although screenshots of a charging model 3 suggest even more, potentially approaching 300mi. Basically, the EVs do about 2/3rds the range, maybe a bit less on average.
Now, one can cherry pick data to try and bias the comparison - say, a large tank gas car with a thrifty, powerless engine vs. a leaf. I could likewise bias the comparuson in reverse - say a 100kwh model S vs. a track car. But with a fair comparison between mass-market vehicles in the same performance/size/price range, that's what you come up with.
At an *average* speed of 65mph, 215 miles is 3,3 hours; 269 is 4.1 hours; and 300 would be 4.6 hours of driving. Given that you're *supposed* to be stopping that frequently anyways, and there's already a supercharger network on almost every major interstate in the US...
Meanwhile, in your everyday life, and unlike a gas car, your range is... infinite. Seriously, its common for ev owners to not even know their actual range, because every day when they leave their garage, it's full. You don't even need to think about it. No having to "stop to fuel up on the way home from work" 15-40 times per year regardless of the weather, and breaking down on the road if you forget to check. Since EV ranges significantly increase in city driving (at a steady 20mph the range can be tripled or more vs. highway driving - stop and start reduces it but not nearly enough to overcome the speed advantage), a typical US commuter can miss *weeks* of charging without issue.
Re: Why am I not surprised? (Score:2)
So EVs don't 'refueling down along the side of the road' if they run out of energy?
And you say when it does happen, I can't pull the one gallon tank out of the trunk and hitch a ride a few miles to get enough fuel back to it to reach a refueling station?
And if I want to take it to the track I'm going to have to stop every 45 minutes to spend a half hour refueling it? (how long will the line at the supercharger adjacent to the track be?)
There are so many considerations the the starry eyed on a blog need to f
Re: Why am I not surprised? (Score:3)
They do if you forget to or don't bother to plug in *every night for weeks on end* for the average commuter.
So, in other words, no.
Lets say however that you set out to run out of range. First off, as you get low, you will start to get warnings. When you actually hit zero, it doesn't run out - you have 10-20km left.þ, and it puts you in a power restricted mode (did you seriously plan so badly that you were more than 10-20km off? Especially given that your car knows where charging stations are?) N
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, you would want to rent for long trips. I just got back from vacation, and we wimped out and drove 320 mile legs per day. I have a PHEV, and we get around 500-600 miles per tank. Electric is only good for around 25 miles a charge, but worked well to drive electric only at our destination. Level 2 charger fully charged us in 2-3 hours, and level 1 at destination hotel was 5-6. With a BEV, that would take 9-12 at level 2 i'd bet. Driving long distances would be challenging electric only with curren
Re: Why am I not surprised? (Score:3)
25 miles range is a joke. Barely over a tenth of the baseline Model 3's range. Level 2 chargers are not how you do a cross-country trip, that's what superchargers are for. But if for some reason you wanted to use level 2s, you's get about 70 miles of normal highway driving per hour of charging in a Model 3. More if you slow down (but then the driving phase is longer). In short, doable... but you really want level 3 / superchargers.
Re: (Score:2)
I see what you are saying, however BEVs really don't have the practical range for long trips. Tesla's that can Supercharge excluded. BEVs are absolutely great for urban use, which is where 90% of their driving is anyway. For China, trying to cut pollution, BEVs are perfect. From what I understand, Electric bikes and scooters are hugely popular over there.
And for what it's worth, My car is a Ford C-Max Energi.
Re: (Score:2)
So bollocks in other words.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla and Bolt demonstrate that if you design a new car from scratch, you can create a great BEV with plenty of range. But if you are taking an existing design, you kinda have to fit the batteries in where you can. As you say there are spaces created by taking ICE components out. But they are a bit here and a bit there. There's not the space for a single large battery pack under the floor as there is for Tesla and bolt. So the battery will not be as big or have the range. Unless you can think of a BEV that'
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, well the Renault Zoe I drive must be a figment of my imagination then.
Adapted from an ICE vehicle -- yes, built on a Clio platform.
Big range -- yes, 180miles.
Battery pack under the floor -- yes, which is one reason why it's quite a tall car despite being a hatchback.
Re: Why am I not surprised? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, it's based on the Clio IV, which was a redesign, to the extent of a completely different wheelbase. It's a different car to the 1990 one, that's just got the same name.
The Clio IV was specifically designed to accommodate a battery powered version.
Re: (Score:2)
In some cases the chassis might even be designed to support different configurations such as happened for the Hyundai Ioniq where the same base supports hybrid, PHEV and EV models. Range in EVs is obviously behind most ICEs but it's clearly improving thanks to higher battery density so I don't even see the purpose of the argument
Re: (Score:2)
EVs don't need a transmission running up the length of the car
How many people have rear wheel drive any more? No one has a transmission running the length of the car unless it's an all wheel drive version. Even electric all wheel drive vehicles will have a drive shaft running the length of the car to the rear wheels. If in-wheel motors become a thing then this might be true but there are a lot of reasons why we don't see them in production cars.
So it's a wash.
No, it's not. It might be for special cases but saying "it's a wash" as a blanket statement is false.
Re: (Score:2)
How many people have rear wheel drive any more? No one has a transmission running the length of the car unless it's an all wheel drive version. Even electric all wheel drive vehicles will have a drive shaft running the length of the car to the rear wheels. If in-wheel motors become a thing then this might be true but there are a lot of reasons why we don't see them in production cars.
Lots of cars have RWD. Not to mention fuel tanks, clutch, transmission, exhaust etc. And no, EVs don't have a drive shaft at least not running down the car. If there is a shaft at all it is a differential between pairs of wheels. An EV can hide the batteries in places in places that impinge far less on cabin or trunk space than a combustion engine. Tesla puts them under the floor pan making it virtually flat. Other EVs put them under the rear seats. Practically the first thing everyone notes about EVs is ho
Re: (Score:3)
Even electric all wheel drive vehicles will have a drive shaft running the length of the car to the rear wheels.
The Model S doesn't. It uses two motors, one on each axle. There's no reason for an electric car to have a drive shaft. Electric motors are inexpensive and compact.
Re: Why am I not surprised? (Score:4)
Yeah in your fantasy. In the real world Tesla makes electric cars. They haven't revolutionized battery technology, they haven't revolutionized motor technology and they haven't revolutionized anything else. They produce luxury cars that are comparatively heavy with a limited range (as all non-hybrid electric cars). So why mention them rather than other producers of electric cars, some that _have_ made significant advances of the SOTA in the past?
Re: (Score:2)
Huh?
You need to put batteries somewhere. And with petrol engine cars, there is simply no place for them.
Tesla hasn't found a place to put the batteries?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Huh?
You need to put batteries somewhere. And with petrol engine cars, there is simply no place for them.
Tesla hasn't found a place to put the batteries?
His point that you missed was that you can't just stick an electric motor and lithium ion batteries in an existing car and expect it to perform well.
You need an entire car platform purpose built for it, which is what Tesla (and others) have done.
That takes years, hence why they want a delay.
Re: Why am I not surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
They had plenty of time. They even killed the electric car market to kill the EV1.
Tesla comes out and they have special laws to prevent selling direct from the manufacturer.
Now there is a new law that THEY didn't write that THEY don't like?
If I were China I'd tell them to stuff it.
Re: Why am I not surprised? (Score:5, Informative)
A lot people like to assume that if you build a better mouse trap, it will win.. and for a lot of tech, that's true.. mostly because there are no political/economic forces rooting either way.
Electric vs. Gas has a LARGE political and economic cheering section (mostly on gas) because it would change the political landscape.
Look at some countries.. their entire economy depends on oil/gas production/reserves.. you don';t think that plays into things?.. Look at the amount of money oil/gas pump into politics for their preferred agenda... you don't think that has an impact.
Car manufactures in some ways, don't care either way.. Its a sale to them (oil or gas).. but they are "encouraged" to push gas/petrol powered cars.. its why Biofuels haven't taken off, or cooking oil or any of the hundreds of alternatives besides electric.. Because it cuts into the profits of the oil/gas groups and their political affiliates.
Electric theoretically would mean with improvements in solar cells, you could have car that would run indefinitely (no stopping required unless you do a LOT of night only driving) but that also means, no dependance on an industry that is fighting tooth and nail to remain in control and where they are.
I say this as someone that's worked for and with numerous petrol companies.. and if you only knew the amount of money that gets pumped into politics to keep things exactly as they are.. you would understand why things have not (and most likely won't) changed.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll try to repeat the relevant piece of text: "...li-ion are crap when it comes to power density compared to gas". That's true and means that space required for storing gas can be used to store less energy in li-ion batteries. The efficiency of electrical motors compared to Otto engines means more space can be freed elsewhere however using electrical energy stored in batteries still provide much less power density.
TL;DR not relevant, misses the point, can't read simple text.
Re: Why am I not surprised? (Score:2)
It isn't just power density, either. There is the challenge of 'refueling rate to deal with. In a way that Slashdot denizen can probably relate to, an analogy to a USB flash drive could be applied. You can get a cheap largish, i.e. 128gb flash drives that are USB 2 for not very much. It will have a slow transfer rate, so getting data onto it is a daunting challenge. It seems like a lot of storage but it takes 40 minutes to transfer 128gb of data to it.
We could call it 'refueling bandwidth.' For short daily
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why am I not surprised? (Score:2)
They are well aware of the challenges. Handwaving about it on blogs doesn't change that. It isn't just "everybody is picking on Tesla" that has kept the company from instantly becoming the new Toyota.
It's rewarding to rage on blogs like that is the case, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Right - a large part is that they have so far only produced luxury vehicles, which by their nature will *never* sell to the mass market. Even the "affordable" Model 3 is targeting the upper ranges of the market, starting at $35k versus a low-end Toyota at $15k.
It may be appealing, but it takes a lot more than appeal to justify spending more than a year's take-home pay on a car - which is what $35k amounts to for the majority of Americans (median household income is ~51k, minus taxes, insurance, etc.)
Heating and charging - both solved issues. (Score:2)
For heating - make sure the car is well insulated, and you don't need as much heat as you might think. A car is a small volume, after all, and the electric drivetrain does still produce heat. Teslas are being used, now, in nordic countries very sucessfully. Same goes for A/C.
And for charging - they have enough range to do a full morning and afternoon drive. Leave the car at a supercharger while you get lunch, and take a 20 minute break at another one during the afternoon, and you'll do your 600 mile roadtri
Re: (Score:2)
Small price to pay for never seeing the inside of a gas station!
This is from a person that is routinely mocked for paying for my gas with cash, who (besides me) goes inside a gas station any more? Pay at pump systems have been the norm for how long now? This is not new technology.
While you are taking your leisurely 20 minute break on your 600 mile road trip I've already pumped gas, taken a piss, ordered a sandwich, and 15 minutes closer to my destination. I'll eat the sandwich while I drive. Which is assuming your 20 minute break isn't bullshit.
Insulation adds mass
Re: (Score:2)
The Leaf, at least, is available with a heat pump, which is way more efficient than resistive heat. And a lot of people seem to pre-heat or cool their cars while they are still plugged in, which in some cases can be done through an app. They also come with heated seats and steering wheel, which will reduce the heat demand somewhat.
But yeah, it's an issue; as batteries improve, though, it should become less of one.
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I like concept of car mounted solar panels, the reality falls dismally short.
A Model X for example has a footprint of about 10 square meters. Cover the whole thing with solar panels, assume an impressive 20% efficiency, and average equivalent solar exposure of about 50%, and your generating potential is 10*.2*.5 = 1kW during peak sun.
Meanwhile, in New Mexico, pretty much the best solar location in the US, we average something like 5 hours peak sun equivalent per day. So our very impressive sola
Re: (Score:2)
using heat pumps to replace the heat and A/C
Air conditioners are heat pumps. You must be confused about some important details somewhere..
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that the slowdown request is to allow non-chinese car companies time ... not a plot to stay on old tech or to derail EV cars
Oh, that's perfectly OK then.
The dinosaurs telling the mammals what to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Likely Tesla hasn't complained because they are wrapping up their first manufacturing partnership in China and probably expect to be able to meet sales requirements.
http://fortune.com/2017/06/19/... [fortune.com]
maybe Tesla didn't complain because they will exceed the 8% quota by about 92%?
Re: (Score:2)
That is a US-centric view of the world. Chinese manufacturers are producing several low end EVs. In Europe, there's the Renault Zoe, which is not yet cheap but is fairly price competitive. It has a range of 180miles.
Good (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that China is holding all the aces here, right? Doesn't hurt China if the world's car manufacturers pull out (less competition in the market for their domestic manufacturers).
Seems to me like something the US should have done a long time ago.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they are.
And by the way; are non-Chinese companies banned from exporting forklifts, mopeds and small delivery vehicles to China?
Re: (Score:3)
Find a Chinese car maker without an EV line... BYD actually makes ones that can be said to be better than low-end Model S
Re: (Score:3)
The problem being that they only make "ones" and not tens of thousands of them.
Actually, I think that this is in large part a back-door measure to reduce the number of cars sold overall in China to reduce the pression on both air quality and roadway congestion that are both endemic in china. By aggressively eliminating IC engined vehicules from their market they can kill multiple birds with one stone while not breaking WTO rules. Of course as their automakers are also newcomers they won't have the retooling
Re: Good (Score:2)
They have E5 sedan and Qin hatchback. E5 is not a as big as model S, but somewhat close
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
That's funny I found this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. The number one vehicle in China outside of a bicycle is an electric moped, next up is an all electric scooter. For makes and models this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] is even more informative, so 21 models of 'new energy vehicles'. Most would miss that one because it is a China thing, NEVs, rather than calling them electric or hybrids. What chance do the manufacturers have of getting the government of China to change their mind, pretty much zero, it ain't happening by accident all planned to give Chinese manufacturers a huge boost and that boost will extend from the head start in the domestic market to a major jump in the export market. Really smart, they will be able to use the domestic market to trial and error full production for imports, Chinese electric vehicle manufacturers will get a huge jump on the existing major car brands.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Its like the new emissions standards of the 1970's and having a production line of old cars to sell.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, local Chinese companies already dominate the EV market; informative article in link below.
http://www.eiu.com/industry/ar... [eiu.com]
Re:Good for China (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree.
China is in the same place UK was in in the 1950's. For those of you too young to remember and who have not read, the famous Coloured Fogs of London (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London) killed between 4000 and 12000 people in 1952. Oddly enough, the cause of those events was the same then as it is now in China: burning of coal.
China is getting aggressive towards cleaning up their act. Car makers don't like it because it means that they must replace tooling which from their point of view is very expensive. Of course, having people sick from air so dirty that some people can't breathe is expensive also, but that's ok since the carmakers don't have to carry that particular expense on _their_ books. Pesky accountants, don't you know.
Many US cities had serious problems in the mid-20th century. One that has been in the US news lately is Youngstown, Ohio, as an example of a once great industrial center. Unfortunately selective memories neglect to include the fact that Youngstown of the mid-1940s was a poster child for industrial pollution (http://wytv.com/2014/10/27/mahoning-river-has-dirty-history/). Fixing things is always expensive yet somehow people always seem to prefer to create huge problem and then have to clean it up later.
The Chinese are trying to stave off much bigger problems. More power to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Further reading:
0] TL;DR - Photos - https://www.theatlantic.com/ph... [theatlantic.com]
1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Major incidents in the US 1943, July 26, Los Angeles, California: A smog so sudden and severe that "Los Angeles residents believe the Japanese are attacking them with chemical warfare."
2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: Good for China (Score:2)
"Can't we just clad up those ugly 1970s high-rises at a low cost and make the whole city more visually attractive?"
Re: (Score:2)
I think that China is holding all the aces here, right? Doesn't hurt China if the world's car manufacturers pull out (less competition in the market for their domestic manufacturers).
Seems to me like something the US should have done a long time ago.
This is basically an opportunity to grab market share from conservative players with petrified business models and a religious belief in the 'don't fix what ain't broke the gasoline engine is the future of the auto industry' mantra. Apple did this with the iPod and iTunes and a whole bunch of companies that used to make electric devices did this when digital cameras became a viable technology and many of the big camera manufacturers hesitated or bet the house on film. Alluvasudden Apple was a big player in
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Not young, not American. I live in Australia, the land of the "Australia tax", so we have a defacto import tariff. And no, we hate it.
I'd almost agree with you, but this isn't a tax on the place of origin. All manufacturers are on a level playing field here. If the world's car manufacturers can't compete with China's domestic manufacturers on high-tech cars, then that's a pretty damning indictment of the free market economy to produce great products.
Actually, as a consumer I'm pretty excited about this. This should deliver the kick up the ass that the world's manufacturers need to produce cars that the world actually wants.
Re: (Score:3)
This should deliver the kick up the ass that the world's manufacturers need to produce cars that the world actually wants.
Yep. The motor manufacturers who want to do it "on their terms" shouldn't be supported by the governments, they need to be dragged into the future, like it or not.
Re: Good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It might do. If you give it half a chance.
Re: (Score:2)
As AC said it *can* come from clean sources. And even coal-fired power plants minus transmission and charging inefficiencies are pretty competitive with a horribly inefficient automobile engine. Really, the things are about the least efficient way possible to convert fossil fuels into energy while still being worth the effort.
Furthermore, in twenty years, when the coal plants have lost a lot of ground to solar and other renewables, all those second-hand EV clunkers driving around will have invisibly been
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, the unicorn farts that are a necessary byproduct are produced on the unicorn farms, which are away from urban centres. As there's actually more than one problem to solve, to wit:
1. Carbon intensity of energy production
2. Pollution harming respiratory health,
it turns out to be quite beneficial to find a pretty good solution for 2 irrespective of the extent to which you solve 1.
Re: Good (Score:4, Informative)
No. China has no advantage in battery production as there are many producers around the world with better tech than Chinese producers and China produces but 2000 tonnes of lithium per year which is dwarfed by Australia, Chile & Argentina which together produce 34000 tonnes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
China has an advantage in manufacturing most products. That's why most of the things we buy were either made in China, or at least have components or raw materials that were made in China.
Re: (Score:2)
China has an advantage in manufacturing most products. That's why most of the things we buy were either made in China, or at least have components or raw materials that were made in China.
There is more money in the powertrain and electronics of an EV than there is in the car itself. LG Chem made more of the Chevy Bolt (measured by cost of the parts) than Chevy did.
Re: (Score:2)
"most products" != batteries.
Fuck them (Score:3, Insightful)
China should just give them the finger.
People buying new cars in China are the more effluent class who can afford to make some contribution to the environment. Mandating ZEV quota helps push more buyers to consider ZEV.
Sell more ZEV or just get out of the market.
Re: (Score:2)
Chinese cars use a lot more LiFePO4 batteries which are a lot safer than other types of lithium batteries
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, those old fashioned gasoline fires are much safer.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, batteries reaching end of life, just get dumped somewhere out of sight.
Yep. It's one of the unchangeable laws of the universe that that has to happen.
China: "No." (Score:5, Insightful)
I think far too many people in the world are used to the Americans. They are easily hoodwinked and their legislators are easily bribed with contributions to their election campaigns or to a Foundation of some kind. Moreover their politicians, with a few exceptions, do not have their country's or people's interest in mind and instead pursue a globalist neoliberal agenda. China is a different kettle of fish altogether.
The world is in for a big fucking surprise when China simply declines to play ball. They have their country, their rules, and anyone who wants to come into their market will abide by their laws. It's going to be a big shock to a lot of people who have never before encountered such an attitude. The next 3-5 years are going to be full of this kind of thing in industry after industry. Sucking up to them like Hollywood does putting Chinese actors in their films for no reason, or like Zuckerberg did trying to speak Mandarin, doesn't work, either. They see through it a mile away. They have more respect for people who love their own countries and don't take any shit from them. It's no coincidence that the word kowtow came into English from their language.
Not really sucking up in film industry (Score:2)
Sucking up to them like Hollywood does putting Chinese actors in their films for no reason, or like Zuckerberg did trying to speak Mandarin, doesn't work, either. They see through it a mile away. They have more respect for people who love their own countries and don't take any shit from them. It's no coincidence that the word kowtow came into English from their language.
Well, your criticism of Zuckerberg is spot on, but he's mostly doing that through greed because getting access to China would get him access to a lot of money. Facebook won't ever be allowed in China under the current regime unless Zuckerberg does a PR disaster type sell out that offers a greatly crippled Facebook that the PRC completely controls. The main reason Facebook isn't allowed in China is that the Chinese Communist Party's greatest fear is being overthrown by spontaneous protests and they won't a
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the future of transportation is going to be "a few electric cars for the super-rich and public buses and stuff for the rest."
Stop living in the past and try using your imagination.
First Tesla car: The 100k roadster. 2500 produced, for the very rich only, everybody said it was doomed.
Next Tesla car: The model S - selling about 50,000 cars per year.
Now it's the model 3, there's half a million pre-orders, tesla is busy building 'gigafactories' to manufacture them.
See a pattern here?
Try letting the kids play on your lawn every once in a while. You might learn something.
It's not quite that simple, I'm not saying either prediction is the absolute truth, but the fact is Tesla cannot guarantee anything about the future of EVs, it's the other 99% of automakers who control the existing market who are more invested in IC engines, they have a foot in the EV door for two purposes:
1. Insurance / future proofing
2. Control over the transition to maximise profit from existing infrastructure.
This "request" is them attempting to exercise the later. Unfortunately the competitive aspect of young companies does not survive into the later stages of capitalism, as a result it can stagnate superior technologies or even completely preventing them from ever coming to market. EV's are not a "never" because oil is obviously on a clock, but that clock can easily be made as long as possible by those interested at the expense of everyone else.
Ultimately it could be good for all of us (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ultimately it could be good for all of us (Score:5, Insightful)
You can clearly see that China is playing the long game here. And it's a really obvious play, too.
* Scale up production (economy of scale) so that nobody else in the world can compete with your tech at consumer prices: Check
* Ramp up R&D to own all the IP around the tech: Check
* Become energy independent by leveraging that economy of scale domestically (of course, using all those sweet import dollars to fund it): Check
* Fast-track converting all transportation over to said tech: In progress
* Lorde over the world while evilly stroking your white cat.
This is all everything that the US (and other western countries) are *not* doing. This is exactly where the US should have positioned itself 10 years ago, setting itself up to be in the box seat for the next 50 years, but they just can't see (as a collective) beyond the next quarter.
Re: (Score:2)
* Ramp up R&D to own all the IP around the tech: Check
Uh no. China is still horribly last at science as compared to their population, and still the home of the vast majority of totally bullshit fake scientific papers. China is still shit at tech. Their EVs are way behind everyone else's in capabilities, but they are cheap so people will buy them anyway. Only a couple of their automakers have actually got their shit together to the point where they can actually make a car with an international level of quality.
Re: (Score:2)
So Chinese EVs come with hundreds of square feet of solar panels on top?
Or just with really long extension cords so that they can stay plugged in to the fixed solar panel installations?
The major choke point for EVs is battery production. Much like Volvo's pronouncement that they will be quickly moving to EVs it's meaningless unless they also detail what improvements they are making to battery production -- like Tesla and Daimler have.
JAMA (Score:4, Funny)
Coincidentally, "jama" means somethign like hindrance/obstacle/nuisance in Japanese. :)
Office Space - The Greed Edition (Score:2)
(Common F. Sense) - "(Cough, Cough) I just know he's gonna make me cut my electric vehicle initiatives. Every single day the pollution is worse than the day before it."
(Greed N. Corruption) - "Hello Common, whaaats happening? Ummm, I'm gonna need you to go ahead come in tomorrow. Oh, Oh, and I almost forgot ahh, I'm also gonna need you to go ahead and come in on Sunday too, kay. We ahh lost some demand for oil this week and ah, we sorta need to play catch up. Oh, and one more thing, we're gonna need yo
no such thing as a zero emission automobile (Score:2)
30% efficient IC car, or 60% efficient power plant (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
just moved its tail pipe to the powerplant
[emphasis added]
As though that's no biggie. Getting tail pipe pollution out of urban centres is a *huge* deal, especially in China. Not to mention that power plants have greater economies of scale, can use more sophisticated and effective filtering, and can be made more green over time, cf ICE.
Re: (Score:2)
Or they could use nuclear power.
If China wants to clean up the air with electric vehicles then they need to stop using coal to charge them. Solar and wind are nice but they are still expensive. Hydro works if you don't mind displacing potentially millions of people and flooding huge tracts of land. Oh, then there's the thousands dead if the dam fails.
China has plans to double their nuclear power output in the next five years, double it again in another five years, and no plans to slow down any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could just use the definition that the words literally imply, which is to say that the car is zero emission when it doesn't, you know, emit anything. Absolutely anything that is purely battery powered would achieve this criteria, regardless of how the power for the batteries is obtained.
Which basically only means that calling a vehicle zero-emission doesn't really mean anything for the environment if the same amount of net pollution were still being achieved.
Saying that a car is not zero-emis
Re: (Score:3)
If power plants are 30% green, your car is 30% green. How do you get above 0% on diesel or petrol?
With biofuel like Butanol for gasoline-powered vehicles and biodiesel or green diesel for diesel powered-vehicles. They are carbon-neutral or even carbon-negative fuels (depending on where the energy for refining comes from) so then you just have to worry about CO, NOx, SOx, and PPM. We have mitigation strategies for all of those things except PPM.
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon neutral/negative is not the same thing as zero-emission. Zero means that over the lifetime of the vehicle, and under normal operation, the total mass of waste produced by the vehicle is 0 kg. Even the theoretically perfect hydrogen powered vehicle, producing nothing but pure water vapor out of its tailpipe, is not zero-emission.
How about this? (Score:2)
How about the US repeal the nonsense "chick war" tariff on pick up trucks? see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
the whole world... (Score:2)
...should take the same stance. see how quick the car industry will be to adapt (they won't have a choice really).
instead of dragging along, asking for extentions after extention after exception etc.
Manufacturers don't control sales... (Score:3)
China, the world's biggest car market, has somewhat of an aggressive ZEV mandate that would force automakers to have zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) represent 8% of new car sales as soon as 2018 and quickly ramp up to 12% by 2020.
Perhaps the issue is that auto manufacturers can't control what consumers buy, only what they offer consumers to buy?
What percentage of cars sold last year in China were electric? How will the removal of the subsidy cause more electric cars to be sold?
When Ford first came out with the Expedition, in order to comply with CAFE (Corp. Avg. Fuel Efficiency) standards they forced every dealer to take into inventory one high-mileage Ford Escort for every Expedition they took in to sell, which caused a lot of Ford Escorts to be sold (at a loss) by the Ford dealer, offset by the profits on the Excursion. I envision a similar market distortion as the only way to meet these targets.
BTW, environmental emotions aside, lets not forget that 2018 is only 6 months away, and the new models for 2018 will roll-out in about 3 months...
I applaud China (world now ends) (Score:2)
Simple solution (Score:2)
With every car you buy, you also get a bicycle. Instant 50% ZEV market penetration.
I guess it's like a “kick me” sign (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, The U.S. dropped 2 nukes on Japan in the 1940s to stop Japan when they started producing cars that began to take market share from U.S. carmakers in the early 70s?!?! Even tongue in cheek this is just too stupid to be an american comment. It's just a Putinbot using his spare time to try and make americans look bad.
Looks like I'm going to have to change my /. filtering rules. Abjectly stupid Anonymous Cowards are just becoming too common.
Re: (Score:2)
The US dropped 2 nukes on Japan when 0 would have done because they had not yet been bombed to shit like everyone else involved in WWII.
What a delightfully BS rationalization about something you don't understand...
Re: (Score:2)
If only _your_ forefathers had been among the >2million predicted armed forces casualties in allied forces needed to subjugate Japan or among the tens of millions of Japanese that would have sacrificed themselves for the emperors honour.
Ah indeed, if only so many more had died just so that drinkypoo could be right when he says that only one atomic bomb needed to be dropped.
Dropping the second showed that it wasn't a one off and threatened many more (even though the larder was almost bare).
But drinkypoo h
Re: (Score:3)
Total bullshit. America didn't enter the war because of the hangover from WWI, yet another EuroWar. The Republicans in Congress were very anti-war and very anti foreign "entanglements" Defending democracy didn't emerge as an issue until after WWII when the U.S. realized it was the antidote to German, Italian, and Japanese Fascism and Soviet and Chinese Communism. Later, it achieved a life of its own when it was realized it kept Europe from descending again into a collection of small-minded warring states, a
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. You still hear old school car manufacturers saying 'Our EV's will be suitable for most people's daily commute.' You don't sell cars for people's 'daily commute'. That's a time of drudgery you don't want to think of. Mentioning it is saying, 'Yes, this will do this boring thing, but if you want to do anything interesting, you'll want one of our 'real cars' over there. Ones that use Petrol."
Meanwhile, Tesla has shown us how to build an electric car. Build it with a hyperspace trigger instead of a gas ped