Slashdot Mirror


Automakers Are Asking China To Slow Down Electric Car Quotas (electrek.co)

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.

304 comments

  1. Why am I not surprised? by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    n/t

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    1. Re:Why am I not surprised? by David_Hart · · 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...
      http://insights.globalspec.com...
      https://electrek.co/2017/04/27...
      https://cleantechnica.com/2017...

      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/...

    2. Re:Why am I not surprised? by ckatko · · 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!

    3. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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/...

      Um, I don't see how a local manufacturing partnership is relevant to the fact that Tesla isn't complaining here.

      Of *course* Tesla can meet the requirements: they're based on having a minimum percentage of your sales being electric. Tesla is 100% electric, so they will meet the quotas no matter how high it they're set, and regardless of whether they have local manufacturing in place.

      Yes, local manufacturing will allow them to sell a higher volume, but it won't have any impact on their ability to meet a given percentage of their vehicles being electric.

    4. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This isn't so simple. You need to put batteries somewhere. And with petrol engine cars, there is simply no place for them. And even when you will put them somewhere, they have pathetic range. Because li-ion are crap when it comes to power density compared to gas.

    5. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      No sig today...
    6. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without ICEs, how will you heat a car? Remember, electric heating is the most expensive (and subsequently most draining on the battery). A/C isn't that cheap either. How will the consumer handle 600 mile roadtrips with you have one 4.5h or two charging wait in between? Et al.

      And, yeah, a horse is just one component in a horse-drawn carriage. If you dumped a motor in there hundred-fifty years ago with no mechanics or gas stations about... no big deal, right?

    7. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And with petrol engine cars, there is simply no place for them.

      yeah, if only there was space somewhere in a PETROL car when you didn't use PETROL any more

    8. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    9. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rocket science!

      Perhaps SpaceX should start making electric cars then.

    10. Re: Why am I not surprised? by DrXym · · Score: 1
      Batteries are less energy dense than petroleum but EVs don't need a transmission running up the length of the car, or a fuel tank, or large motor compartment. So it's a wash. Tesla, the Bolt and other vehicles demonstrate that the range is attainable too, especially as battery density goes up and price comes down.

      So bollocks in other words.

    11. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      oh shit... i wonder if anyone has told Musk and his engineers etc........

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    12. Re: Why am I not surprised? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      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's been adapted from an ICE vehicle with a big range. I can't.

    13. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Megol · · Score: 3

      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?

    14. Re:Why am I not surprised? by MangoCats · · Score: 1

      Consumers also want rockets, but they need to be affordable and competitive with alternative forms of transport already available.

    15. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Megol · · Score: 1

      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.

    16. Re: Why am I not surprised? by that+this+is+not+und · · 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.

    17. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Traditional vehicles don't have electric heaters - they siphon off the waste hear of the engine. Unless an engine is totally frictionless (and that included both mechanically and electrically), then it's going to produce heat.

      From the Wkipdedia article on the Tesla S:

      In 2012, the EPA range for the 60 kWh battery pack model was 208 mi (335 km) and the 85 kWh battery was 265 miles (426 km).

      So about the same as a tank of gasoline on some vehicles I've owned.

      At the moment, finding a charging station within range is possible anywhee in the Continental USA except for North Dakota. A supercharge takes about an hour, and if I'm driving 600 miles, I really should take a good long break somewhere or my eyeballs will drop out.

      You're talking like Elon Musk hasn't solved all these problems to the satisfaction of the people who buy them.

      Actually, there is one really major difference between a gasoline vehicle and an electric one if you want to extend to absurdities. An electric vehicle can haul a solar charging system. A gas-powered vehicle isn't likely to be able to hail an oil refinery. Much less an oil well.

    18. Re: Why am I not surprised? by that+this+is+not+und · · 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 trips, it's the equivalent of moving little files of a few hundred megabytes around. The transfer rate is dismal compared to a rotating or flash drive that connects by PCI-E or even fast IDE.

    19. Re: Why am I not surprised? by that+this+is+not+und · · 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 factor in and don't. I'm sorry that it seems like trolling, but it's so easy to find factors that are being actively ignored.

    20. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      No sig today...
    21. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      The issue is not with having electrict cars or building them, but specifically having to build them in China.

    22. Re: Why am I not surprised? by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      I would say it's the dudes with gas chainsaws schooling the little lady who bought an electric chainsaw and a 25 foot extension cord. They're gonna be out in that 200 acre woods all afternoon cutting. Little lady will trim her pear tree.

    23. Re:Why am I not surprised? by greg.allen.uk · · 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/...

      maybe Tesla didn't complain because they will exceed the 8% quota by about 92%?

    24. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is "n/t"? Is it like "g/b" or "b/k"?

    25. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without ICEs, how will you heat a car? Remember, electric heating is the most expensive (and subsequently most draining on the battery). A/C isn't that cheap either.

      I was at Argonne National Laboratory a couple years back and they had a bunch of hybrids and EVs in one building that they were testing out new technologies on. At the time they were looking largely into using heat pumps to replace the heat and A/C but there are efficiency issues there as well, especially as air-sourced heat pumps don't handle subfreezing temperatures very well, so electric heating was still required.

    26. Re:Why am I not surprised? by nierd · · Score: 1

      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.

      Wouldn't Tesla meet the requirements regardless? I thought they only produced electric vehicles - meaning 100% of any sales are zero emissions.

    27. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't just "everybody is picking on Tesla" that has kept the company from instantly becoming the new Toyota.

      It doesn't help that they're legally banned from selling their vehicles on site in many jurisdictions due to ridiculous franchise laws.

    28. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      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.)

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    29. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course Tesla can do it he built heavily subsidized cars, that are really nice, that only the wealthy could afford and then gave them all a big kickback (5000 tax gift) to buy them.

      Making a replacement for a small car isn't that easy, where if you need to go more than 40 miles things like. The batteries alone can cost more than the current low end cars.

      Lastly most high end batteries used by the cars are very complex and use lots of rare earth metals meaning more demand will increase the prices making them more unaffordable.

      Now this doesn't mean quotas should be rolled back but there are lots of reasons you don't see any real cheap EV vehicles yet and the cheapest with real range is the bolt.

    30. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    31. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      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 solar car would charge 5kWh per day, or enough for the more efficient 60kWh Model S to travel 208mile/60kWh*5kWh = 17 miles.

      Sufficient to get to work and back in a smallish town if you can stay in the sun all day, and occasionally run some errands as well, but not really enough to be useful if you run out of charge on the side of the highway.

      Granted towing a solar charging system could do better, but it comes with an additional range penalty, and probably only works effectively when deployed. Could be handy to have at the base station when doing field work in the middle of nowhere though...

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    32. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

      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 current technology.

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    33. Re:Why am I not surprised? by maestroX · · Score: 2

      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.

      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 Mercedes country part supplier going bankrupt, because parts were too durable.
      I remember researching later at another famous German plant limiting parts to max. amount of usage.
      The sales droids have taken over longtime, exciting to see innovation and a turn of events.

    34. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well another solution that is acceptable is that these companies don't have a product to sell and they go out of business. Loading one major car company because they did not adapt faster than the mandates opens a lot of growth for another company.

    35. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is Prius EV range. Full EV's have longer legs then 25mi. The point of hybrids is to cut the stop/start and low speed driving of a city down to zero or near zero emissions. Do not apply that 25mi range to Teslas or even other non hybrid EV's

    36. Re:Why am I not surprised? by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      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. But from an engineering and logistics standpoint, going electric is a huge undertaking.

      In simple terms, an electrified Camry would be a terrible car and would flop in the market. An electric Toyota needs to be a ground-up redesign.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    37. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to tesla, li on cells don't actually use that much lithium. By far the largest material expense is Nickel.

    38. Re: Why am I not surprised? by shilly · · Score: 1

      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.

    39. Re: Why am I not surprised? by denis-The-menace · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    40. Re:Why am I not surprised? by blindseer · · Score: 1

      using heat pumps to replace the heat and A/C

      Air conditioners are heat pumps. You must be confused about some important details somewhere..

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    41. Re:Why am I not surprised? by thomn8r · · Score: 2

      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

    42. Re: Why am I not surprised? by shilly · · Score: 1

      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.

    43. Re:Why am I not surprised? by b0bby · · Score: 1

      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.

    44. Re: Why am I not surprised? by blindseer · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    45. Re:Why am I not surprised? by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      That's the first I've heard of Mercedes and parts being too reliable. He probably went out of business because most people will find its just cheaper to buy a new Benz than to start getting one repaired because that's a damned money pit.

    46. Re: Why am I not surprised? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      China such simply go even further.

      Clearly non-Chinese competitors are doubting their capacity to keep up.

    47. Re: Why am I not surprised? by aliquis · · Score: 0

      We all do.

      But culling and deny progress would help.

    48. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    49. Re: Why am I not surprised? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      53+ MB/s not too bad for IDE HDD.
      Very good if small files.

    50. Re: Why am I not surprised? by DrXym · · Score: 1
      What's with this with an "existing design"? New vehicles don't use existing designs. It's not a constraint. If a vehicle is intended to be an EV / PHEV the design will reflect it.

      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.

    51. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, many of the electric and hybrid all wheel drive setups already have a motor on each axle and power cables running the length of the car...

    52. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pure EV cars have lower profit margins. There is also less maintenance; hence you can't sell spare parts.
      The only thing is replacing the battery every 5 years (i think), which would need to be recycled.
      There is much less money in EV cars.

      There is a lot more money in SUV and pickup trucks, as long as fuel prices are low.

    53. Re:Why am I not surprised? by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      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.

      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.

    54. Re: Why am I not surprised? by DrXym · · Score: 1

      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 how much extra space there is for the middle rear passenger and center console.

      I was being generous by saying it's a wash. I'm sure some early EVs were bulky and not too smart at hiding their batteries. That is no longer the case.

    55. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "That takes years, hence why they want a delay." thats their commercial mistake for not seeing the future like Musk has done.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    56. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      eeer... i was being sarcastic....

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    57. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Rei · · Score: 2

      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?) Not enough? Slow down; unlike gasoline cars, EV ranges drastically increase with speed reduction. Still not enough? Pull into any random shop or farmhouse and ask if they could let you have an emergency charge (try that with gas). I've never heard of anyone ever being turned down on a charging request after explaining how little power is involved (under $1 an hour), and charge current can be set. You can charge from a regular 120v outlet at "5-10 miles per hour", depending. So by what massive distance did you hypothetically miss the charger by?

      --
      Nietzche: "I'm immortal because I'm all sin." Jesus: "I forgive you." (Bang!) -- Jesus Christ Supercop
    58. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buggy whip manufacturers are telling automobile manufacturers to slow down! They need time to turn their buggy whip business into something that can still exist! LOL.

    59. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "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"

      Put China first, you mean? Didn't you think that was a good idea last November?

    60. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This isn't so simple. You need to put batteries somewhere. And with petrol engine cars, there is simply no place for them."

      You mean besides the gas tank, the engine block, the cooling system, oil pumps, water pumps, injection systems, the transmission .... that are no longer needed ain't enough space to put a battery in to serve electric motors in the wheels?

      How cute that you believe that.

    61. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Rei · · Score: 1

      As for the track, none of the EVs in question are designed as track cars (although you can certainly use them there); your biggest problem will be overheating, not range, as they're aircooled, not watercooled. Just like with gasoline cars, each car targets a specific market. For a track car, in addition to watercooling, aero designed for downforce, smaller seating, etc, you use a pack focused more on power density than energy density or price; power density affects both discarge and charge rates.

      --
      Nietzche: "I'm immortal because I'm all sin." Jesus: "I forgive you." (Bang!) -- Jesus Christ Supercop
    62. Re:Why am I not surprised? by cellocgw · · Score: 4, 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, ...

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    63. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " How will the consumer handle 600 mile roadtrips..."

      In Europe we just book a cheap flight for 29 bucks for that, or take a high speed train, nobody of sane mind would do that in a car to themselves.

    64. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem confused. There are upwards of 2000 moving parts in an ICE. There are less than 20 moving parts in an EV.

      It's not "just one" component. The problem is sourcing the components, anyway.

    65. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Rei · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Nietzche: "I'm immortal because I'm all sin." Jesus: "I forgive you." (Bang!) -- Jesus Christ Supercop
    66. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Rei · · Score: 1

      I didn't know that a low-end Toyota does zero to sixty in 5.6 seconds (baseline model) and costs 2-3 cents per mile with 1/10th the moving parts of a typical car. Kudos to Toyota for upping their game!

      And I'm sorry that going from a six-figure two seater to a $35k passenger car in half a decade, with a clear plan laid out to contine the trend (Gigafactory and its planned successors) isn't fast enough of a cost reduction timeline for you.

      https://deadhomersociety.files...

      âoeIs it done yet? Is it done yet?â

      âoeYour meatloaf will be ready in eight seconds, Homer.â

      âoeIsnâ(TM)t there anything faster than a microwave?â

      --
      Nietzche: "I'm immortal because I'm all sin." Jesus: "I forgive you." (Bang!) -- Jesus Christ Supercop
    67. Re:Why am I not surprised? by sl3xd · · Score: 2

      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 to use the dealerships for maintenance & repair as nobody else can get the tools to work on the cars. I figure the practice is where Apple got the idea for the 'Pentalobe' screw.

      The shift to electric largely removes that (major) revenue stream: The cars have a lot less to break down, and even when it does, it's less labor-intensive to repair.

      Backyard mechanics will love it: Even when a major system (say, the motor controller) dies: You just unplug the box, swap it out in 20 minutes, done. Beats the hell out of fixing a broken valve stem.

      Replacing the entire drivetrain will not only be practical, it'll be easy enough that a teenager can do it over a weekend. The upshot there: Suddenly a lot of older cars will have a new lease on life. Instead of replacing the car at 300,000 miles, we can be driving the same thing 3-4x longer.

      Suddenly (in terms of maintenance) a car becomes less like a car (quick to replace one), and more like a house. Collisions will become the primary reason for new car sales, because it's so much cheaper to keep your car running.

      So yeah... a sudden and huge increase in reliability is bad for the bottom line in many ways.

      The consumers are moving toward electric. Consumers are moving toward reduced pollution.

      No argument they are moving towards electric.

      I'm not convinced pollution is the reason to switch. Yes, it's nice, but I care about my cost:distance ratio. Lower maintenance costs, lower energy costs are wildly skewed towards the electric side.

      For a car guy, there's also a compelling reason to switch to electric: Performance. Nothing takes off at a red light like an electric car. Sit in a Tesla when the driver floors it, and you want one, end of story.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    68. Re: Why am I not surprised? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      You prove my point.

      The Renault Zoe is very much a case in point. Yes it's based on the Clio. But the Clio itself was designed to be the base of a battery EV.

      "The core structure is based on the latest Renault Clio. So, you could think of the Zoe as simply a Clio with an electric motor and a fancy frock.
      But that's not entirely fair, since the latest Clio was always conceived with optional electric power in mind. That's allowed Renault to engineer the Zoe's 22kWh, 290kg lithium battery pack to be located flat, low and centrally in the chassis."
      http://www.techradar.com/news/...

    69. Re: Why am I not surprised? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      You have to follow the thread. There was a post that claimed that simply squeezing batteries into petrol car designs led to designs with low range. The post I answered was disputing that. That's where the "existing design" came from. That's "the purpose of the argument".

      You may need to adjust your viewing parameters to see anonymous posts.

      Yes, it's a constraint. Adapting an existing design is much quicker than creating a whole new design from scratch.

      The Ioniq is not relevant, given that, as you say, it was designed from scratch to support a battery powered version.

    70. Re: Why am I not surprised? by shilly · · Score: 1

      "Since the *latest* Clio" -- the Clio itself has been around for a very long time. There is a clear link between the latest Clio design and early Clio designs. They didn't have to start again from scratch, but they obviously did do some significant re-engineering -- but that is par for the course for evolutions of automotive design between generations.

    71. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Sassinak · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
    72. Re: Why am I not surprised? by BasilBrush · · Score: 3, 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.

    73. Re:Why am I not surprised? by cnaumann · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that I have gotten rid of a car in the last 20 years due to a problem directly related to the engine or transmission. Problems with electronics that lead to the car stranding me on more than one occasion? Yeap! Car just beat to hell? Yeap! Yeap!

      What is the most expensive single component in an electric car and what is its estimated lifetime?

      Maybe the Mercedes I had was a lemon but 1) Parts were horrifically expensive and hard-to-find. Seriously. One critical part took 10 weeks to get. The stupid car did not even use a standard tire size or a standard battery size. 2) It was dang-near impossible to find anyone to work one it. 3) the thing broke down ALL THE TIME.

      My hunch is that your parts dealer-friend went out of business because of the three things listed above. You don't see a lot of older Benz's driving around. I do however, see a lot of other 25+ year old cars running around.

    74. Re:Why am I not surprised? by fatwilbur · · Score: 1

      The consumers are moving toward electric.

      Citation needed.

      In my country, which has had numerous electric options available for many years (including low cost ones, eg. the Leaf), electric sales remain below dismal (well below 1%). This despite many government incentives. The moment gas prices fell, sales of SUVs & Trucks resumed their steady trend upward. Seems clear the consumer wants bigger, not electric. Are you somehow reading this easily available data differently?

    75. Re:Why am I not surprised? by butchersong · · Score: 1

      Technically, they're not engines.

    76. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. "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."
      They are just engines, engine control systems, all the engine mounted systems, much of HVAC system, transmission & controller, drive line, Solid rear axle and suspension in most trucks. Every system is replaced or altered when engine is not source of heat, cooling, propulsion.
      Grossly different center of mass changes much, when floor mounted battery is most of car power system. No more feeling of safety knowing a V8 is first in a crash.
      Then consider car life span and dealer services not needed for electrics. No major cooling system, no tank & fuel pump, to engine tuning, no required replacement intervals. No $29.95 15 minutes services.
      Dealers lose major source of income when selling electrics.

    77. Re: Why am I not surprised? by swillden · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    78. Re: Why am I not surprised? by jimtheowl · · Score: 1

      " why things have not (and most likely won't) changed."

      If they are not changing then there is no need for a delay, right?

    79. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been driving for 31 years. Number of times I've run out of gas, 0, zero, zilch.

      Number of times I've taken my car to a 'track', 0, zero, zilch.

      You're an edge case.

    80. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to mention expensive as fuck insurance, and a very short lifecycle compared to a regular car.

      I might be able to afford a $35k car, once every 10-15 years. I can't afford to buy a new Tesla every 3-5 years, which practically speaking is their endurance time without spending $20k on an overhaul.

    81. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      In simple terms, an electrified Camry would be a terrible car and would flop in the market. An electric Toyota needs to be a ground-up redesign.

      Isn't that why they made the Prius?

      Not that I would own one but just sayin....

    82. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I said nothing against the Tesla, just pointed out that it's not currently selling anything in Toyota's primary (mass) market, so no matter how great it is it currently has no chance of being "the next Toyota"

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    83. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      A solar-powered electric car is an attractive idea, but the numbers don't actually work out.

      Let's assume a best-case scenario: 100% efficient panels on a car that manages to somehow combine the roof area of a full-sized van with the aerodynamics of a Model S. A solar panel facing directly into the sun produces 1 kW per square meter, so the 10 square meters of panels on your roof are producing a constant 10 kW. Feed that into a Model S's 32 kWh per 100 miles, and you get a sustainable speed of around 30 mph with the sun directly overhead. Now, aerodynamic effects are non-linear, so your actual sustainable speed is probably around 40-45 mph, but still not impressive.

      And that's with unrealistically idealistic assumptions. The Model S looks like it's got maybe 3-4 square meters of non-window surface. Coat that with the best panels a lab has ever produced (46% efficient) and de-rate by a factor of 2 to deal with real-world solar incidence angles, and you're looking at a power supply of 1 kW or so, giving a sustainable speed of perhaps 5 mph. Hey, it beats walking.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    84. Re:Why am I not surprised? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Probably in part, but they also make a hybrid version of their other cars, and they are quite competitive. The hybrid drivetrain is very similar to the regular ICE drivetrain, with a small electric motor and a small battery taking up trunk space. My personal, completely unjustified opinion of the Prius is that they kept it hybrid-only for purely marketing reasons. If they had released a non-hybrid ICE only version of the Prius, it would still benefit from the narrow tires and very low resistance shape. This creates the perception that the hybrid drivetrain is solely responsible for the improved efficiency of the car.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    85. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how long will the line at the supercharger adjacent to the track be?

      If it's long enough to matter its economical enough to put in another one.

    86. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Rei · · Score: 1

      You know, I've long been dismissive of solar power on EVs, but actually, those numbers aren't that bad.

      20% isn't "impressive" any more, you can get 20% efficient cells quite affordably - some brands of common rooftop panels are over 22%. Even if you limit yourself to cheap thin film solar, there's several selling in the 17% range. On the other hand, if you have a large budget, you could cover the vehicle in Spectrolab/Soitec/Fraunhofer multijunction cells with microconcentrators and get 30-40% efficiency.

      On the road on a sunny day you have full "exposure" unless you're driving through the woods or an urban canyon. You can certainly cut the power down by solar angles (aka, not "peak sun"), but then you can't separately cut it down with your "5 hour" limitation.

      17 miles is longer than the average American's commute. And commutes often involve city driving; the 215-mile Model 3 range is for highway driving, not city. EVs get much better range in city driving than highway. And the depth of discharge isn't 100%, a (small) portion of that 60kWh is reserve at the bottom and unused at the top. On the other hand, you didn't factor in charging losses, and light that hits the windows has only partial charging potential (if that) - but these losses are smaller than the range gain for mixed driving vs. highway-only and accounting for DoD.

      And lastly, "not really enough to be useful if you run out of charge on the side of the highway." - really? How far did you miss the charging station by? Are you picturing that if you're going to miss a charging station it's going to be dozens of miles? How the hell did you do that? And if you're that bad at trip planning, how did you ever manage to drive a gasoline car?

      Modern EVs know where all nearby charging stations are, and there's fast charging stations regularly spaced on almost all US interstates. If you're missing charging stations by dozens of miles, there's something seriously wrong with you.

      --
      Nietzche: "I'm immortal because I'm all sin." Jesus: "I forgive you." (Bang!) -- Jesus Christ Supercop
    87. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Air conditioners are not reversible heat pumps, which is what you need to be able to use it for heating.

      Honestly, it surprises me that a reversible heat pump would be that much more expensive or massive than a standard AC unit, but so far very few EVs have used them, so I have to assume that they are (probably due to the small market at present).

      Back to the GGP, it's also worth noting that while EVs only give off around a quarter as much heat as an ICE, they still do give off heat - in the battery pack, wiring, inverter, and motor, and all of them are typically fan- and/or ram air cooled. If you're cruising at 10+kW power, you still have the potential to draw the equivalent heat of a small portable space heater off of your powertrain. Whether it's worth the cost/mass/complexity to do so, that's another story...

      --
      Nietzche: "I'm immortal because I'm all sin." Jesus: "I forgive you." (Bang!) -- Jesus Christ Supercop
    88. Re: Why am I not surprised? by fferreres · · Score: 1

      If the car is parked outdoor It will accumulate power. If you use it 2 hours per day you can be fine. You can alwsys plig it for long trips. But yeah, you need the expensive battery still

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    89. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Megol · · Score: 1

      Even ignoring the economic and political pressures (that do exist) petrol have many advantages. It is easily transportable, it can be stored for long periods of time without problems (well, there are some but let's not get into details), creating a solution for storage is easy and cheap with no fixed infrastructure needed. It also provides an excellent way to store energy, being able to be pumped to a storage container in a vehicle fast and safely (if some elementary precautions are used) and having a good energy density.

      While people living in larger cities should probably switch to electrical cars due to the advantages they have (most important significantly reduced local pollution) people in rural areas and/or traveling significant distances regularly should probably not _but_ a hybrid solution could cover most use cases.

      NB the above completely ignores the problem of greenhouse gases etc., there are potential solutions to that too but if they are economically viable is another thing.

    90. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      European here. I've never done a road trip by plane or by train and I would like to see you try.

    91. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I'll admit I was rather impressed when I ran the numbers myself, we really are getting to the point where it might be a viable option, at least so long as you ignore the price. I doubt I drive anywhere near 17 miles most days.

      It's not as good as it looks at first glance though. For example: you categorically will not have full exposure even on a sunny shadeless day - that would imply all solar panels are facing *directly* at the sun. Any surface facing 60 degrees away from the sun only gets 50% exposure (it fills only 50% of the perpendicular area - i.e. only intercepts 50% as many photons). And even that assumes a nigh-impossible 100% absorption, while the reality is that reflectivity increases rapidly as the angle increases, so you're bouncing away a lot of the photons that are still managing to hit you. The vast majority even, as the angle increases.

      As for highways - I mentioned I'm in New Mexico - 100 miles between gas stations isn't terribly uncommon here, much less superchargers. But my point was really the charging time - say you miss the charging station by 8 miles, but manage to come to a stop on a perfectly-oriented hill for maximum solar exposure at some time before solar noon so that the productive hours are still mostly in front of you. It's still going to take you half a day to get enough charge to make it to the charging station. Better than nothing, but the guy who ran out of gas next to you is going to flag down a passing car and be back with a gallon of gas in well under an hour.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    92. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I suppose the bigger point though is that a full day's charge gets you less than 17 minutes of driving at 60mph, maybe two or three times that around town - so why bother putting the panels on the car at all? Far more cost effective to put the panel somewhere stationary and properly aligned, and then charge the car when you're at home.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    93. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Rei · · Score: 1

      What about being able to drive for 3-4 hours straight without a break is insufficient to you? It's not even considered safe to drive for six hours straight, you're supposed to take a break every couple hours regardless.

      --
      Nietzche: "I'm immortal because I'm all sin." Jesus: "I forgive you." (Bang!) -- Jesus Christ Supercop
    94. Re:Why am I not surprised? by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      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...
      http://insights.globalspec.com...
      https://electrek.co/2017/04/27...
      https://cleantechnica.com/2017...

      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/...

      I don't think there is an all-year-around electric car that can be used in Canada, unless it is to be driven from garage to garage. With 20 below zero weather, batteries drop to 10% of what they can deliver in summer. Just get caught in a traffic jam with -20 and hope for the best. In my view, the best would be the tow-truck.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    95. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a problem. The difference is potty and gas take 15 minutes. Charging takes much longer. I charge when I can, but I don't have to.

    96. Re:Why am I not surprised? by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Honestly, it surprises me that a reversible heat pump would be that much more expensive or massive than a standard AC unit

      The problem with using a heat pump in a car is that efficiency of the heat pump drops quickly with temperature. Also, there is a problem of the working fluid freezing. Perhaps the issue of the freezing of the fluid has been, or could be. solved with different chemistry but a heat engine is a heat engine and the laws of physics still apply.

      I have an air sink heat pump in my house, much like what would be used in an automobile. A house can use a ground sink heat pump but an automobile cannot, for reasons that should be obvious. At moderate temperatures (about 50F or 30C) my heat pump is rated for about 30k BTU/hr (or 9 kW) which is sufficient to keep the house at a comfortable temperature. When temperatures get near freezing the efficiency falls to the point that it's producing only 2/3rds the power, while at the same time heat losses from the house to the air increase. When temperatures get much lower than that (say about 10F or -10C) the power output of the heat pump is equivalent to using resistor heat. Any lower than that and the heat pump is pumping heat out of the cabin, not into it.

      Making the heat pump larger does not help since at sub-zero temperatures a heat pump simply cannot pump heat into the cabin, they just don't work that way. Perhaps with more exotic materials we could make a heat pump that works at these temperatures but then you run into issues of cost and safety.

      you still have the potential to draw the equivalent heat of a small portable space heater off of your powertrain

      No, you don't. The batteries need to be protected from being frozen. Not normally an issue for a modern battery while holding a charge but if you hook a heat pump to this and start drawing off heat in sub-zero temperatures and you risk damaging a very expensive piece of equipment, and the means to get you home in sub-zero temperatures.

      I understand how this might confuse people as I had the same misunderstanding of heat pumps myself. Getting a heat pump for my house gave me a real world experience of their limitations. Also, in case you are wondering, I heat my house with a natural gas furnace when outdoor temperatures get too low. My system lets me set the temperature for when it switches from heat pump to furnace, I just forget where I set it.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    97. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Rei · · Score: 1

      You realize that a commercial driver that stopped for only 15 minutes every several hours in the EU would be fined and potentially stripped of their license, don't you? Law requires 45 minutes per 4 1/2 of driving. Why? Because long stretches without having a legitimate break are not safe. The longer you drive for, the more likely you are to get into an accident.

      Also, for that matter, do you not eat? Or do you eat behind the wheel also, further increasing your risk of an accident?

      --
      Nietzche: "I'm immortal because I'm all sin." Jesus: "I forgive you." (Bang!) -- Jesus Christ Supercop
    98. Re:Why am I not surprised? by Rei · · Score: 1

      I understand how this might confuse people as I had the same misunderstanding of heat pumps myself.

      I have no confusion about heat pumps. The standard for cold weather with a reversible heat pump is to combine it with resistive heating. Preferably high voltage resistive heating with PTC heating elements. Heat scavenging from the drivetrain further improves performance.

      No, you don't. The batteries need to be protected from being frozen.

      A cruising li-ion EV on the highway is putting 300-400W into its battery pack, a couple hundred into wiring, and perhaps 800W into each of the motor and inverter. You can take power from the latter three at will. The former you can take at a rate slower than it enters, assuming that it's preheated and that said rate is positive; if it's cold enough and poorly insulated enough, then heat loss is greater than incoming heat and you have to use resistive heating and/or scavenged heat from the drivetrain.

      Not all EVs make good use of heat scavenging, but at least the Model S does a good job scavenging it. Which is why heating doesn't cut as much of the range as you'd expect. For example, at 120kph / -20C the 75's range drops from 328km to 293km by using the heater - 11% for nearly three hours of heating at a quite cold external temperature.

      --
      Nietzche: "I'm immortal because I'm all sin." Jesus: "I forgive you." (Bang!) -- Jesus Christ Supercop
    99. Re: Why am I not surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solar cells on the roof of a car are NEVER going to be able to 100% power the car even if they suddenly became 100% efficient (which won't happen)....not even close. You will always need to plug in and recharge from a larger network (which could be completely solar/battery based, just not resident on the vehicle).

    100. Re: Why am I not surprised? by DrXym · · Score: 1
      Car brands usually go through multiple design platforms in their lifetime and it is very rare that there is anything common between platforms aside from their name. The Clio would be a case in point - my first car was a Clio and the brand bears absolutely no similarity to the new Clio or even the one before that.

      The Zoe shares much of its design with the previous Clio platform, but it has nothing to do with the latest. Chances are when the new Nissan Leaf comes out, that we'll see a new Zoe or other EV from Renault that shares the design with it. Renault and Nissan are in an alliance and have already done this with the 2017 Clio / Micra and the Kadjar / Qashqai. Aside from the trim, logos and entertainment systems, they're virtually the same vehicle.

  2. Good by Bandraginus · · 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.

    1. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and the materials and manufacturing for the battery technology comes primarily from China. Every EV built is money back into China's economy. It really is in China's best interests to be aggressive with the new ZEV policies.

    2. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Young one aren't you? Or perhaps just american...few remember/know what the world was like before free trade and all the drawbacks back then, I guess thats why people endorse various tolls, importbans and similar now - if you haven't seen or experienced the downside, and probably even less chance that you actually read about it, it sounds like a good idea...

    3. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this is not classic closing of the market.

      They do not say - we do not want yours, we want ours.

      They say - they want zero-emission cars - regardless who is manufacturing them.

      I am a libertarian but with strong environmental twist and here I am all for China.

    4. Re:Good by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are their domestic car makers held to the same quotas? (fairly, so only counting actual cars and not forklifts, mopeds or small delivery vehicles). If so, I don't see the problem.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    5. Re:Good by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      China is winning and the automakers are begging for their old tech to be accepted for a while longer.
      Its like the new emissions standards of the 1970's and having a production line of old cars to sell.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:Good by Bandraginus · · 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.

    7. Re:Good by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Yes, they are.
      And by the way; are non-Chinese companies banned from exporting forklifts, mopeds and small delivery vehicles to China?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    8. Re:Good by fubarrr · · Score: 2

      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

    9. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Doesn't really matter.

      China has a problem with emissions centralized in cities.
      Power plants can be moved further away, but transportation has to be solved.

      Complaining about the quotas is the wrong response. The correct response is "We can do it, but it will cost you."
      You don't have to think that the Chinese people should be able to afford it, this is a national issue for them and as a nation they can afford it.

      Helping China solve its emissions problem is a huge market and a way to get unqualified manufacturing jobs.
      Holding your hands to your ears and screaming that there is no pollution problem just because you have some catching up to do is stupid in this case.
      If the market doesn't meet the demand for electric vehicles then China will just start their own EV companies with state funding.

      This fits with the announcement Volvo did last week about not doing further development on pure ICE vehicles after 2019 considering that they are owned by a Chinese company these days.

    10. Re:Good by Bearhouse · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, local Chinese companies already dominate the EV market; informative article in link below.

      http://www.eiu.com/industry/ar...

    11. Re:Good by xyra132 · · Score: 1

      Interested in this? I had a look I could only find the e6 which doesn't seem to be in the same ballpark ( https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-... ), less refined, slower, smaller and similar price? Is there another model I'm missing?

    12. Re: Good by fubarrr · · Score: 1

      They have E5 sedan and Qin hatchback. E5 is not a as big as model S, but somewhat close

    13. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah ok, I misundestood your point then. When you said "Doesn't hurt China if the world's car manufacturers pull out..." I meant that whatever the reason, having only domestic producers (but fair enough, China may be large enough to support several large enough producers to actually have a competitive internal market), as seen in the Soviet or other very protective economies, results in a monopoly-like situation where products become more expensive (or shortage), worse quality, and overall worse compared to the rest of the world, so it may not benefit them (as consumers) in the long run to lock others out. And since their economy depends largely on production and trade, I think the effects of supporting their own manufacturers by locking others out, could backfire if US/EU were to create similar "level-playingfield-but-adapted-for-our-producers"-rules...

      But I see now that wasn't your point =), and agree, would have been better globally if more of this was done, but in the US the oil industry and its lobby wouldn't "allow" that I guess...especially not with the current government.

      But to add, sure, this is a typical Chinese way of enforcing changes, but I would have preferred a more "market-oriented" way like say, emission-taxes or something that doesn't set a limit/force something, but place economical incentives and let the market work out the best way to reach that in a (also) economically sustainable manner.

    14. Re: Good by phayes · · Score: 3, 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/...

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    15. Re:Good by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's funny I found this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... 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/... 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.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    16. Re:Good by phayes · · Score: 2

      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 costs that everyone else (excepting Tesla) are going to have.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    17. Re:Good by viperidaenz · · Score: 0

      Australia, home of the ADR designed to boost local car manufacturing. Didn't work in the end, now all you've got is expensive cars to show for it by cutting out the jap imports.

    18. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how does an electric car "help" the environment? Does the electricity to charge it come from unicorn shit and pixie dust?

    19. Re: Good by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      No, but with the massive amounts of air pollution in China increased adoption of electric vehicles is a very good thing.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    20. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike petrol and diesel, it CAN come from clean sources, such as renewables and nuclear (yes, nuclear is actually very clean).

    21. Re: Good by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      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.

    22. Re: Good by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:Good by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      It might do. If you give it half a chance.

      --
      No sig today...
    24. Re: Good by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Shitty consumer devices, you are correct. That's why Walmart is filled with 'made in China.'

    25. Re: Good by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 0

      Almost all the electricity in China comes from burning coal.

    26. Re: Good by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Or from unicorns running on treadmills. Unfortunately, a ton of coal needs to be burned to produce each 30 kilograms of unicorn food. The unicorn glen can only provide grazing space for a few of the mythical beasts.

    27. Re:Good by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      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 the music business and companies you had never heard of were making first rate digital cameras while some established brands struggled and others just disappeared. Electric cars is where things are going to end up eventually. Internal combustion engine technology is going to go the same way that steam engine technology did. Whoever takes the plunge first and starts the transition early will be able to grab a lot of market share, everybody else will be playing catchup. If Chinese companies can use their domestic market to build a large electric car production capacity, other car manufacturers who bet their bottom dollar on the future being in gasoline engines will be playing catch up and they will not just be in trouble because they are late to market with their electric car designs but also because whichever makers were first to market with electric cars will have contractually secured a lot of the global battery production capacity which will limit the newcomer's ability to increase their production and force them into expensive investments in battery factories (witness Tesla's pre-emptive efforts in that arena). If I was China I'd pour a lot of money into incentivising battery factory building, boosting my car industry (especially with a mind to increasing quality), suck up to countries with large Lithium deposits and then sit down and write a series of politely worded "A thousand apologies but slowing down China's e-veichle transition isn unfortunately not possible." responses to those letters from the international car industry.

    28. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      China is the worlds largest producer of photovoltaic power. And they're aggressively pushing for renewable energy sources. So yes, it's cleaner than petrol or diesel ICE.

    29. Re:Good by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      No sig today...
    30. Re:Good by Immerman · · Score: 1

      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 upgraded right along with the grid infrastructure.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    31. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still cleaner to run an electric car powered by coal than an ICE.

    32. Re: Good by shilly · · Score: 1

      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.

    33. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can do this, but it takes two years to build a plant and make it operational and longer for enough plants for the 2020 goal. Not possible in the one year deadline. They are not complaining about the quota but the start date of the quota.

      Reading comprehension, please.

    34. Re: Good by phayes · · Score: 1

      "most products" != batteries.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    35. Re:Good by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      China is for many years already trying to limit car sales using high prices for license plates. Doesn't seem to work that well.

      The biggest challenge with this push to electric may not be the production of the cars, but the production of the electricity to power them all (hopefully without the use of even more heavy polluting coal power plants).

    36. Re:Good by phayes · · Score: 1

      "China for many years" not have such dense life threatening smog and hoped to build enough roads to accept the new cars... But now the smog is getting headlines around the world, road construction is recognised to have failed at keeping up and people spend hours in traffic. So, my idea that forcing EVs is a way out.

      Electrical generation is not an issue. They have a handle on producing enough electricity even through an economic explosion and have been moving to cleaner sources faster than the west (not hard given how many poorly filtered coal plants they were building up to a few years ago).

      The biggest challenge for widespread development of EVs is battery production.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    37. Re: Good by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Batteries are no different. Just another manufactured product.

    38. Re: Good by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Not just shitty ones. The most desirable ones too.

    39. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LG made more of the Volt/Bolt and the gas equivalents like the Cruz & Aveo because they are actually Daewoos. Daewoo is Korean which was bought by GM after Daewoo flopped here in the US. A Korean company seems like it should make more money making Korean cars dontcha think?

    40. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.eiu.com/industry/article/1185390902/chinas-new-nev-rules/2017-05-03

      Page is 404 as of this post.

    41. Re:Good by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      The smog was a HUGE issue around the 2008 Olympics already. Nearly a decade ago. You probably don't live nearby so you didn't hear much about it: China forced all factories in the province and neighbouring provinces to shut down starting a few weeks before the Olympics, and they took half the traffic of the roads. That's why there were clear skies during the Olympics. When the world's eye left, it was back to "normal" - traffic and pollution. It seems from your comment that their strategy worked quite well.

      China is well aware of its terrible pollution for decades. For the last 10-20 years they've been trying to limit the number of vehicles on the road, with varying success. Congestion is terrible, yet many people can't get cars because they can't afford the license fees - without this system it arguably would have been much worse than it is.

      Electric vehicles do nothing to relieve congestion. They just make congestion less polluting, but the number of cars on the road and with it the space they take isn't really changing. To solve congestion other measures are needed, such as reducing the actual number of cars, bringing more EVs on the roads will only make congestion worse.

      And with the ongoing brown-outs, especially in summer, the electricity production is another thing that's still not fully solved...

    42. Re:Good by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      no, they dominate CHINA's MARKET. Not the same thing. In addition, most of their sales are HYBRIDS, not EVs.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    43. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do you think most of that lithium goes? You think Chile & Argentina are going to become the electric car / battery factories of the future...

    44. Re:Good by phayes · · Score: 1

      Sorry, as english clearly isn't your mother tongue you missed the sarcasm. I agree that the smog is a huge problem and if you read back I've been arguing that forcing a move to EVs is a backhand way to diminish vehicle purchases -- because they are very unlikely to be available for purchase in the numbers IC vehicles are.

      Thus, specifying all new vehicles MUST be EVs would indeed relieve congestion.

      Thanks however for correcting me on the brown-outs.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    45. Re: Good by phayes · · Score: 1

      China had but 15% of lithium automobile battery production in 2014, less than Japan with 37%, Korea with 24% and the U.S. with 19%. With Tesla's Gigafactory coming online U.S. production will be making a massive jump without an answering jump from China.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    46. Re:Good by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      I think you highly underestimate the production power of China, if you really believe that this is a way to reduce the number of new vehicles that become available. Access to raw materials would be just about the only thing stopping them in that matter.

    47. Re: Good by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Early days. China may not be the first manufacturer of a product, but they do tend to be the biggest once it's mainstream.

    48. Re:Good by phayes · · Score: 1

      "you think"... well then, there's the problem. Were China to be seriously moving to EVs over IC vehicles at the close to equvalent production levels they would be addressing EV's production choke point: batteries. Seen any stories about their answer to Tesla's & Daimler's battery manufacturing plans? No, me neither.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    49. Re: Good by phayes · · Score: 1

      Care to share any announcements for Chinese massive battery manufacturing plans that everyone has been ignoring? Massive increases in planned Chinese lithium production? _ANYTHING_ that would answer Tesla's Gigafactory coming on line or Daimlers plans? No? Just your "on faith" pronouncements?

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    50. Re: Good by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Again, batteries are no different. Just another manufactured product.

      We don't have a lot of visibility of what factories are being created in China. It doesn't mean that there aren't or won't be factories to supply such a big demand.

    51. Re: Good by phayes · · Score: 1

      So then just take it on faith that Clina will double their production of Lithium batteries, and then double it again, and double it again, and again -- to be able to produce enough batteries to replace their production of IC vehicules by EVs as announced. They'll be able to do so because even though China only produced a small fraction of lithium batteries worldwide -- corresponding roughly to their own production of Lithium metal and the (already locked up by others) worldwide production dwarfs China's production because J random basilbrush says "we don't have a lot of visibility"...

      Come up with some hard numbers and/or official and credible announcements by China explaining how they plan to pull off this miraculous transformation. China has many industrial advantages but making batteries out of Lithium that do not have isn't one of them. The pronouncements of faith that you keep pulling out of your ass have zero credibility;

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    52. Re: Good by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      It really doesn't matter how arrogantly you say it. Batteries are just another product and there is nothing stopping China ramping up to be the biggest producer, just as they have with most other consumer products.

      No miracles needed.

    53. Re: Good by phayes · · Score: 1

      The arrogance is being shown by the one claiming that China can multiply it's production of batteries by close to two magnitudes without the least shred of support.

      Put up or STFU.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    54. Re: Good by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Being an asshole still won't make you right.

      Batteries are no different to any other consumer product. There are no hurdles stopping China from becoming the biggest manufacturer.

    55. Re: Good by phayes · · Score: 1

      Treating a pushy yet clueless troll with the disdain it merits after it refuses to post references _multiple_times_ is merely normal behavior.

      Either post references supporting your opinions _as_I_have_ or stfu, troll.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    56. Re: Good by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Calling people trolls doesn't make you right either.

      There is nothing whatsoever, standing in the way of China becoming the largest manufacturer of batteries. Just as they have done with many other consumer products before. Makes no difference how much you wish it wasn't so.

      And there is precisely zero that you have posted, even once, to say otherwise.

    57. Re: Good by phayes · · Score: 1

      I've posted references showing that China's production of both lithium metal and batteries is dwarfed by that of other countries. You? Nothing.

      If there is "nothing whatsoever, standing in the way of China becoming the largest manufacturer of batteries" then you would have no difficulty whatsoever in coming up with references detailing China's progress in overcoming their deep and growing deficit with other countries.

      But you won't.

      Because you cannot.

      Because you are a troll.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    58. Re: Good by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      You idiot. The USA has a deficit with China, not the other way around.

      And even were that not the case, it wouldn't affect their ability to manufacture batteries, any more than any of the other products they mass produce on a massive scale.

  3. Fuck them by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re: Fuck them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean affluent. (As opposed to "shit".)

    2. Re: Fuck them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know.... Sometimes the "effluent" class seems to fit.....

    3. Re:Fuck them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As a fan of electric vehicles, I think China really should slow down on quotas and instead focus on safety and recycling of batteries.

      In China it happens way too often, that batteries get pierced even at low impact speeds. Acidic Vapor gets sucked into the passenger area by the AC causing aweful burns of passengers. Even with cars we know to be safe in Europe and the US, like the Toyota Prius.

      Also, batteries reaching end of life, just get dumped somewhere out of sight.

      It's important to reduce COX and NOX emissions, especially in the smog prone Chinese cities. Private traffic is just a small part of the cause. Unfiltered oil and coal heating, cargo traffic and industry waste are currently worse factors and should be focussed by the Chinese government rather than artificially ramping up sales numbers of cars with low emissions

    4. Re:Fuck them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People buying new cars in China are the more effluent class

      Freudian slip?

      affluent
      adjective
              (especially of a group or area) having a great deal of money; wealthy.

      effluent
      noun
              liquid waste or sewage discharged into a river or the sea.

    5. Re:Fuck them by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Chinese cars use a lot more LiFePO4 batteries which are a lot safer than other types of lithium batteries

    6. Re:Fuck them by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Yeah, those old fashioned gasoline fires are much safer.

      --
      No sig today...
    7. Re:Fuck them by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      No sig today...
    8. Re: Fuck them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tesla building a giga factory in China would kill multiple birds with one stone. Tesla Li on cells are designed to be almost totally recyclable. An entire section of the giga factory in Nevada is designed to recover the materials in the worn out cells dramatically reducing the amount of raw materials needing to be mined for new cells as well as properly disposing of a potenially hazardous waste.

    9. Re:Fuck them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      affluent isnt effluent. Effluent is sewage. Affluent is wealth.

      https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/effluent
      https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/affluent

      The affluent create effluent.

    10. Re:Fuck them by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      In a few years electric vehicles will be cheaper than gas powered vehicles. This will help accelerate this process even more.

    11. Re:Fuck them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People buying new cars in China are the more effluent class who can afford to make some contribution to the environment.

      "Affluent" class, not effluent. The effluent class are the ones polluting the environment.

    12. Re: Fuck them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of them are at least a bit of both.

    13. Re: Fuck them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now they only have to get permission to build a battery factory in China (which they won't)...

  4. Oh no we are too late for the revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For crying out 'late' car manufacturers have had decades upon decades to own up to a cleaner future and now that it is Reckoning time they come crying like little babies whining for more time? Sorry bubba that's not how it works. Used to work but not this time

    1. Re:Oh no we are too late for the revolution by robbak · · Score: 1

      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 pedal, build it to charge fast, build lots of stations to charge it fast, and sell people the exciting road trip to anywhere. And make it a nice, pleasant, relaxing place for your daily commute, too, while selling the dream that one day, this car will do the daily commute for you.

      --
      Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
    2. Re: Oh no we are too late for the revolution by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      So you are saying China should by edict mandate a "Great Leap Forward" in automotive design? Sounds good. You can' t make an omelette without breaking eggs, after all.

  5. China: "No." by DNS-and-BIND · · 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.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re: China: "No." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you got the Hollywood part wrong, it goes a little more like this

    2. Re:China: "No." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question is why the automotive industry "breaking all fours" to earn more time. I suspect that behind the scenes, there is a good combination of a lack of industrial capacity to build that many vehicles and a short-term desire to sell whatever remains of gas cars. With France announcing it will ban gas cars by 2040, that puts a lot of pressure.

      Also it begs the question: can we build as many electric cars as we built gas cars? Do we have enough materials for the batteries, which are made of rare earth and things? A gas car is simple to make. It's metal, glass, plastic and rubber. Those materials are commonplace.

      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." Because we can't ramp up the production to the level of gas cars. And the automotive industry has to adapt itself to become a luxury market, selling a few, super-expensive cars, like Tesla does, instead of mass-produced cheap cars. And I'm really not sure they can do so without going bankrupt.

      Sell your car maker shares, guys ;)

    3. Re:China: "No." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that behind the scenes, there is a good combination of a lack of industrial capacity to build that many vehicles

      China has been heading this way for several years now. Sure this is a sudden surge further in that direction, but if the manufacturers are so far out of line that they can't compete, that is 100% on them.

    4. Re:China: "No." by Joce640k · · Score: 0

      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.

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:China: "No." by tomxor · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:China: "No." by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      The world is in for a big fucking surprise when China simply declines to play ball.

      If that's the case, then "the world" hasn't been paying attention for a few years. I for one don't expect China to care about a country whose president can't even distinguish it from Taiwan, a country that constantly threatens to put up massive import tariffs on Chinese goods (and sometimes does), and where many consider China the "new evil".

      Until not so long ago (not sure if it's still the case - rules have been relaxed iirc) the only way for a foreign company to invest in China was through a minority-owned joint venture with a local company.

      And if you're still wondering: just look at how well Google and YouTube and Facebook are available in China - they were kicked out years ago and haven't come back.

    7. Re:China: "No." by strikethree · · Score: 1

      I agree that China has the qualities that you describe. I also admire them for those qualities and can see how much good those qualities can bring.

      Ultimately, their methods of running a country are barbaric and primitive so I would NOT like to live in a country that emulates them.

      But yeah, good on them for being able to smack the shit out of the corrupt, morally bankrupt, and unethical capitalists. ;)

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    8. Re:China: "No." by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Massive import tarriffs on goods - that's an interesting topic. Do you know that China slaps ALL incoming US goods with a 17% across the board tax? And THEN taxes the goods according to the type of product? You'll notice America doesn't do the same. It's odd how American products can't compete in China, odd I say. Almost evil, even.

      Wholly owned foreign companies have been available for investment since around 2001. What news have you been watching? It's probably fake news.

      China has its own homegrown equivalents to Google/Youtube/Facebook and is doing just fine. Didn't you get the memo?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    9. Re:China: "No." by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      That tariff is not just for US goods. It's a general import duty. On top of that there's indeed a luxury tax on goods above a certain value, and special taxes for certain other goods.

      While China has massive trade surpluses with the US (a shortage of over 200 billion on exports of 324 billion to the US), it's much less for the EU (145 billion shortage on 356 worth of export to the EU), and China has large deficits in trade with other developed economies such as Korea, Taiwan and Japan.

      The problem seems to be more with the US being highly uncompetitive than China being so highly competitive.

      Furthermore indeed it has alternatives to Western social media, of course it has, and their Taobao/Alibaba/Aliexpress combo makes Amazon look like an also-run. You missed the point there, which is how certain Western companies have been kicked out for not following China's local regulations. That it gave room to home-grown solutions was nice for the Chinese, but Google et.al. could also have chosen to conform to local laws and stay in China.

    10. Re:China: "No." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In America, true. Like you did when you didn't want Japanese cars. But now you're dealing with China. And people actually want more reliable cleaner electric cars. You're betting on the wrong horse if you think American car makers will get China to change its mind.

  6. Ultimately it could be good for all of us by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ultimately it could be good for all of us. If China stick to their guns it will accelerate electric vehicle production and development, cleaning the air for everyone. The only caveat is that clean power production has to keep up.

    1. Re:Ultimately it could be good for all of us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luckily China is also mass producing solar panels so that is good.

    2. Re:Ultimately it could be good for all of us by Bandraginus · · 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.

    3. Re:Ultimately it could be good for all of us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only caveat is that clean power production has to keep up.

      "has" is a strong word.
      It would be better if they did, but centralized energy production from fossil fuels is still better than distributed.

      If nothing else it is worth it to get out of the chicken-egg argument where some people don't want to fix either issue since the other exist.

      Once transportation is mainly electric based it will be a lot more beneficial to switch electricity production to something cleaner.
      (Not going to call it switching to renewable since I don't want to rule out nuclear.)

    4. Re:Ultimately it could be good for all of us by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Interesting

      How would that *possibly* be good? The world has been groaning under American domination for decades. It's about time someone else got a chance. The whole world despises America, have you seen the latest Pew poll? The only people in the world who like America are a few right-wingers who live in America.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:Ultimately it could be good for all of us by phayes · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    6. Re:Ultimately it could be good for all of us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This is exactly where the US should have positioned itself 10 years ago,..."

      But this didn't happen because a "Planned Economy" is the filthiest phrase that Western-Style Capitalists can imagine. It's all "Free Market" this or "Invisible Hand" that until guys like Trump are in charge, and then it's all about raising Walls, Political, Economical, Legal, Metaphorical or even Physical.

      Planned Economies can work, barring the Ecological disasters in the Soviet Union and Red China that produced the famines that the Laissez-Faire are so fond of. But people can learn from that, and they have. The structures of Planned Economies have changed, transferring some of the risk from Governing Institutions to the consenting populations, in return for a greater proportion of the rewards. This is a machine that needs constant tuning of course, not on a quarterly basis, but maybe over a period of five years or so. Five Year Plans.

      Militaries are expensive to keep and find justifications for, so notice that in both Russia and China, the amount that they spend on them as a proportion of GDP is shrinking. Whereas the total budget for Military spending in the US is more than the totals of the next ten countries _combined_, including Russia and China. And what does the US, a Country that has never been seriously challenged on its borders, get for it? The F-35, a plane that can't fly, that _nobody_ currently wants until fixed, even if the price tag was reduced in half.
      Wars are bad for long-term Planning, especially if they're never actually fought.

      Planned Economies work best when linked with other Planned Economies, which is why the US is increasingly being isolated, since they want to run the whole World their way, and their way changes with every change in Administrations. This is foolish.
      "...setting itself up to be in the box seat for the next 50 years..."
      This requires long-term planning, not over Quarters, or Five years, but 50 years or longer. This is simply against the US Character, Republican, Democratic, and especially Libertarian.

      I'm old enough to not really care if Mandarin is the Lingua Franca two decades from now. Two centuries ago, it was French, and a century before that, Spanish. Things fall apart, the center cannot hold. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. It's the American Way.

    7. Re:Ultimately it could be good for all of us by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      * 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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re: Ultimately it could be good for all of us by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 0

      The only people who like America are the most skilled and educated who strive to emigrate there.

    9. Re: Ultimately it could be good for all of us by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Damn, it's even worse than I thought. America is now robbing the rest of the world of badly needed skilled and educated people. These people are sorely required in their home countries if they are ever to make any progress. America stealing them away is just another form of cultural imperialism, where the master country strengthens itself by bleeding its slaves. It's vile and needs to come to an immediate halt.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    10. Re:Ultimately it could be good for all of us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asian languages are total shit and will never be 'Lingua Franca' for anything. They are sputtering, idiotic scribble trash whose design never considered automation or efficiency. Latin-derivatives are rocking hard all over the world because it has a clear, efficient symbol set, and shrill, nasal ching-chong talk is not because it is stupid, obtuse, unnecessarily complex and Gay As Fuck..

      Nobody wants to copy their stupid inefficent cat-scratch language. Even cuneiform was more sensible than spastic chink splatters.

      hth

    11. Re:Ultimately it could be good for all of us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China is still shit at tech

      J-20 & J-31 stealth fighters.
      Type 055 destroyer.

      I would hate to see when they actually get good at it.

    12. Re:Ultimately it could be good for all of us by strikethree · · Score: 1

      All correct except one:

      * Ramp up R&D to own all the IP around the tech: Check

      I am not aware of them respecting any IP agreements to a regularly enforceable extent; therefore, "owning IP" is likely not a huge concern for them.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    13. Re:Ultimately it could be good for all of us by thunderclees · · Score: 1

      This is just another form of PRC protectionism. The CPC may say that the rules apply to everyone but they will only be enforced on imports giving domestic manufactures another advantage.

    14. Re:Ultimately it could be good for all of us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and another Trump Voter goes oink-oink-oink...
      The Chinese Character Set already is an old Lingua Franca, the same symbols mean the same thing wherever Dialects of Chinese show up, even if they are pronounced completely differently. "Mandarin" and "Cantonese" Chinese sound completely different, but are written out largely as the same. The 21st Century equivalents are Emojis. Frank-ly, I can't stand Emojis, but that doesn't mean that I refuse to believe that they exist.

      "Latin-derivatives are rocking hard all over..."
      "Latin derivatives" are largely Phonetic, from a time that in Pre-Literate Europe, the only common language of understanding was Latin. Pronunciation diverged so much that we don't even know what Pre-Christian Latin sounds like. Even Church Latin diverged, but the meaning of the words remained- "Dominus vobiscum, et cum spiritu tuo."- "Dominic bring the biscuits, and the spirits too."
      The original Lingua Franca was the Language Of the Franks. That is, the written and spoken Latin Vulgate. From that we get directly the Romance Languages, and indirectly by way of some obstinate "North Men", English.
      English, or rather Amerikaan, is the current Lingua Franca, but this is very recent. If either Germany or Russia had decisively won that Last War To End All Wars, it could have turned out entirely differently. As it was, the entire "Second World" spoke Russian, even if only as a second language and derisively, for a few decades. (Spanish, French, and Japanese intentions in these regards were soundly skunked, and as for Dutch and Portuguese...)

      So we now have the three Great Character Sets- Western, Cyrillic, and Chinese. The first two are very roughly Phonetic, and Chinese is Symbolic. Yet Symbolic Chinese has been rendered in the Western Character Set: Pinyin. So there is no further need for widespread use of a 3000 Character Keyboard outside of Traditional Chinese purposes. (Japanese has long been Phonetically Westernized.)

      "Nobody wants to copy their stupid inefficent cat-scratch language."
      You ignorant fuck, when Chinese comes to be The Language, The Lingua Franca, it will most likely be in the form of Pinyin. Thus the old "Peking" became "Beijing" in the West quite some time back.
      It's already happening. And as I first stated: "I'm old enough to not really care..."
      BTW, fuck you anyway.

      Captcha: messages

    15. Re: Ultimately it could be good for all of us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, America is great for those at the top. The most skilled/rich. Anyone outside that .1% though, it's a shithole no better that any other, oftentimes worse.

    16. Re:Ultimately it could be good for all of us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What rock have you been living under?

    17. Re:Ultimately it could be good for all of us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pinyin, ruby annotations, etc --- all solid proof of Asian languages becoming more western --- not the other way around. Unsurprising, since the mongoloids copy and steal good ideas quite well. Also: lived in SE Asia. Not a Trump voter or American, but you can add that to the list of assumptions you're wrong about like "people without slanted retard eyes want to speak like a slant-eyed retard".

      So it's not 'already happening' you old rice-pining faggot, but from underneath your anime collection, it probably looks that way

    18. Re:Ultimately it could be good for all of us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Underneath your loathsome worldview is a lonely little voice of reason. Shed the Hate, Bozo, and listen to that voice.
      I don't have an Anime collection; the closest thing that I have to that are a couple of Lithographs, quite old, of Li Po* gazing at the refection of the moon, in the Waters that very soon welcomed him. It's a very old and common myth, somewhat similar to the Western myth of Narcissus. Also, Anime is Japanese, not Chinese. Japan blew their chance of being the Dictator of the World. It is now a fragile Country, utterly dependent on Imports. Blockade it for a month, and people there would starve. That is why they got involved in WWII to begin with, to secure Natural Resources, especially Food, by Military means.
      Other Island Nations, like Britain and Australia, are much more self-sufficient. They would last much longer than Japan under a Blockade. Cuba has lasted decades, after all. (Blockades don't work with Land-bound Countries like Afghanistan; Borders are too porous.)

      "...all solid proof of Asian languages becoming more western..."
      Which is exactly what I said. More to the point, I pointed out that this was deliberate. Pinyin didn't just come about by accident.

      I can't make head or tails of the following, other than the oozing festering racism:
      "...people without slanted retard eyes want to speak like a slant-eyed retard".

      "Not a Trump voter or American..."
      Assuming that this is actually true, as well as this little nugget- "Also: lived in SE Asia.", I have to wonder about just why you have an interest in this subject. Tell us all about just how you swaggered your way around "SE Asia", showing utter contempt for everybody around you, without snuffing it. Was it perhaps because you were Armed? Did you terrify anybody that stood up to you? Were you, or are you, a Terrorist? Is that how you portrayed yourself, while frequenting the Whorehouses of the Far Eastern slums, Whorehouses made only possible by Customers like you?

      It is quite apparent that you are utterly ignorant of History, and the inevitability of it. Of all the outcomes of China becoming The Superpower, I welcome the Western adoption of Chinese Popular Culture the least. But there is nothing that I can do about it, and I have more important things to consider, at least in the near-term.
      I will die fairly soon, while preserving within myself some of the best of a dying Western Culture. The best, in my opinion. And nobody really cares any longer about the Political subversiveness of a "Cold Comfort Farm", or the Art, not the more commonly known Elements, of an Al Ghiorso.
      That's the biggest problem with the West now, nobody cares. The Western Malaise. China supplies the West with all that it cares about these days, keeping the best of China still for itself. Thus Walmart and Donald Trump. Forget Russia, that was last decade. The Trump Fortunes recently have been made in China. Just where do you think all of that Trump Trash, from MAGA Hats to Ivanka's Shoes, are made?
      BTW, China makes some really Cool stuff as well, from Desktop Icemakers to X-Ray Diffraction Gratings. Finest Kind. This is why China will Rule in the future. Westinghouse or Braun could have made a Desktop Icemaker, but they didn't. I got mine, fresh off of boat from China, at Home Depot, on sale, for $114. It even has a Schematic on the bottom, for dumb Westerners intrigued with just how they did it.
      The Diffraction Grating came in far below the quote from Siemens. $15K instead of $50K. We put it under a special kind of Microscope, one that uses RIXS. Just how in the hell did they manage the Monolayering for only $15K? It turns out that they used a very old French technique, pretty much forgotten in the West now, called "Optical Float". "Optical Float" was invented by the de Couci's, who made among other things, the Mirrors for the Wilson Observatory. (The de Couci's are an old Family; I am a distant relative from a distaff side.)

      "So it's not 'already happening' you old rice-pining faggot,..."
      Yes, I am old. I'm not p

    19. Re:Ultimately it could be good for all of us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I must be a rootin tootin Bible-belted hick with a truck + gunrack, and when I travel in foreign lands I am the quintessential Ugly American, barking at the swarthy locals in my brain-damaged idiot drawl.

      Still, its fascinating how my [indelicate] disdain of Chinese has turned into "You ignorant fuck" (did not insult you) an out-from-nowhere accusation of "Trump-voting" (at least we know your political feelings) and your earlier assertions of "don't care" which seems to contradict your pursuit of the topic.

      I did however, lole very hard at "in the Waters that very soon welcomed him". I can't make heads or tails of that particular extraneous detail, but I kind of hope you are wearing a smoking jacket and scowling at my post on some steampunk contraption in your library.

      I sincerely hope you don't die fairly soon.

    20. Re:Ultimately it could be good for all of us by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I would hate to see when they actually get good at it.

      I'm not holding my breath. So far they've always been bad at it, and any idea that they are actually producing anything on par with the rest of the world has been propaganda.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. Super interesting and funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't want to discuss if these measures are good or bad, but it is pretty funny that China,a country NOT knows for its environmental-friendly policies, now that tries to do something eco-friendly (that will affect all the world) faces problems and complaints by COMPANIES (and not even Chinese). And it hurts more than EU regulations because now it really affects the production. Well done China...

  8. Hand me my crystal ball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China says no
    Automakers struggle to cope, especially at the lower end of the market
    Chinese firms roll their own cheap electric car and corner huge market
    China leads world in electric car production while western automakers are relegated to "prestige" sales only
    Automakers lobby for regulatory capture in the EU / US to protect their positions
    They get it and now we can;t get good, cheap electric vehicles.

  9. Return of the command economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Traces of the old command economy shows up again. The government is trying to control the needs of the people. Granted, working for a better environment is a good thing -- however, they are trying to coerce companies to product to put products on the market that may not meet demand.

    What happens if the makers cannot meet the selling ratio of the ZEVs? They cannot be expected to cut back on the non-ZEVs, are they? That would lead to a shortage of vehicles (which is a typical sign of a command economy). I guess they will go with fines, which is a softer way to do the same thing.

    Most countries tax unwanted behaviour (CO2 emissions, petrol, alcohol), but those are usually targeted at product groups individually (e.g. all products of a certain kind get a penalty or tax reduction), whereas in this case, the government is trying to command the percentage to be a certain value at a certain time point in time.

    That's open loop control (i.e. command control) - contrast that to a closed loop system, which would use e.g. penalties, where the sales statistics (which would give real-world feedback which includes customer behaviour and needs, economy growth, market shifts etc) is used for evaluating the increase/decrease of the penalties to reach the politically desirable goal.

    Look at what open loop control as done for Venezuela... it's not pretty.

  10. Re:Simple solution to a complex problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think we should just hire thugs from unions to sabotage and destroy Chinese cars.

    American unions already have thugs that terrorize people that have non-union cars, and union members are usually happy to riot and destroy things they don't like.

    Union members are like black people in a way: they are happy to destroy their own communities in order to satisfy their sense of pride, even if in the long term it damages their chances of maintaining job security.

    Detroit is a good example of this.

  11. JAMA by schnipschnap · · Score: 3, Funny

    Coincidentally, "jama" means somethign like hindrance/obstacle/nuisance in Japanese. :)

    1. Re:JAMA by philmarcracken · · Score: 1

      I had a giggle at that too, wonder if its on purpose.

  12. Like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slow down, man.

  13. Re:Good for China by NReitzel · · Score: 4, 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.

    --

    Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.

  14. Office Space - The Greed Edition by geekmux · · Score: 1

    (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 you to move those pollution-cutting initiatives to the bottom of the priority list. If you could do that, that would be greeeat. Thanks."

    1. Re:Office Space - The Greed Edition by Tukz · · Score: 0

      Why do I grab on to my stabler when reading that?

      --
      - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
  15. So thats who John Galt is.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A non-competitive cry baby lobbyist looking for government handouts..

  16. Re:Good for China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Bah it WAS London and it always was a shithole how would you tell the difference?

    A notherner!

  17. Re:Simple solution to a complex problem by phayes · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  18. no such thing as a zero emission automobile by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    even a 100 % electric car just moved its tail pipe to the powerplant that produces the electricity, either coal, or natural gas or whatever, not until the power plants are 100% green will there be zero emission electric cars

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:no such thing as a zero emission automobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If power plants are 30% green, your car is 30% green. How do you get above 0% on diesel or petrol?

    2. Re:no such thing as a zero emission automobile by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:no such thing as a zero emission automobile by shilly · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:no such thing as a zero emission automobile by mark-t · · Score: 1

      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.

    5. Re:no such thing as a zero emission automobile by mark-t · · Score: 1

      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-emission when it, itself, is not producing any emissions is like saying that a clean water source that is being used to fill a dirty water-jug is not really clean because the water you get out from the jug is still dirty, In fact, how dirty the water jug may be is entirely superfluous, because if you could use a clean jug, then you'd get clean water from it, and this is also independent of whether or not you have the ability to use a clean jug.

    6. Re:no such thing as a zero emission automobile by blindseer · · Score: 1

      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.

      Sure, they are investing in wind and solar too but this is dwarfed by their nuclear energy efforts.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    7. Re:no such thing as a zero emission automobile by shilly · · Score: 1

      Both and, not either or

    8. Re:no such thing as a zero emission automobile by blindseer · · Score: 1

      While it is true that running a car off of bio-fuels is potentially low carbon what it is not is sustainable. We simply do not have enough land to grow both our food and our fuel.

      https://www.withouthotair.com/...

      I think one conclusion is clear: biofuels can't add up - at least, not in
      countries like Britain, and not as a replacement for all transport fuels. Even
      leaving aside biofuels' main defects - that their production competes with
      food, and that the additional inputs required for farming and processing
      often cancel out most of the delivered energy (figure 6.14) - biofuels made
      from plants, in a European country like Britain, can deliver so little power,
      I think they are scarcely worth talking about.

      What does seem viable is the seawater to jet fuel system that the US Navy is working on. By using nuclear power and some pretty basic chemistry we can get zero carbon fuel.

      http://www.businessinsider.com...

      Give me all the bullshit you like about nuclear waste scaremongering but here's the deal, nuclear power works now. This seawater to fuel technology works now. This does not require any new technology and 90% of the infrastructure to make this replace fossil fuels already exists by virtue of it being a hydrocarbon, just like the fossil fuels.

      We could be zero carbon in just a few decades if we went on this track, and 99.9% of the population would not even know it's happening. We'd need to issue nuclear power licenses at a rate of two per month in the USA to do it. That might sound like a lot until you compare it to how many cornfields, solar panels, and windmills it would take for the same energy.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    9. Re:no such thing as a zero emission automobile by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      We have more than enough unused desert land to grow enough algae to produce enough biofuel to replace 100 percent of our transportation fuel needs, using seawater pumped inland using solar thermal heat pipes. It would be a nontrivial project, but well within our manufacturing capabilities.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:no such thing as a zero emission automobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you, fish tits.

    11. Re:no such thing as a zero emission automobile by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Algae fuel is experimental. People have done hydrocarbon synthesis for a very long time. The only switch on this process is using nuclear power to drive the process. We've been doing nuclear power for a long time too, but there's a lot we can gain yet on that.

      So, sure, go do that algae experiment and see how that works out. I have an idea on how well that would work out because Dr. MacKay did the math on that too.

      http://www.withouthotair.com/c...

      The best you can get from solar power is about 1000 W/m^2, that's a top limit. The processes we have to convert that sun into useful energy are incredibly inefficient. And, again, there is a top limit based on the area and if we can only extract 10%, 20%, or 30% of that then that is a lot of area needed. Nuclear power today gets ten times the power by area, and we've only started on that. 1000W with maybe 1500W on the top end for solar compared to 1000w on the bottom end for nuclear and any form of solar, including algae, cannot compete.

      I used to think algae was a great idea too, but then I saw the math.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    12. Re:no such thing as a zero emission automobile by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      while china is a joke on their emissions (80-85% coal for their electricity), most of the west is only around 50-55% fossil fuel. In America, we are at 30% coal for our electricity and it will continue downwards.
      So, not 100%, but for the west and most nations (not CHina), it is way way cleaner than ICE.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    13. Re:no such thing as a zero emission automobile by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Once you have cheap, plentiful, reliable, and exceedingly safe nuclear power then why bother with wind or solar? Is it to be "green"? Nuclear power has the lowest carbon output of any energy source we have, with a possible exception to hydroelectric, and damming rivers has it's own environmental issues.

      You want to claim nuclear power is not plentiful? Look it up.
      You want to claim nuclear power is not reliable? Look it up.
      You want to claim nuclear power is not safe? Look it up.
      You want to claim nuclear power is not cheap? This we might have an argument but only because of politics, not physics or economics. Compared to nuclear power wind and solar take more land, concrete, steel, or any resource you can think of, and they call cost money. Remove the political barriers and nuclear gets real cheap.

      The only reason we are investing in wind and solar is because of politics and the subsidies that follow, remove the politics and they get expensive.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    14. Re:no such thing as a zero emission automobile by shilly · · Score: 1

      Diversity of energy supply is a good thing and reliance on single source is a bad thing

    15. Re:no such thing as a zero emission automobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I notice you jump around comparing coal vs fossil fuel as a direct comparison wouldn't look so good. Plus you are using very old numbers for China's coal use. Much closer to 60% (2016) and decreasing every year.

      China coal + gas = 65%
      America coal+gas = 65%
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs...

    16. Re:no such thing as a zero emission automobile by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Algae fuel is kind of experimental, but only because bp and Dupont shell company butamax is fighting ge energy ventures subsidiary gevo to prevent them from selling is fuel, on the basis of a patent which was developed at a university (thus partially with our money) and which should have been denied due to obviousness. The basic Abe process was invented in the 1800s, it's not rocket science. In fact, it's mining science. Turning the lipid components into biodiesel or green diesel is even better-understood. If you think the technological hurdles are what are holding up such a plan, you are not sufficiently familiar with the issue to provide useful input.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:no such thing as a zero emission automobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you, fish tits!

    18. Re:no such thing as a zero emission automobile by blindseer · · Score: 1

      If you think the technological hurdles are what are holding up such a plan, you are not sufficiently familiar with the issue to provide useful input.

      I'm pretty sure that what is holding it up is that it is impractical.

      The most productive algae systems require CO2 pumped into them. This is usually sourced from CO2 rich gases like that from coal fired industry. If we aren't burning coal more, because it got rare and expensive, then where is this CO2 coming from? If we are still burning coal then there are more efficient means available to us to convert coal to liquid fuels than algae.

      Separating the CO2 from the air or taking it out of solution from water takes energy. Where is this energy coming from? If you use solar power then the solar collectors for the CO2 "mining" increases the area needed considerably. If you are using nuclear power, or any other source of electricity really, to "mine" the CO2 then why bother with the algae process? We already have proven technology to turn electricity into liquid fuels and they don't require large solar collectors.

      Lacking the concentration of CO2 in the process means efficiency drops, areas required increases substantially, which means costs go up as well.

      The limitation on solar power available per area is already a considerable hurdle. The conversion efficiency of algae to turn that solar energy into something we can use as fuel is another large hurdle. We cannot fix these with technology, except by leaving out the solar and algae parts.

      Go read what Dr. MacKay wrote on the topic on his website, he lays out the case against algae well.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    19. Re:no such thing as a zero emission automobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      things have changed...
      the latest generation of large scale solar and wind are the 2 cheapest kinds of new power plants these days, and china is building humongous amounts of both

  19. How about this? by buss_error · · Score: 1

    How about the US repeal the nonsense "chick war" tariff on pick up trucks? see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
  20. Re:Good for China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The big difference is that now you can actually see how shit it is.

  21. Bad news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's as if nobody wants an electric rocket.

  22. the whole world... by sad_ · · Score: 1

    ...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.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  23. Because you haven't thoought through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Beiong an idiot, you haven't considered that automobiles are a system, not a collection of disjoint components. It's not changing one component; it's changing the entire design.

    Further, foreigh automakers are only allowed to compete in the luxury market. That's hardly a fair comparison.

  24. China has a lot of influence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If people don't remember China implemented a bigger tax on any engine above 1.5 liter. Its no wonder US automakers started building these tiny turbo engines just under that capacity. China has a big influence on products because they have a large economy that buys a lot of cars. Personally though I think EV cars are oversold as the next gen of vehicles. I think a more gradual change over involving a move to hybrids, and more efficient gasoline engines seem far more practical for the foreseeable future. Mostly because we lack real understanding of impact having large numbers of EV will have. Such as electrical grids, charging station availability, and disposal of large numbers of batteries. None of which is addressed, all were sold on is lower emissions. That's just focusing only on one positive and not the negative impacts.

  25. Heating and charging - both solved issues. by robbak · · Score: 1

    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 roadtrip. Small price to pay for never seeing the inside of a gas station!

    --
    Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
    1. Re:Heating and charging - both solved issues. by blindseer · · Score: 1

      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 and volume, both of which count against you in fuel economy. You can optimize for cabin comfort or you can optimize for fuel economy, you cannot have both. Physics is physics and an internal combustion engine has gobs of waste heat for the cabin as a matter of course, electric vehicles do not. Hydrocarbon fuels have an energy density that is roughly two orders of magnitude greater than any battery technology out there. There is just no way that an electric vehicle can compete on range and time to refuel/recharge.

      Once at an Apple developer conference I met a man that did the drive from Des Moines, Iowa to Cupertino, California in 24 hours. You can't do that in an electric vehicle. I don't care how many charging station are on the way. For those of you that did the math that means an AVERAGE speed of about 75 miles per hour. In the open expanses of the prairie in the middle of the night it is easy to go 90mph and not meet a single other vehicle for hours. He said he took a 2 hour nap somewhere in the middle, and it may not have been exactly 24 hours, but we are still in the ballpark of 75mph.

      Those people that want to do 600 mile road trips with any regularity are not going to get an electric vehicle. A person might not be as crazy as that gentleman I met to want a gas car. If an electric vehicle takes 10 hours to get to the intended destination and the gas car does it in 9 hours then people will naturally gravitate towards the gas car.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:Heating and charging - both solved issues. by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "Those people that want to do 600 mile road trips with any regularity are not going to get an electric vehicle. A person might not be as crazy as that gentleman I met to want a gas car. If an electric vehicle takes 10 hours to get to the intended destination and the gas car does it in 9 hours then people will naturally gravitate towards the gas car." - If you are on a corridor of superchargers, its not an issue. If your bladder can take it, you just stop for a 1 hour lunch at a supercharger station mid journey in an EV. Also check the cost of your journey, how much cash will you have left in your pocket after filling up a gas car a few times and how much pollution have you pumped out of the exhaust as opposed to an EV for the same journey. Fuel cost and pollution output might be more important to the driver.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    3. Re: Heating and charging - both solved issues. by Rei · · Score: 1

      Re, heating: the heater itself is only part of the winter losses. From your baseline 200-300mi highway range, a general rule of thumb for a Tesla is one mile of range lost per degree Fahrenheit or 3km per degree celcius, below 50F/10C or so, from both interior heating and reduced battery capacity / increased battery heating needs. On top of this light to moderate snow accumulation on the roads will cost you about 25% additional range.

      At low speeds, heating costs you more of your range, because it means more if your time driving. (On the other hand, low speeds dramatically increases range, and also, who spends 10 hours a day in only low-speed driving? Maybe if you're a courier operating in downtown LA. ..)

      To the EV's cold-weather benefit, the vehicle can preheat from mains power, either by command on the app or by schedule.

      In hot weather, its a bit more complicated as battery range increases offset cooling, and cooling power needs are nonlinear. But in general, you go further in hot weather than cold.

      --
      Nietzche: "I'm immortal because I'm all sin." Jesus: "I forgive you." (Bang!) -- Jesus Christ Supercop
    4. Re:Heating and charging - both solved issues. by minogully · · Score: 1

      To add a comparison point. There was recently a new EV record set from a Tesla. They drove from California to New York.
      Total time: 51 hours, 54 minutes, 18 seconds
      Average moving speed: 76 mph
      Overall average speed: 54 mph

      Sure, gas cars are the winner here. But EVs aren't far behind any longer so this is becoming more and more of an edge case.

      "But, but, but, I NEED my method of transport to be able to drive cross country at more than 54mph!!!", sounds an awful lot like, "But, but, but, I NEED my method of transport to be able to jump over obstacles when they appear!!!"

    5. Re:Heating and charging - both solved issues. by Rei · · Score: 1

      And my reaction to the guy going the aforementioned 1836 miles in 24 hours on public roads: it's a shame he wasn't arrested for endangering the public. Sleep deprivation combined with high speeds is nothing to boast about.

      Today's crop of electric vehicles lets you do cross country trips as fast as is safe to do. The charging "downtime" is roughly the same people are supposed to take (and commercial drivers are required to take in many countries). For example, in the EU it's "a break or breaks totalling at least 45 minutes after no more than 4 hours 30 minutes driving". A commercial driver doing more than that is breaking the law.

      --
      Nietzche: "I'm immortal because I'm all sin." Jesus: "I forgive you." (Bang!) -- Jesus Christ Supercop
  26. Re:Good for China by avandesande · · Score: 1

    electric cars will make coal burning worse

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  27. Re:Good for China by BlackSupra · · Score: 1

    Further reading:

    0] TL;DR - Photos - https://www.theatlantic.com/ph...

    1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    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/...

  28. 30% efficient IC car, or 60% efficient power plant by robbak · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's the full story. Petrol engines are really inefficient, and can't save more energy by doing things like regenerative braking. Even if your electric car is powered by 100% fossil fuel plants, you are way ahead because the power stations are much more efficient. And you can do more flue gas cleaning at a large power station than you can do on a million car's exhaust pipes. And then, with every extra bit of renewable power that hits the grids, your EV becomes even cleaner.

    --
    Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
  29. Sign of weakness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet that a good number of Chinese vehicle manufacturers could enter the US market and compete well. That is capitalism, and the folks who win are average Americans. GM has been sitting on its ass for 30 years. Look at GM Sunrayce aka the American Solar Challenge. They knew all the components and had access to the best/brightest minds starting 30 years ago. They could have been anywhere, but decided the SUV was their preferred direction.

    I think that the auto-makers coming to China like that is a sign of profound weakness. It means that China is going to make a technological leap ahead of the US, and "eat the world" with electric vehicles. If we Americans sit on our collective butts for the entire duration of CAREERS of engineers, we have no place in the world to complain if someone else works. We have no place in the world to complain if we fall behind.

    The decisions of these companies were made with open eyes. They have monopolies in the US, so they don't have to innovate. This is how a monopoly dies. It gets brittle in its stagnation, and can't respond to the competition. Competition. Isn't that the critical part of a capitalist economy? And US companies are literally begging China to stop. That is irony. That is humor. And that is a confession on their part that they are able to be vigorously and unilaterally defeated on the true field of battle: the marketplace.

    Best of luck, China, at being the leader in innovation, and the leading capitalist economy on the planet.

  30. Re: Good for China by that+this+is+not+und · · 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?"

  31. Manufacturers don't control sales... by kenh · · Score: 2

    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...

    --
    Ken
    1. Re:Manufacturers don't control sales... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      then,I guess that the western car makers need to get off their ass and start developing REAL EVs.
      The fact is, that they have known for nearly a decade that EVs were going to come to the world, butt hey have purposely dragged their feet. So, you may wish to continue trying to push their BS, but not me.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:Manufacturers don't control sales... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like it worked. Customers got better mileage cars and were subsidised by the gas guzzlers to do it. It got a lot more on the road, and showed how good they could be. Surely creating more demand for them. If car makers keep making cars that are bad for the environment they should cost more. Thats a feature in the system not a bug. It's kind of the point of targets like that.

  32. Dear Assholes by QuebecNerd · · Score: 1

    You had years if not decades to prepare for this. I'm looking at you too Mazda, Subaru, Honda and Toyota with your absent or weak offering.... You had the facilities, the know how and the people. Instead startups developed the technology from scratch as most of you chose to drag your feet as slowly as possible to artificially preserve your old business model. Now you're crying over the fact the you're not ready and that the world is changing too fast... You don't deserve ANY pity as you are the artisan of your own demise.

  33. Re:Simple solution to a complex problem by kenh · · Score: 1

    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...

    --
    Ken
  34. Obvious protectionism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China is the most protectionist significant trading entity in the world. They have stipulations for trade in their country that are positively draconian compared to the rest of the industrialized world. This is just more of it. And the loons are coming out in support. I'm all for improvements but electric vehicles are not really ready for general purposes. Does China have the electrical infrastructure in place? What is the envelope that auto manufacturers are supposed to operate within when designing electric vehicles for the Chinese market?

        Manufacturing does not turn on a dime. Is the supply chain even in place to make the number of cars required by this regulation? It is impossible to take this regulation introduced by China as being honest. Electric vehicles are still niche. The market and general population's notions of desirable options is not yet decided in general much less down to detail. Charge times and low range are very real. Application of electric is not feasible for many needs. When China declares this quota for next year it is being bald faced abusive. There is no way manufacturers can design, establish supply, build plant facilities and move product on that schedule. It is literally impossible to reasonably conclude that China is honest in their decision.

    The other ulterior motive is also blatantly plain. China has no significant electric car manufacturing at all right now. Levying fines and creating disorder among the existing makers will SLOW DOWN THEIR ABILITY TO INTRODUCE ELECTRIC CARS and reduce their capitalization ability in the future. This will give Chinese manufacturing time to become established. But the loons don't even get that tooling up to introduce already well established tech for a new market like China isn't feasible in less than a year so gathering that this measure by China will actually inhibit the development of electric cars is not even on their radar. It requires too much thinking and knowing for the guy that has dressed up his blog to look like a website. Well at least he has chosen the low hanging fruit for making a buck.

    I look forward to the continued development and introduction of electric cars but this Chinese measure in no way supports those efforts. It is an abusive act formulated to harm non-Chinese businesses and acts as a drag on human progress.

  35. Re:Good for China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes they will consume more electricity, but this is only one part of the effort, the other being replacing coal plants. But this still works for China in the short term because the largest problem areas are large most populous cities like Beijing where the coal and car fumes combine to create crazy unhealthy smog due to perfectly suited climatic conditions of the area. Even with burning more coal having their cities free of local pollutants decreases the concentration, and toxicity is in the quantity.

  36. let them breath cake by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    "listen, it's too bad you can't breath the air, but we've got to protect our profits or the shareholders will revolt"

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  37. Re:Simple solution to a complex problem by gtall · · Score: 2

    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, and when it was realized dictatorships were inherently unstable.

    At the time the U.S. dropped the 2 nukes, the planning on the U.S. side was for between a 250,000 to 1,000,000 man invasion of Japan. MacArthur, being about as bright as yer basic dolt, figured it could be done on the cheap. Nimitz knew better. Truman then had to decide what to do. Germany had been defeated, the will to finish the war was ebbing in the U.S. An undefeated Japan meant another war in the future when an emboldened USSR had already taken half of Europe and Mao let Chiang-Kai-shek exhaust his forces against the Japanese figuring the U.S. would defeat Japan and China could descend into the hell he had in mind for it. Given the stakes, at this point the U.S. had already suffered hundreds of thousands of dead, and now he was asked to either (1) sign up for a few more, or (2) see if he couldn't scare the Japanese into stopping. He opted for the latter, arguing for the former meant explaining to the American people how they needed to sacrifice more for maybe a few years more. Sooner or later, word of the atomic bomb would have gotten out. And then he'd have to explain why he hadn't used it to stop the war sooner. Oh, and an invasion of Japan would have resulted more than a million Japanese dead as well, they were arming their school kids with pitchforks to fight the Americans at all costs. And they would have done it for the Emperor.

  38. Re:Simple solution to a complex problem by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

    What a delightfully BS rationalization about something you don't understand...

    I understand perfectly well that consent is manufactured in the modern media era, and that we acted unscrupulously during WWII. The idea that we were angels with no other choice in Japan is a shit one. We might have needed to drop one bomb, we did not need to drop two.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  39. Not really sucking up in film industry by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    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 allow it in as it is now because Facebook tools could be used to spread protests easily.

    However, I think you're way off base in the film industry criticism. Things are getting better for black people in Hollywood now. I'm not saying they are perfect, but they are certainly a lot better than, say, 10 years ago. Asian and HIspanic people are very badly underrepresented in Hollywood right now and I'm not going to complain about anything that gets them more exposure. I'm an American caucasian, but I like the film industries of China, Japan and South Korea in general and watch their films from time to time. So for me, if there are more Asians on the screen, that is a good thing, wherever they are from. You need to understand too that China in particular is a massive market with a foreign film quota system and Hollywood is severely limited in what it can even show there. For this reason, Hollywood is actively seeking major financial backing from Chinese investors because if Chinese companies help pay for a Hollywood production, that can be used to get the film considered as a "local" production and get past the quota. So if these investors require as a condition that more Asian actors get used, more power to them. And some American productions deliberately use big name Asian actors (ie. Rogue One) as a drawing card for getting more butts in theaters in Asia. I'm not seeing anything wrong with that. If a guy like John Cho gets better roles as a result of this kind of thing, I'm seeing that as a big plus.

    1. Re:Not really sucking up in film industry by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where you went with the race-obsessed thing, but you finally hit the nail on the head right before you finished.

      And some American productions deliberately use big name Asian actors (ie. Rogue One) as a drawing card for getting more butts in theaters in Asia. I'm not seeing anything wrong with that. If a guy like John Cho gets better roles as a result of this kind of thing, I'm seeing that as a big plus.

      This is what I was talking about. It's not a drawing card. Only ignorant people would assume that. It's blatant pandering to China and Chinese audiences see right through it. It's a modern cliche that many Hollywood blockbusters these days will have a Chinese actor inserted into the middle of a scene for no reason. Audiences groan when it happens, and it happens in movie after movie. It's gotten to the point where it's just embarrassing, but Hollywood didn't get the memo and keeps doing it.

      People don't come to see movies to see people's race like you assume. People come to see movies because they're good movies.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Not really sucking up in film industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But without Chinese money bankrolling the production, and Chinese consumers buying the tickets. There won't be as many good movies anymore.

  40. I applaud China (world now ends) by bigdady92 · · Score: 1

    for sticking to it's guns and giving the finger to the automakers. I hope they force innovation or the destruction of the automotive industry and give it the change it needs. This way we will FINALLY see competition for Tesla in the states.

    --
    Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
  41. They're not ENGINES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are motors. Specifically A/C motors. Very common.

    Also, there is no need for a transmission,
    or an alternator
    or belts
    or oil
    or spark plugs
    or an exhaust
    or an intake
    or emissions control systems
    etc.

    All that is needed is a controller and a battery. With the exception of the Leaf, add a cooling system for the battery. See for yourself.

    It is hard to believe that automakers can't make something this simple within a year. They have had at least 20 years since CARB mandated it.

    1. Re:They're not ENGINES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'It is hard to believe that automakers can't make something this simple [youtube.com] within a year. They have had at least 20 years since CARB mandated it.'

      They invested in defeat devices.

  42. Simple solution by PPH · · Score: 1

    With every car you buy, you also get a bicycle. Instant 50% ZEV market penetration.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  43. Re:Simple solution to a complex problem by phayes · · Score: 1

    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 has his magic crystal ball that gives him omniscient powers... Well that's what he thinks anyway.

    --
    Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  44. Re:Simple solution to a complex problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US dropped 2 nukes to scare Japan into submission before we had to race the USSR to eradicate them and claim the territory. (That's why there was a East and West Berlin ... )

    The land invasion of Japan would have been an exercise in extermination, just like the island hopping throughout the Pacific was. There was no other way to fight an enemy that would die before surrendering. Just what do you think would have happened if we started the mainland invasion via Okinawa and the USSR landed in Northern Japan? Would Japan have conceded or would they have tried to fight to the last man while inflicting as many casualties as possible? We only had past performance on which to gauge their future actions. Scaring them into submission saved millions of lives. American, Soviet and Japanese lives.

  45. I guess it's like a “kick me” sign by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

    Looks like a fine way to boost Chinese industry by refusing to fill demand It’s kinda like walking around with a ”kick me” sign taped to your back

  46. Re:Good for China by wvmarle · · Score: 1

    Of course, having people sick from air so dirty that some people can't breathe is expensive also

    Don't forget the social discontent that will rise when the housing market finally collapses. Now the people are overall happy enough to ignore this and other major problems in China... but one event can very well trigger discontent across the board, and keeping the country socially stable is more important than keeping it healthy (the second is just a tool to achieve the first).

  47. Psst.... Toyota and Audi too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Electrek via Auto News via Germany's WirtschaftsWoche magazine... why not post to the less biased article instead of the "all automakers are bad but Tesla" one?

    There is a whole lotta bitching about American companies in this thread. Kinda ignoring the fact that the Koreans, the Japanese and the European manufacturers are part of this complaint too. You know, like Toyota with all the hybrids, Nissan who makes the Leaf electric...

    People seem to be ignoring the fact that there are a lot of electric only vehicles already for sale. Roughly 700-800,000 sold last year worldwide. This isn't about producing them, it is about getting the production and intellectual property to China. Electric vehicle production is ramping up at every automotive manufacturer, and China basically threw a tantrum and wants it all built in the homeland. Tesla didn't complain because they recently negotiated their own agreement with China for production there, and didn't want to stir the pot.

    One of the points is that the Global OEMs are asking for the same subsidy that China already gives to Chinese OEMs.
    That is assuming the Chinese market can bear 8-12% electric sales vehicles in the next few years. California has had a requirement for many years and is just now approaching 5-6% sales. I couldn't find hard numbers quickly, but that seems to be a good, but high estimate.

  48. Re:Good for China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man, I can't even count how much coal is burned to keep my hydroelectricly generated energy going.

  49. HAH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Adapt or get out of the away dino burners.

  50. Re:Simple solution to a complex problem by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Only a disingenuous douchebag would suggest that i am the first person to point this out. But keep making excuses so that you can feel better about how proud you are that we nuked the Japanese twice.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  51. retro fit by bigtreeman · · Score: 1

    When an auto OEM company works out a system to retrofit electric motors to petrol cars we will see a drastic turn around.
    rip out petrol engine, petrol tank and drive train.
    Install batteries in place of engine, install electric motors, control system
    Install charger at home on solar system.

    --
    Go well
  52. Re:Good for China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China is getting aggressive towards cleaning up their act.

    FWIW, in January China cancelled 104 new coal power plants with a capacity equal to one-third of the current coal capacity in the US.

    Also, their emissions requirements for coal plants are so strict that by 2020 exactly zero US coal plants would be clean enough to legally operate in china.

  53. Hopefully, china's gov does NOT cave by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Seriously, if they do, they are as much an idiot as Trump is.
    China's reason for doing EVs is to that they can use coal to power their vehicles, and not depend on imports. In addition, they know that if they are aggressive with regard to EV sales, then western companies will not be able to keep up with CHina.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  54. Re:30% efficient IC car, or 60% efficient power pl by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    uh no.
    In china, they run all of their coal plants WITHOUT pollution controls. As such, ICE cars in china are LESS polluting than are the coal plants.
    In addition, in CHina, the average coal plant is high 40s. It is only those in the last couple of years that are in the mid 50s. In fact, the world's most efficient coal plant is only 61.5% and that just opened last year in Germany.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  55. Re:Good for China by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    so many idiots here.
    Let me ask you something. How exactly will those EVs be powered? By their electrical grid. And what is their main sources of electricity in their grid? Well, it turns out that it is 80-85% COAL.
    Now, where exactly do you think that they will get the majority of their electricity from for charging during the nighttime? It will NOT be solar. Yeah. COAL.
    China is NOT pushing EVs for cleaning up their air. They are pushing it in hopes of destroying western car makers, along with dropping their oil imports to ZERO. They are perfectly happy to increase all of their coal burning from 60% , to 90%, load. IOW, the grid will go from 80-85% coal based to about 90-95% coal.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  56. Re:30% efficient IC car, or 60% efficient power pl by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    BTW, the CHinese coal fleet is pretty low at around 38.6% efficiency.
    Of course, that is better efficiency than Europe's (38) and Americas (37.4).

    Of course, the real problem is NOT efficiency, but amount of it being burned.
    CHina has 1.2TW of coal plants running at 60% load factor, while BOTH America and Europe are at .25 TW running ~90-95% load. Note that this means that Europe and America can NOT increase their emissions from coal without building new plants. OTOH, about 700 GW of electricity for china is coming from its coal, and it can add another .5 GW over night. That is a LOT. IOW, just by running their current plants, they will use more coal than Europe and America COMBINED.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  57. Re:Good for China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You complete retard !!
    China is using less and less coal every year. China is expanding green power faster than just about any country. Can you google even a tiny bit? Did Trump and the Republicans make knowledge that shameful that you refuse to learn?

  58. Re:30% efficient IC car, or 60% efficient power pl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you work for a coal PR company, or are you just ignorant?

    China could increase it's coal use. America could also declare renewables illegal and mandate coal be spread on your cornflakes each morning. Both are just as likely to happen. Coal is on the decline in China and has been for a few years now. Peak coal in China has already happened, back in 2013. Have you been asleep since then?

    So you admit China's plants are the most efficient, but instead of realising they are shutting the least efficient, and making their total efficiency even better, you think they will throw the whole system into reverse? Why exactly?

  59. you fuckwit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What complete bullshit. Coal use in China peaked in 2013 and if falling year by year. What rock have you been hiding under?

  60. Dear China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear China,
    on behalf of the people, please push for the clean option.
    We will hold you in high regard for doing what is right. We do not care about yesterday's car makers that don't seek to be tomorrow's car makers. Neither should you, and we trust that neither will you.

    Sincerely,
    People worldwide outside of oil and car industries

  61. Re:Simple solution to a complex problem by phayes · · Score: 1

    I never thought nor claimed that you were the first to perform your acts of hindsight and revisionism (and am thus not the target of your charming potty mouth) but that doesn't change my opinion of those who snarkily divorce themselves from the realities of the times and judge acts taken as poor while dismissing acts untaken as somehow better without any proof beyond their opinioin.

    That's why my comments on your revisionism concerned your flippant dismissal of the deaths of all those who certainly would have died had that other path been taken.

    But that magical crystal ball of yours gives you the certitude that your revisionism is free of any unwanted secondary effects and leaves you so very high up on that imaginary high ground you imagine that you live upon.

    --
    Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  62. Re:Good for China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    electric cars will make coal burning worse

    but you like burning coal, maybe you retard

  63. Re:Simple solution to a complex problem by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I never thought nor claimed that you were the first to perform your acts of hindsight and revisionism

    False. Here's where you did it:

    But drinkypoo has his magic crystal ball that gives him omniscient powers... Well that's what he thinks anyway.

    You clearly imply here that this idea came from my mind here, when you suggest that these ideas came from my crystal ball. You don't even know what you're saying, kid.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  64. Re:Simple solution to a complex problem by phayes · · Score: 1

    Snort, that's called _sarcasm_ drinkypoo.

    You claimed to _know_ that dropping the bombs was a mistake without any consideration for what would have happened had another path been taken: (the millions of allied troops and Japanese population that _would_ have died had WWII not come to a rapid conclusion.)

    You clearly have given _no_ thought to how these much more numerous deaths impinge on the morality of your stand, thus my mockery of how you came to hold it as being magical -- because it clearly isn't logical.

    --
    Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  65. Basilbrush the troll by phayes · · Score: 1

    Yet another content free post from basilbrush.

    The USA is not China's only rival, you twit & not even the biggest (that would be Japan & Korea had you actually been capable of reading and understanding what I posted previously) but you keep missing the point there troll boy. The point is that China _cannot_ make more batteries without more lithium and all foreseeable supplies have already been bespoken.

    Come on trollboy post a reference for how China is going to two magnitudes more batteries.

    But you won't.

    Because you cannot.

    Because you are a troll.

    --
    Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    1. Re: Basilbrush the troll by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Oh dear, you do seem to be getting hot under the collar.

      You seem to think battery production is limited by availability of lithium. But it's not. And China is just as capable of buying it on the world market as any other country. As well as using their own not inconsiderable reserves.

      The fact is there is no barrier on China producing lithium batteries.