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