[HankB99]

> A good old ICE car will be cheaper to make than an EV

How much of that is the result of the relatively maturity of the technology? We've been continuously improving ICE based transportation for well over a hundred years. It's been a lot shorter for electric vehicles.

I suspect that there are bigger strides to make with electrics that may eventually turn that around.

[fsckboy]

>How much of that is the result of the relatively maturity of the technology?

that's a real effect though, it's not something something you throw overboard, it's the bouyancy that keeps you from sinking.

[echelon]

> I suspect that there are bigger strides to make with electrics that may eventually turn that around.

After many more billions are spent.

Is the American consumer going to eat that cost? The government clearly lost its appetite as it isn't subsidizing EVs anymore.

The US has cheap fuel and it isn't a strategic issue to develop EVs except to keep US auto internationally competitive.

US consumers are still really into big SUVs and trucks and almost all of the models are ICE instead of EVs. The EV manufacturers don't really fit the shape of the American consumer that they haven't already sold to.

China jumped on EVs because they wanted to start an automotive sector for (1) heavy industry, (2) adjacency to national defense, (3) strong new domestic and export market they could corner, (4) it's adjacent to their other manufacturing industries. Critically, they had a deep reservoir of Chinese citizens who were first time car buyers that they could nudge into buying domestic auto. No other nation on earth has the outsized advantage of having such a deep bench of new customers to subsidize a new industry. The stars aligned for China.

America has neither the interest nor the capital to chase EVs or force them down American consumer throats.

[dalyons]

> America has neither the interest nor the capital to chase EVs or force them down American consumer throats.

Ok so dont, but take the tariffs off batteries, and allow foreign EVs to compete fairly. We'll get affordable EVs, and then we'll see what the american consumer actually wants. No? Oh, i guess its about something other than consumer choice after all.

[thelastgallon]

>America has neither the interest nor the capital to chase EVs or force them down American consumer throats.

But America always has the interest and capital to protect oil interests and supply chains worldwide by being the biggest spender on military, funded by taxpayers.

[ascorbic]

The rest of the world is continuing to move to EVs, and while the US has a different taste in vehicles than most of the world, the underlying tech is the same, so they'll benefit from the advances made in Europe and Asia.

[re-thc]

> America has neither the interest nor the capital to chase EVs or force them down American consumer throats.

Only if you see the market continue to be dominated by human drivers. We are potentially moving to self-driving cars like Waymo, Tesla etc then they will get the choice to force what car they like.

> The government clearly lost its appetite as it isn't subsidizing EVs anymore.

More like "the current" government. It can always change.

[NetMageSCW]

That potentially is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting for fifty to one hundred years.

[re-thc]

> for fifty to one hundred years

Ballmer in 2007 also said the iPhone was not going to get any significant market share. It didn't even take close to fifty years, did it?

[ghaff]

No conflict of interest there.

It did take a few years after 2007 before it became obvious to pretty much everyone that the iPhone was going to be a huge hit but took a little while before some oddities in the original software were corrected and people adjusted to not having a physical keyboard which some thought was going to be a dealbreaker out of the gate.