[Retric]

You don’t need to subsidize domestic companies to adjust for currency exchange rate manipulation.

The government could for example impose a tariff that covers half the difference thus maintaining an unfair advantage for Chinese companies. Thus profiting from the manipulation without placing excessive burden on domestic companies.

[rapidfl]

Agree subsidies does not seem like the correct incentive structure. But that's what the other guy is doing so I guess that's what we have to do.

In general, can the EV industry survive without government subsidies? Maybe now it can in the US.

Also not convinced EVs (as they are currently) are vastly superior to ICE cars. Not accounting for the potential for ICE cars to vastly improve if there wasn't so much vested interest. So the whole EV industry seems a bit unsustainable...

[api]

As an EV owner, and not even of a top end model (Nissan Leaf 220mi range model), the last paragraph is nuts.

If you can charge at home it’s like 1/4 the price of driving on gasoline per mile. That’s not counting the fact that it takes basically zero maintenance other than tire rotation. I think there’s some fluids you want to refresh at 100k miles, but that’s it.

Compared to a gas car it’s like a free to drive car.

It also drives better. You get used to instant full torque fast. Even an economy EV like the Leaf feels like driving an ICE sports car. In some ways it’s better since the response has no latency. When I drive an ICE car it feels laggy and mushy. Also seems loud and smelly and “steampunk”.

Recharge time and range are still better for ICE, but that’s literally the only advantage. EVs are superior in every other way: cost to operate, lack of maintenance, efficiency, acceleration, torque, quiet operation, and so on.

I’ve read a few analyses that claim that driving an EV is still better in terms of emissions than an average gas car even if you get 100% of your power from coal (very few do). This is because small heat engines suck and because gas takes tons of energy just to go from oil well to pump. A big supercritical turbine in a coal plant has much better thermal efficiency than any car engine, and oil has to be shipped and refined (very energy intensive) then post-processed then shipped again and all that counts against the overall efficiency.

EVs are just better. If the charge and range gap can close, ICE is obsolete for all but niche uses.

[Retric]

For almost everyone with home charging, EV’s are a substantial win even without subsidies. There’s so many little wins like being able to turn the car on to warm up in a garage without filling it with exhaust. That’s a long way from every driver, but the EV industry doesn’t need to make up every car sale to survive just fine.

ICE cars can’t get vastly better they are simply too close to fundamental limits. It’s quickly becoming a competition between hybrids and EV’s.

[rapidfl]

That's my point about ICE not innovating enough. And of course hybrid would be one of the innovations. Also it should have more electronic luxuries and connectivity to match the newly designed EVs. Hybrids would carry a bigger battery that can pre warm without engine running.

ICE itself is close to fundamental limits. But iiuc other parts like frames and chasis are not, like they could be lighter and stronger.

ICE cars have bigger mileage than equivalent EVs? Meaning you fill gas once every few weeks in 5 mins.

> EV’s are a substantial win even without subsidies

Why are they subsidized then? It is somehow better than no subsidies from the company's viewpoint.

[Retric]

> Meaning you fill gas once every few weeks in 5 mins.

Home charging supplies more energy with less cost and effort. It’s physically impossible for ICE cars to win here as I will park at home and stay at home for a while, I don’t need to go to a gas station and then stand around for a few minutes.

> Why are they subsidized then?

Initially it was all about helping the technology become competitive, which it has.

As to why it’s a good idea, ICE cars have negative externalities due to tailpipe emissions. Much like cigarettes burning stuff = public health hazard. Mandatory catalytic converters help, but as I benefit when you buy an EV instead of a ICE car I don’t mind chipping in for some of the cost of an EV.

The alternative of simply taxing ICE engines or gas etc would be equally effective tool, just harder to pass politically.

[rapidfl]

The negative externality of EV car manufacturing seems net worse (today) per car. Harsher chemicals, more mining, more processing, lesser life of a car and battery, less mature tech so more wastage, etc.

Tesla might be responsible but almost all other EVs are likely externalizing a lot in their supply chain.

Anyway according to Gemini: ``` In the U.S., a typical EV becomes "cleaner" than a gas car after about 15,000 to 20,000 miles (roughly 1.5 to 2 years of driving).

If your primary concern is climate change, the EV is the clear winner after about 1.5 years. If your concern is local land/human rights impact, the EV has a heavier "upfront" cost that requires better regulation to solve. ```

EV is the way to go but is it going to scale sustainably to say 25% or more of all cars? Apparently yes, with the new battery tech in the pipeline.

[Retric]

> Harsher chemicals, more mining, more processing, lesser life of a car and battery, less mature tech so more wastage, etc.

Extracting, manufacturing, and transporting gas more than offsets those differences. Oil refineries are nasty not to mention mid to large scale oil spills.

> EV is the way to go but is it going to scale sustainably to say 25% or more of all cars?

EV’s are already 20% of global sales, will it scale isn’t some deep question 5x current production would be completely replacing ICE cars.

[eggnet]

I assume you're joking, but this is just sales tax.

[Retric]

Tariffs are quite different than a sales tax because they can select winners and losers in a market. Cane sugar vs sugar beets etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_beet

However, they don’t have to be high enough to change who wins, even small ones adjust how much foreign subsidies manipulate the market. Foreign governments should consider how much US corn syrup impacts domestic consumption for example as a separate issue from how it impacts domestic sugar production.

China’s currency manipulation has second order effects that benefits Americans. We don’t necessarily want China to stop, instead the goal should be to minimize the harm while extracting maximum benefits. A small tariff that caused them to double down on currency manipulation would be a massive win.