Tesla Looking To Build Factory in China

M

monkeymagick

[H]News
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
480
The Verge mentioned that Elon Musk paid a visit to China two months ago and now Tesla has confirmed that the company pursuing the possibility of opening a factory in the Shanghai region. Although you would figure it is to build more cars in that region of the world, but the company hasn't discussed exact plans as the company produces electric vehicles and energy storage. Who knows for sure, but even the potential of a Gigafactory is astonishing with that land mass. The current factory set to open in Nevada is pretty massive.

Tesla produces all of its cars in the US. However, if the company hopes to increase its production to 500,000 vehicles a year - that's a six-fold increase over 2016 numbers - and reach more consumers in Europe and Asia, it will have to open factories closer to those customers.
 
If you want to sell cars to China, you either build a factory IN China or somewhere close that can maximize trade benefits (low/no tariffs or NTBs / take advantage of sphagetti bowl of FTA/BITs). Even GM has done it and Harley Davidson is in process of doing it. Either you build it entirely close to where your customers are or reducing as much as possible the amount of shipped parts needed to complete the build of a final product - which means saving money / maximizing profits = CEOs corporate responsibility.

BTW: Last I read Tesla is still mostly hype / investor momentum. They didn't (still don't?) even adhere to basic GAP principles in their accounting.
 
Makes sense, China's the auto market of the future, they are years ahead on EV tech, already half a million EVs on the road and hundreds of thousands of EV buses as well as e-bikes in every corner.

Better plant a foothold there before the Chinese startups gobble up that market completely on their way to expanding abroad.

Tesla's already selling about 7 percent of cars - and 87% of EVs - in Hong Kong right now so they got a pretty good foothold to work with compared to others.
 
Last edited:
This guy has his finger on the pulse of the future. Betting against him would be foolish in my view, but you could short sell Tesla if you're confident they're doomed to fail when the subsidies inevitably dry up.
 
Wierdo said:
Makes sense, China's the auto market of the future, they are years ahead on EV tech, already half a million EVs on the road and hundreds of thousands of EV buses as well as e-bikes in every corner.

Better plant a foothold there before the Chinese startups gobble up that market completely on their way to expanding abroad.

Tesla's already selling about 7 percent of cars - and 87% of EVs - in Hong Kong right now so they got a pretty good foothold to work with compared to others.
Click to expand...

indeed China is THE LARGEST auto market on the planet
 
monkeymagick said:
Who knows for sure, but even the potential of a Gigafactory is astonishing with that land mass. The current factory set to open in Nevada is pretty massive.
Click to expand...

Set to open? It's already open. My friend has been working there for a month. They are not up to full capacity pushing out usable stuff yet from what I'm told, although I'm not allowed to say much, as I was asked not to.
 
redmasc said:
So much for keeping jobs in the U.S.
Click to expand...

They always said they're gonna have multiple gigafactories near each market they plan to tackle. This is not some new revelation, the next ones may be in India or Europe.

Locally they'll have the most "American" car of any other company from the current local factories, with plans to open another at some point wherever they can sell cars from best.

Regardless this is not some nationalistic thing, but rather in practical terms Elon thinks the closer everything is built and assembled together the better, that's their production strategy.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
I wonder who's paying for this latest round of playground gossip and FUD. There are a couple conservative PAC's that have run previous attacks on Musk. He's pissed off some very wealthy people in oil and aerospace.
Click to expand...

That's because the oil and aerospace companies want more subsidies.
 
Wierdo said:
They always said they're gonna have multiple gigafactories near each market they plan to tackle. This is not some new revelation, the next ones may be in India or Europe.

Locally they'll have the most "American" car of any other company from the current local factories, with plans to open another at some point wherever they can sell cars from best.

Regardless this is not some nationalistic thing, but rather in practical terms Elon thinks the closer everything is built and assembled together the better, that's their production strategy.
Click to expand...

BMW makes car in SC and exports it outside.

Nissan also makes most of its stuff in the US.

Are they not "American" cars?
 
If one gigafactory is enough to supply all of US demand (and maybe North America / Central / South America), why should anyone care if they open another gigafactory in EU to supply EU or in Asia to supply Asia?

You'd be a crappy CEO if you built something on one side of the planet and then shipped it around the world to sell when you could just open a local factory and pocket the difference / money saved as profit. I'm sure the shipping / logistics companies would prefer the former (where they make money) vs. the latter (where they don't) but to the US consumer, it won't make a lick of difference.

Here's a little insight for those that don't work in trade - you can train a monkey / robot or whatever to assemble something. From an employees' standpoint (guy assembling the widget) there is very little money in the actual assembly process. It's cheap. And companies will always move these factories as labor costs rise in any one spot to another cheaper spot (England->USA->Japan->Korea->China/SE Asia->?).

However, the intellectual property (the design and engineering of the widget) is where the employees makes the REAL money. And guess where that takes place? (hint: Why every apple widget says Designed in California despite everyone knowing it's made in China)
 
Last edited:
m-jeri said:
BMW makes car in SC and exports it outside.

Nissan also makes most of its stuff in the US.

Are they not "American" cars?
Click to expand...

Here are some examples of ratios of imported parts vs locally sourced:
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/how-american-is-your-car

For comparison, Tesla is about 95% local parts.

Basically you can say they're American cars if you like, but the ratios vary. Amusingly the Japanese brands are often more "American" than the American ones.

Doesn't seem to help Tesla get much appreciation but regardless, they do it for practical reasons right now, their business model leans heavily on putting all needed parts close together rather than ship parts from allover the place.
 
Last edited:
Wierdo said:
Here are some examples of ratios of imported parts vs locally sourced:
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/how-american-is-your-car

For comparison, Tesla is about 95% local parts.

Basically you can say they're American cars if you like, but the ratios vary. Amusingly the Japanese brands are often more "American" than the American ones.

Doesn't seem to help Tesla get much appreciation but regardless, they do it for practical reasons right now, their business model leans heavily on putting all needed parts close together rather than ship parts from allover the place.
Click to expand...

I am aware of the vendor ratio. However, I would want to wait and watch for Tesla.

They are genuinely facing troubles in EV-JIT. Once the lines stabilize with Model 3 , they will start sourcing from multiple vendors.

As of now, their profit ratio per vehicle sold is also less.
 
m-jeri said:
I am aware of the vendor ratio. However, I would want to wait and watch for Tesla.

They are genuinely facing troubles in EV-JIT. Once the lines stabilize with Model 3 , they will start sourcing from multiple vendors.

As of now, their profit ratio per vehicle sold is also less.
Click to expand...

It's possible that they could find out going almost all American is not ideal and move to match the rest of the industry, on the other hand they have much less complexity to work with as EVs have around 20 moving parts vs 10-20 thousand in an ICE vehicle.

It's probably allot easier to locally source that many parts, but we'll see how it goes though, anything's possible.
 
gulguran said:
This, everything he does is on the backs of taxpayers. Such a genius, such an amazing businessman. We are fucking suckers.
Click to expand...

The guy has nothing on the other auto manufacturers when it comes to govt. grants and loans, and in his case he paid off his share much sooner than required by the terms they were under.

https://electrek.co/2016/11/25/tesla-subsidies-big-three-oil-industry/

For example, Ford got 59 times as much in subsidies, GM got 108 times as much, and Exxon got almost 8 times as much. Others are listed above if curious.

Even while Tesla's share was already paid early and in full, unlike some the others, for some reason the big three don't get the kinda scrutiny this small player does, it's ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Wierdo said:
The guy has nothing on the other auto manufacturers when it comes to govt. grants and loans, and in his case he paid off his share much sooner than required by the terms they were under.

https://electrek.co/2016/11/25/tesla-subsidies-big-three-oil-industry/

For example, Ford got 59 times as much in subsidies, GM got 108 times as much, and Exxon got almost 8 times as much. Others are listed above if curious.

Even while Tesla's share was already paid early and in full, unlike some the others, for some reason the big three don't get the kinda scrutiny this small player does, it's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

That's because the previous president and his mainstream media cronies glorified it and passed it off as a good thing...



It was just as destructive to the taxpayer as Obama's' Cash For Clunkers horseshit.
 
Last edited:
DejaWiz said:
That's because the previous president and his mainstream media cronies glorified it and passed it off as a good thing...
Click to expand...

That argument, regardless of merit, is a deflection, it doesn't explain why Tesla is singled out for subsidies and loans - that it already paid back to boot - when it's a such a small player in that process.
 
Wierdo said:
That argument, regardless of merit, is a deflection, it doesn't explain why Tesla is singled out for subsidies and loans it paid back when it's a such a small player in the process.
Click to expand...

You just answered your own question. Because he is a small player compared to the huge auto manufacturing conglomerates that have much more pull with Wall Street and politicians. The auto maker subsidies didn't exist while the main US auto makers were raking in annual profits of billions of dollars through the 60s and 70s. Those subsidies were created what can be categorized as recent, in regards to their timelines of existing as companies. Musk came along and created his businesses with the sole purpose of claiming a piece of the subsidy pie...that's why he's singled out...because he is a taxpayer subsidy parasite.
 
DejaWiz said:
You just answered your own question. Because he is a small player compared to the huge auto manufacturing conglomerates that have much more pull with Wall Street and politicians. The auto maker subsidies didn't exist while the main US auto makers were raking in annual profits of billions of dollars through the 60s and 70s. Those subsidies were created what can be categorized as recent, in regards to their timelines of existing as companies. Musk came along and created his businesses with the sole purpose of claiming a piece of the subsidy pie...that's why he's singled out...because he is a taxpayer subsidy parasite.
Click to expand...

For someone with the "sole purpose of claiming a piece of the subsidy pie" he sure is putting allot of work keeping us relevant in the EV market of the future, adding thousands of jobs to Nevada and elsewhere. Everyone else seems to be playing it safe and putting that money into lobbies instead, as if the world will stand still and not leave the US behind. Strange definition of abuse.

Without Tesla China would not even have competition for the next auto manufacturing juggernaut position, with over 20 Tesla-like companies building EVs right now. I don't like our odds still, but at least we're not at the mercy of the lazy three.

Regardless, the billionaires are now starting to put their money in Tesla and Chinese EVs so we'll see where this goes soon enough:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/13/ron-baron-says-tesla-stock-will-soar-to-1000-by-2020.html
 
Last edited:
DeathFromBelow said:
I wonder who's paying for this latest round of playground gossip and FUD. There are a couple conservative PAC's that have run previous attacks on Musk. He's pissed off some very wealthy people in oil and aerospace.
Click to expand...
So another words wealthy people who have rigged the system decrying other wealthy people rigging the system. Whoever wins, we lose.
 
tbonepat11 said:
Lol the biggest polluter on Earth.
Click to expand...


So true. Musk knows how to sell bullshit. Even Apple isn't that clandestine. Why do people buy Tesla cars? Are they deluding themselves that they save the environment? The environmental damageof extracting rare earth minerals is enormous.
 
Wierdo said:
For someone with the "sole purpose of claiming a piece of the subsidy pie" he sure is putting allot of work keeping us relevant in the EV market of the future, adding thousands of jobs to Nevada and elsewhere. Everyone else seems to be playing it safe and putting that money into lobbies instead, as if the world will stand still and not leave the US behind. Strange definition of abuse.

Without Tesla China would not even have competition for the next auto manufacturing juggernaut position, with over 20 Tesla-like companies building EVs right now. I don't like our odds still, but at least we're not at the mercy of the lazy three.

Regardless, the billionaires are putting their money in Tesla and Chinese EVs so we'll see where this goes soon enough:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/13/ron-baron-says-tesla-stock-will-soar-to-1000-by-2020.html
Click to expand...

It's been proven that manufacturing (and eventual disposal of) hybrids and EVs puts out more CO2 and other pollutants than they claim to be eliminating. It's a facade, and that's why the "lazy 3" are seemingly playing it safe...because the EPA is already on their asses enough as it is.
 
Iching said:
The environmental damageof extracting rare earth minerals is enormous.
Click to expand...

Most lithium is extracted via evaporation of brine containing lithium salts in uninhabitable deserts along the Andes mountains. If you only listened to conservative propaganda you'd think we are strip mining Canada bare while Musk laughs and eats babies.

These same conservatives are the people who try to downplay the environmental impact of blowing up mountains to extract 500+ million tons of coal per year (in the US alone). 20 million tons of Lithium should be enough to meet battery demands for the next century even with no improvements in battery technology.
 
Last edited:
DejaWiz said:
It's been proven that manufacturing (and eventual disposal of) hybrids and EVs puts out more CO2 and other pollutants than they claim to be eliminating. It's a facade, and that's why the "lazy 3" are seemingly playing it safe...because the EPA is already on their asses enough as it is.
Click to expand...

No it has not, the "study" that was covered on Breitbart the tabloid rag was ridiculed to smithereens, no surprise. The experts already said EVs would pay off their pollution within the first 6-18 months, and then it's all gravy from there:

Manufacturing a mid-sized EV with an 84-mile range results in about 15 percent more emissions than manufacturing an equivalent gasoline vehicle. For larger, longer-range EVs that travel more than 250 miles per charge, the manufacturing emissions can be as much as 68 percent higher.

These differences change as soon as the cars are driven. EVs are powered by electricity, which is generally a cleaner energy source than gasoline. Battery electric cars make up for their higher manufacturing emissions within eighteen months of driving—shorter range models can offset the extra emissions within 6 months—and continue to outperform gasoline cars until the end of their lives.
Click to expand...

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-cycle-ev-emissions

It's not even the latest data, which is rapidly getting better with higher energy density gains. And energy producers are becoming cleaner every passing day. And these factories - such as the Gigafactory - are getting better at efficiency and using clean energy sources to manufacture products. And not even taking into account that no NOx poisoning is spread around the streets, hopefully meaning less kids with Asthma in the process. It's just snowballing like crazy further and further ahead.

It's no surprise everyone's pushing to get into the EV market to stay relevant, Mercedes, BMW, Nissan, Hyundai. Except again for the lazy three, looking for another Toyota slap to wake them up.

At least GM got pressured into making a compliance car that's halfway decent this time around so there's hope for them yet.
 
Last edited:
Wierdo said:
No it has not, the "study" that was covered on Breitbart the tabloid rag was ridiculed to smithereens, no surprise. The experts already said EVs would pay off their pollution within the first 6-18 months, and then it's all gravy from there:



http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-cycle-ev-emissions

It's not even the latest data, which is rapidly getting better with higher energy density gains. And energy producers are becoming cleaner every passing day. And these factories - such as the Gigafactory - are getting better at using clean energy sources to manufacture products. And not even taking into account that no NOx poisoning is spread around the streets, hopefully meaning less kids with Asthma in the process. It's just snowballing like crazy further and further ahead.

It's no surprise everyone's pushing to get into the EV market to stay relevant, Mercedes, BMW, Nissan, Hyundai. Except again for the lazy three, looking for another Toyota slap to wake them up.

At least GM got pressured into making a compliance car that's halfway decent this time around so there's hope for them yet.
Click to expand...

What Breitbart article?


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-cars-are-not-necessarily-clean/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/car...ars-pollute-more-than-gasoline-cars-17535339/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/07/21/are-electric-cars-really-that-polluting/

The problem doesn't lay with the major manufacturers, since they are just riding the tidal wave of climate change propaganda in order to make huge profits off of selling more hybrids and EVs. The problem lays with advanced battery technology that could deliver hundreds of miles of range, thus requiring less charging cycles and greatly reduce the burden on the power infrastructures, but those patents seem to have been bought up and locked away in oil companies vaults.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-records-exxon-co2-emission-reduction-patents

...There's where the real lobbying power lays.

It's a clusterfuck shitshow in the name of forming statist corporatism, which influences government to create policy that protects that statism, while killing free market capitalism by pushing out the innovative little guys that could have made an actual difference in reducing CO2 atmospheric saturation and oceanic acidification levels decades ago WITHOUT any bullshit subsidies.

Instead, we have a facade of "clean energy" and "green vehicles" that do more harm than good over the long run because they have shitty range and need frequent charging, and the only two real viable solutions for providing that kind of power demand comes from fossil fuel plants (which the GoP has been heavily lobbied to protect) or nuclear plants (which the DNC has been heavily lobbied to eliminate). We're fucked until we get the battery technology that's been around for, and equally locked away and unused for, decades.
 
Last edited:
DejaWiz said:
What Breitbart article?


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-cars-are-not-necessarily-clean/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/car...ars-pollute-more-than-gasoline-cars-17535339/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/07/21/are-electric-cars-really-that-polluting/

The problem doesn't lay with the major manufacturers, since they are just riding the tidal wave of climate change propaganda in order to make huge profits off of selling more hybrids and EVs. The problem lays with advanced battery technology that could deliver hundreds of miles of range, thus requiring less charging cycles and burden on the power infrastructures, but those patents seem to be locked away in oil companies vaults.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-records-exxon-co2-emission-reduction-patents

There's where the real lobbying power lays...

It's a clusterfuck shitshow in the name of forming statist corporatism, which influences government policy, while killing the free market by pushing out the innovative little guys that could have made an actual difference decades ago WITHOUT any bullshit subsidies.
Click to expand...

Did you even read your own links?

From those articles:

1. Popular Mechanics:
Their opponents point out the hidden costs, such as the fact that the energy for electric cars comes largely from burning coal.
However, electric vehicles powered by electricity from natural gas, wind, water, or solar energy might reduce health impacts by at least 50 percent compared to gasoline vehicles.
Click to expand...

Coal is the problem, and it's getting phased out rapidly allover the world. Solar and Wind - and natural gas in some places - is taking off like crazy. The end.

2. Scientific American:
Although the battery-powered car itself doesn’t produce any emissions, the power plant that generates the electricity used to charge those batteries probably does. Low emissions, much less zero emissions, are only true in certain places where most of the electricity comes from a mix of low-carbon sources such as the sun, wind or nuclear reactors.
Click to expand...

Preaching to the choir, brother. And getting closer and closer there every day.

3. Forbes:
Header (For the eyeballs): Are Electric Cars Really That Polluting?
First line: Not particularly, but debate has erupted lately that maybe they are.
Click to expand...

A "debate" indeed lol. They continue:
But the most important question is how you charge them once they’re made. Even more important is how you charge 100,000,000 of them 20 years from now. If it’s not with nuclear and renewables, then things get dicey
...
But mining for thousands of tons of rare earth elements a year does not compare with mining for billions of tons of coal a year. From an environmental and health perspective, the amount of heavy metals, like mercury, uranium and thorium, emitted from burning coal in the U.S. alone exceeds by a thousand times the total amount of lithium and rare earth elements mined in the entire world
Click to expand...

Good thing that's where we're headed, an rapid growth in that area, I guess we're solving it as we go eh?

Seems a pattern emerges here... coal coal coal. Thanks for hammering on that problem so hard with these links, I mean you're absolutely brutal on coal, kudos.

That aging last century infrastructure is getting phased out rapidly as we speak, amusingly for financial reasons more than environmental ones, making the already strong case for EVs stronger with each improvement in that area. Can't say that about gasoline, it stays right where it is like the fossils it's made of.
 
Last edited:
Wierdo said:
Did you even read your own links?

From those articles:

1. Popular Mechanics:


Coal is the problem, and it's getting phased out rapidly allover the world. Solar and Wind - and natural gas in some places - is taking off like crazy. The end.

2. Scientific American:


Preaching to the choir, brother.

3. Forbes:


A "debate" indeed lol. They continue:


Good thing that's where we're headed, an rapid growth in that area, I guess we're solving it as we go eh?

Seems a pattern emerges here... coal coal coal. Thanks for hammering on that problem so hard with these links. That aging last century infrastructure is getting fixed rapidly as we speak like an unstoppable force of nature, for financial reasons more than environmental ones, making the already strong case for EVs stronger with each improvement. Can't say that about gasoline, it stays right where it is like the fossils it's made of.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did read the linked articles.

Pull back on your typical propaganda talking points reigns and let ALL the tangents involved in this sink in:
Except we're not solving it. The costs to manufacture, transport, buy/seize the enormous amounts of land required, construct, and provide maintenance to wind and solar that can actually provide measurable demand outweighs the money they make generating power. And they still require a viable (and continuously running) backup in the form of coal, NG, or nuclear in case of planned or unplanned generator outages that typically take them offline for months at a time. Ever wonder why the same energy companies that have fossil fuel plants (and the billions in subsidies/tax breaks they get for them) are also some of the heaviest constructors of wind and solar farms (and all the billions more in subsidies/tax breaks they get for them)?
 
Fossil fuel power plants are more efficient than internal combustion engines. Even with power transmission losses electric vehicles are still a net benefit.

DejaWiz said:
Except we're not solving it. The costs to manufacture, transport, buy/seize the enormous amounts of land required, construct, and provide maintenance to wind and solar that can actually provide measurable demand outweighs the money they make generating power.
Click to expand...

The portion of the southwest controlled by the state and federal governments is larger than the state of Montana.

Solar power is expanding fast, it actually growing faster than natural gas in the US now and it's accelerating. Back in 2002 we added roughly 2200 MW worth of solar capacity to the grid. For the last year the figure is close to 15,000 MW. Even if you assume only 25% efficiency solar is adding more capacity every year than nuclear power has for the last decade. Solar capacity will double or triple to 40-70 GW in the coming years.
 
DejaWiz said:
Yes, I did read the linked articles.

Pull back on your typical propaganda talking points reigns and let ALL the tangents involved in this sink in:
Except we're not solving it. The costs to manufacture, transport, buy/seize the enormous amounts of land required, construct, and provide maintenance to wind and solar that can actually provide measurable demand outweighs the money they make generating power. And they still require a viable (and continuously running) backup in the form of coal, NG, or nuclear in case of planned or unplanned generator outages that typically take them offline for months at a time. Ever wonder why the same energy companies that have fossil fuel plants (and the billions in subsidies/tax breaks they get for them) are also some of the heaviest constructors of wind and solar farms (and all the billions more in subsidies/tax breaks they get for them)?
Click to expand...

Why would you link articles that contradict your points and argue against coal at every turn? Or were you linking them as an example of those "propaganda" talking points?

Almost all of them are sending the same message: EVs are already better, the infrastructure in allot of places sucks, the infrastructure is getting better every day, EVs become better every day in return, it's a no brainer.

Apparently mining and refining oil/coal is done without energy, only renewable have a cost to produce, strange. Unlike fossil products your pollution doesn't continue through actual operation, and the energy costs are lower in many areas than coal, competing instead with natural gas.

And, related to your point about some energy companies' behavior, the only other piece of the equation that was missing was energy storage, and that's a market that's about to grow like crazy soon for the same reasons EVs are projected to reach price parity with ICE vehicles in only a few years: Rapidly dropping costs and higher energy density.
 
Last edited:
DeathFromBelow said:
Fossil fuel power plants are more efficient than internal combustion engines. Even with power transmission losses electric vehicles are still a net benefit.



The portion of the southwest controlled by the state and federal governments is larger than the state of Montana.

Solar power is expanding fast, it actually growing faster than natural gas in the US now and it's accelerating. Back in 2002 we added roughly 2200 MW worth of solar capacity to the grid. For the last year the figure is close to 15,000 MW. Even if you assume only 25% efficiency solar is adding more capacity every year than nuclear power has for the last decade. Solar capacity will double or triple to 40-70 GW in the coming years.
Click to expand...

4 billion MW demand in the US every year (and probably climbing...especially if more EVs enter into service), and everyone is supposed to spring wood over the billions and billions of taxpayer dollars spent to give us a measly 12,800 MW increase of solar in 15 years? Plus billions and billions of taxpayer dollars more for 8,200 MW total in wind? Call me a cynic if you want, but that is a dismal rate of expansion for the cost burden...because it's not putting a significant dent in the roughly 2/3rds power demand supplied by coal and NG alone.

Could have avoided this CO2 debacle by building proven Fail-Safe nuclear plants starting half a century ago as the primary source, but public misinformation from political propaganda stemming from the successful oil and fossil fuel lobbies took priority, and hippies/hipsters were/are the result...ironic, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
Wierdo said:
Why would you link articles that contradict your points and argue against coal at every turn? Or were you linking them as an example of those "propaganda" talking points? Because they are all sending the same message: EVs are fine, the infrastructure in allot of places sucks, the infrastructure is getting better every day, EVs become better every day in return, it's a no brainer.

Apparently mining and refining oil/coal is done without energy, only renewable have a cost to produce, strange. Unlike fossil products your pollution doesn't continue through actual operation, and the energy costs are lower in many areas than coal, competing instead with natural gas.

And, related to your point about some energy companies' behavior, the only other piece of the equation that was missing was energy storage, and that's a market that's about to grow like crazy soon for the same reasons EVs are projected to reach price parity with ICE vehicles in only a few years: Rapidly dropping costs and higher energy density.
Click to expand...

I linked them because there is a much bigger picture involved, which the articles clearly highlighted.

EVs need frequent charging.
Charging requires an electrical source.
Coal and NG plants make up the bulk of the power infrastructure.
Shitty batteries that limit EV range and require frequent charging are all that is available, thanks to fossil fuel companies.
Those shitty batteries also mean increased pollution through manufacturing, transporting, and constant recharging.
Renewable energy is a joke, because it can not come close to meeting, let alone sustaining, the demands of the nation, while costing taxpayers billions every year.
Go nuclear.

Understand now?
 
Lots of Musk mudslinging going on in this thread, lol. If you actually think that Musk is only successful because of "government subsidiaries" you really need to take a long hard look at the rest of the world. I mean, Tesla definitely didn't receive a government bailout when they were on the brink of bankruptcy. He's saved the taxpayers a lot of money in the aerospace industry with reusable rockets and being cost efficient.

Before going further, this should be a soapbox thread I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top