If the target, set by the government, is to be protectionist, then EVERYTHING in terms of investment needs to be canceled, because it does't make sense to invest when the internal market is going to be controlled by means of tariffs.
Given the chaos, how does any industry make long term investments any more? All financial plans could be flipped upside down for any reason at any time.
I've heard the most prosperous times for the US are when the president's party is different from the congressional majority. Few laws get passed, so things stay stable for businesses.
No, the issue is half of Americans and American states are still into Red-state zero-sum policies which don't work very well in a modern world and modern economy. Today you want the black/female/trans/foreigner working at their absolute full potential, not slaving in your farm.
In the past it didn't matter so much economically because slaving in your farm was still one of the most important jobs. In 1900, ~40% of the American workforce was employed in agriculture. Yet even then the (ex) slave states were poor compared to northern states because they didn’t know how to invest in their population (still don’t).
You can make investments if you have a long term outlook. Odds are the president will be different in 4 years. Odds are the democrats take the house in 2 years (there is a small chance they take the senate too, though that seems unlikely). There is a 25% change Trump isn't even alive in 4 years just because of age, and the farther beyond that you look the less likely it is he lives.
Which is to say you have to invest for something knowing things will change and not knowing how. As always. This might even be a good time to invest if you have cash - prices are down and interest rates are up.
Democrats can't unring this bell. Decades of trust are irrevocably lost.
Ordinarily, I'd say you're right about investment. Long term, the market goes up. Trying to time the market isn't very effective; you might as well invest cash now.
These circumstances aren't ordinary. This is potentially a decade-long depression. I really hate saying that; "this time it's different" always sound stupid. But every nation on earth has just looked at the US and said, "Maybe not", and that's really unprecedented.
I'm not pulling out of the market myself, so you have to take everything with a grain of salt. Without more information, I don't know what to do, so I'm sticking with inertia, and hoping I'm wrong about the magnitude of the potential cataclysm.
Yet he's already changed the amounts and/or start dates how many times in just a couple of months? It will continue like that because chaos is the nature of his whim-driven presidency.
Further, he won't be in power long enough to ensure nothing changes for 40 years – US trade policy isn't read-only form here on out. Painful tariffs might not even survive until the midterms next year, if Congresspeople start fretting about keeping their jobs.
> But even before President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs on imports, many of those projects were being canceled — leaving thousands of jobs and the shift to clean energy in doubt.
Sure, his energy policy was predictable too, but you'd have needed to predict the election results too to act on them. Who knows that'll happen in 4 years, will it be more of this or will we see EV subsidies returned? That's the part that's hardest to predict.
What isn't predictable is how long things will last. Many in congress are for free trade and have the ability to stop tariffs in various ways. (tariffs fall under some emergency ruling not a low passed by congress as the constitution requires). There is likely to be more elections in the future with different people in charge with different intents. The question is will the next people in charge also keep tariffs high.
What's worse is lets say it takes you 3-4 years to get your factory online. A new admin comes in and rescinds all the tariffs. Now your new factory and all it's debt need to compete with the pre-tariff prices.
Many people online are saying (or trying to convince themselves) that the tariffs are part of some smart negotiating strategy, and that they will be rescinded once other countries feel the pain (or when citizens revolt). So large companies will hold out on doing any major investment, lest they be holding the bag.
The administration's general instability and flip-floppiness makes it impossible to make any long-term business decisions. Having a leader who can't be trusted to change their mind on a moment's notice does damage regardless of the policies.
Maybe crashing the stock market really is part of the plan, i mean if you arent investing maybe you should use that money to open a factory? I hear AI will do all the labor for you and that will "only get better (TM)"
Although all those nvidia racks apparently use more power than any datacenter in the world has ever deployed in the past... so i hope you know how to run your own power plant onsite too
Oops you also need to install prison level security around all your buildings and homes because the entire population wants your blood, thats ok its an excuse to diversify into weaponized drone manufacturing and local deployment which is another big business opportunity. Wow so many opportunities for rich people!
An awful lot of business decisions depend on the expected price of the materials and equipment your business needs, and/or what market price you can expect to be able to charge for whatever it is you plan to sell. Tariffs this sweeping will make both of those things much harder to predict for almost every business in the country soon.
The federal government does a lot more than dictate tariffs. There's immigration, monetary policy, war spending, etc. And Trump is not afraid to bully governors, so state policies will also be affected.
That's quite likely to happen given how American politics tend to go left to right then back almost every election. I suppose some companies (but not all) will prefer to lose some money now rather than to take the risk of investing in large factories in the USA and lose whole factories, along with all money they invested into it, later.
The tariffs are going to be used as leverage in negotiations in the following months. If countries sign on to trump's new trade agreements, it likely won't make sense to rescind them.
Stephan Miran, Trumps top economic advisor, laid out exactly what they are doing in an essay he wrote back in November[1]. For better or worse, this is what they seem to be moving forward with, and the document spells out things like unilateral tariffs and expecting a lot of potential market volatility, before offering trade terms that seek to devalue the USD in return for protection and favorable trade agreements.
In short, they are trying to force a global trade restructuring that will increase US manufacturing strength and weaken US financial strength - all while trying to keep reserve currency status.
This isn't 4d chess. The first trading partners he threatened were Canada and Mexico, who we set up a trading agreement with in his last presidency and declared it the best trade agreements ever.
Sorry, but let's be clear about something. Capital has an overwhelming say in the direction of the American government. If they want to push us in a direction, they can simply buy that direction.
They bought this one, and now they are crying about it.
So the answer to your question is: go invest in a congress person. Buy stability. Or else remain flexible, don't invest, go out of business, whatever.
I think what they mean is: these plans were made in another time so they might harm the company financially (or be extremely lopsided) given the "new mandate" (may change again too) from the Trump admin.
Just a measure to take a step back and assess the whole picture I'm assuming.
> “The Respected Comrade’s brilliant economic agenda is an all-encompassing plan to revive our economy by unleashing Chosun energy, implementing tariffs to level the playing field, and bringing trillions of won in historic investments to our country’s manufacturing sector,” minister Paek Sông-Ryông said.
My Californian Fiat 500e is the most reliable car I've ever owned.
On the other hand, my friend's Model 3 has some recall or problem roughly every six months.
So, I guess it depends on which EV you buy, but I'm pretty sure the most reliable EVs are more reliable than the most reliable ICEs, simply because they have fewer moving parts (quite literally).
Yep, fewer moving parts tends to mean more reliable. Jet engines versus piston engines in aeroplanes is an example that's not about electricity, the difference in reliability is enormous, maybe 100:1 ratio.
At one point, they had to replace the brakes, then the whole chassis suspension (or something like that, I'm not sure if I understood exactly what he said), then one of the cameras didn't work anymore, and then the windshield wipers didn't come on automatically. Something breaks or needs to be replaced due to a recall at oddly regular intervals.
I also know someone who's Tesla also seems to have constant problems.
Even so, they love the vehicle, underscoring that the EV drivetrain is such a step up from ICE that if everything around it is mediocre, it doesn't matter.
Depending on how consumer satisfaction surveys are phrased, it totally could be the norm, given this:
> Even so, they love the vehicle
I.e. if Tesla owners are constantly having maintenance issues but manage to still love their vehicles despite that, then their satisfaction is still high.
I've only visited NYC, but I think if I lived there I wouldn't want to drive a car at all. The public transportation and walkability are excellent. Is my impression a common misunderstanding?
It is an indication of US mismanagement that concentrated people can't be served with recharging infrastructure while distributed suburbanites in mcmansions can easily be served.
Like apartment buildings with parking. Why the hell aren't there funding projects to provide recharging for these highly concentrated housing where electrifying/reducing emissions has compounded benefits, where you need far less wiring to provide recharging for a far larger number of cars than an equivalent amount of suburban housing?
It speaks to how money is directed for infrastructure and utilities by the government.
> It is an indication of US mismanagement that concentrated people can't be served with recharging infrastructure while distributed suburbanites in mcmansions can easily be served.
No, it is an indication of good management for lower prices for all. Maybe an indication of lack of foresight, but electronics don't last forever, planning for EVs in 1960 would have been stupid - the fuse boxes (probably not modern breakers) would be worn out and replaced without every charging a single EV. Even today there have been a number of EV charger fires because outlets we thought were safe for EV currents for decades turn out to be marginal when put to that use and so again planning ahead would have put in the wrong thing.
Suburban houses have plenty of power because you might use the dryer, stove and AC at the same time and so need that much power - but in fact nobody every uses all their power so there is enough spare power to every house for an EV. An apartment can better rely on not everyone does all that at the same time and so they can build with much less extra power and in turn save costs for everyone.
Even in suburban locations, any one house has enough power, but the whole neighborhood might not and power companies are doing expensive upgrades to fix that. Not to mention power plants may not have enough spare capacity. (there are also commonly incentives to charge off peak thus using power when there is spare capacity in the system)
> It is an indication of US mismanagement that concentrated people can't be served with recharging infrastructure while distributed suburbanites in mcmansions can easily be served.
Um, not really. Almost all houses have 240V lines. It's non-trivial to add a ton of 240V connections into some basement that's barely wired for power.
If it was as non-trivial to do in apartment complexes as it is in houses, this wouldn't be an issue.
This isn't some grand scheme of mismanagement to screw over New Yorkers.
In NYC you can probably get by with the ~40 miles range of 120V charging, but this doesn't really negate your point about poor charging infrastructure.
Charging is an issue for almost everyone I know. If I could get my utility company PG&E to upgrade my power, I could consider it, but we're told we have to wait years. So we have no way to charge, and there are not enough chargers around here are.
I know a bunch of people who charge on standard 120V/15A. That'll let you add 40 miles of range overnight. It's not as good as 240V/50A that'll fully charge your car in 4 hours, but it is enough that they only rarely have to visit local fast chargers.
That's what I do. And I still don't even bother to charge most nights. If you live in a relatively urban area and don't do a lot of driving that is more than adequate.
The problem is your emissions are minuscule and the difference between you owning an electric car or gas car is meaningless if your goal is to save the climate.
The big, heavy carbon users need to switch. But they have needs that are difficult to serve by electric
Electric generation is the low hanging fruit but some nations are already at the stage that the power sector has lower emissions than the transport sector and it is probably the next dominoe to fall. The country saves money and gets cleaner air plus battery storage to aid in greening the rest of the grid.
> Everyone needs to switch to carbon neutral eventually, not everyone has to do it at the same time.
That was true decades ago, but now it's gone far too long without any real action, and things have gotten far enough out of control that everyone really does kinda have to do it at the same time if we want a shred of hope to turn this flaming bus ride over the cliff-edge around (or even slow it down at all). It could have all been a relatively painless transition, but now there will be suffering involved, and the longer it's delayed, the worse the suffering will be.
I would say that the transition we are currently witnessing is real action: while the pandemic made it difficult to be certain, the extremely rapid growth of renewables — even though electricity is far from the only concern — seems to have resulted in emissions either peaking or being very close to peaking.
I'm not sure if we really could have gone much faster. 20 years ago I would have bet on nuclear energy and hydrogen cars, not because they were cheap, but because nuclear was already at the right scale and hydrogen can obviously be scaled up quickly whenever the energy is cheap. Instead, we got PV so cheap I'm planning on getting a balcony system with a pay-back period of less than a year because it makes sense to get that immediately while my partner and I plan how to do a full-power system, and batteries are so cheap they're not only used in cars but also for grid power time shifting.
But to expand on what I said before, electricity is far from the only concern: we need to reduce emissions by 99.9% to be sustainable. If you look at this graph, https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector, the remaining 0.1% is the smallest line in the pie chart — "grassland". Switching all road transport to electric helps a lot (11.9%), it's not something to be dismissed simply because other things also need to be fixed.
The direct impact of an individual vehicle is small. Collectively, they justify further investments in infrastructure and research, eventually addressing more needs.
I agree with the replies indicating emissions aren't trivial, but to answer to the more self-serving interests that are well represented on HN: have you experienced NEVER going to a gas station?
Seriously, that is a great feature of EVs...
Not to mention the massively reduced cost/mile. I expect my used Nissan Leaf to pay for itself in ~5years...
Not to mention the AMAZING acceleration of even a non-performance oriented EV...
My car is my biggest source of emissions in my life. (I use a heat pump except on the coldest days) Though I just got a PEHV, which has greatly reduced my profile. I also live where my electric comes from renewable sources (my local utility generates more wind in a year than all customers use), so I can just ignore the impact of electric generation.
Yes making a car uses a lot of carbon, but the car lasts a long time and generally in a ICE car the carbon emissions from using it are greater the manufacturing.
1 car has miniscule emissions, if you call 50 tons of CO2 emissions miniscule, I don't. 2 billion cars & trucks together comprise the largest source of carbon emissions.
I did that for years, just using an average power plug (now I moved to a house that already had a fast charger installed). The car, a PHEV, came with the recharger and charged fully overnight. The car only goes around 40km on EV alone, but that's more than enough for my daily needs. And it's almost "free", we did not notice any change in the electric bill after buying the car!
I find that the 30 miles my PHEV gives me is not enough for daily needs several times a week. Though I seem to be saving hundreds of dollars every month in gas while I haven't noticed a power bill increase (I've only had it for a few weeks so I can't fully gauge the impact, but so far it seems to line up with your report). At the point I can safely tell most people that they should just refuse to look at any new vehicle that isn't PHEV or full EV. Used car buyers should be willing to pay a lot more of the above - it will pay off in the long term.
Note that the big battery in a BEV is a great averaging mechanism. As long as your average drive is less than the amount you get from an overnight charge, you're likely fine. If you're adding 40 miles of range a night to a 300 mile battery, you have to have 4 consecutive days of 100 mile usage before you have to hit an external charger. Mix a few days of 20 mile usage between those 100 mile days and external charger usage is exceedingly rare.
Or, if we are getting fancy, 240V/20A, which can be run with just a single 12/2 Romex, provides around 3x the "range" per hour, since there is some fixed overhead losses to heat the battery pack, turn electronics on, etc.
In new-ish (but not new enough to have EV charger prewiring) construction, garages sometimes have a dedicated 20A receptacle circuit for a garage freezer. If its a dedicated circuit with one outlet, you can rewire the 120V/20A to 240V/20A to get 3.8kW vs 1.4kW on a 120V/15A. The cost to do this (to code) would be about $150, or $50 if you don't care about GFCI. Could also buy a used, cheap, hardwired EVSE rather than making it an outlet.
While it's not cost effective, I've been debating getting a $300 smart switcher that plugs into my dryer's 240V / 30A, and includes an adapter to the 50A plug my home charger users, while preventing charging while the dryer is in use.
Dryer is next to garage, still need to make a "fancy" hole in the wall, but definitely like the idea of the faster, more efficient charging option.
In the meantime, slow-ass 120V/15A charging is plenty for my needs.
I don’t know where you live, but I charge my EV using two phase 240V outlet (same as the ones used by washing machine) and it takes about 8 hours to charge from 30% to full, which is more than enough for 99% of my use cases
Unfortunately, a lot of people here who live in apartments have to wait for any electricity to be added to the parking lot at all, even 120V is generally unavailable. It's definitely restricting adoption.
Yes, but also - people who live in apartments and condos are the most likely not to even own a car in the first place, and if they do, drive it the least.
The people who are doing the most driving are the suburban folks living in houses with big yards and driving 30 miles into work every day.
And that's a larger chunk of the total population in the US than the apartment dwellers who own cars.
Your metro may vary.
Rome wasn't built in a day.
Charging will come to newer apartments, and then older apartments.
In my metro there are a lot of apartments in the suburbs that are just as car dependent as any single family house. Some have bus service, but it is the service for those who after 5 DWIs can't get someone else to drive them, not the fast frequent service that makes people willing to take the bus if they have any other option.
Sure, same situation here. Lots of apartments in mostly car dependent areas.
But there's still a lot of single-family homes, yes? Like, the majority of people living in those areas are in single-family homes? So probably the majority of car owners?
30% in my suburb (10 years ago there were farms between it and the city so this is new) live in apartments of some sort. Majority is single family, but still a significant enough number in something else.
So 70% live in probably new build single family construction, likely with 200A electrical service in their garage. Those people can probably easily swap to an EV, outside other complications.
Easily 50%+ of households around you could probably have an EV. And yet people act like it's only some tiny miniscule slice of the population which could easily change to an EV.
Maybe people otherwise like me, but I've long ago realized for most people an EV with decent range (the leaf is not quite there) would work for most people. However such do not exist, if you buy new there are few options, if you are drive used cars you are stuck with what you can find.
The atypical part is only that this is an all new one - suburbs have existed for more than 100 years now, so there are a lot of older houses in the suburbs, many of them don't have 200 amp service (though the owners are upgrading them as they as things like AC that need more power and were not considered in the original design)
Sure, there are suburbs that have existed for a long time and are still going strong. And a lot of 100 year old suburbs that became financially unviable and are now empty or torn down.
But large chunks of some of the largest metro areas are made up of massive suburbs largely built from the 2000s onwards. I'm talking Houston, Phoenix, DFW, Austin, Atlanta, Denver, San Antonio, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Tucson, Knoxville, and similar areas. And that's just areas I've visited.
Sure, there are 100+ year old neighborhoods in Dallas. But around me, some homes were made in the 50s, a big spurt were made in the late 70s and early 80s, then a massive amount were built in the 00's to literally still being constructed. Massive neighborhoods, apartment complexes, shopping centers, and more exist where there was farmland just five years ago. This makes up a large percentage of the growth of this city. It's not like they're building 100 year old houses for the 30% of growth over the last 25 years.
Go take a look at satellite images of Prosper TX. Of Princeton TX. McKinney TX. Allen TX. Rockwall TX. Dickinson TX.
Where I grew up in Houston in the late 80s/early 90s, you practically couldn't find a house that was built before 1975 other than the derelict remains of old farm houses. The house I grew up in was built in '93 and was kind of out there at the time (had to take a dirt road to get to the neighborhood!) And there's been a ton of construction since then, going further and further into the swamps. Woods where I grew up playing in are now full of single family homes.
So no, the sprawl of suburbs continuously marching more and more into the country side isn't a new thing and it isn't something rare in the slightest. It's happening practically everywhere that's growing in the US and has been for 30+ years.
This is a problem that an administration could easily solve given enough motivation, so it is fundamentally a problem with US administrations. Provide high incentives to provide easy access to charging infrastructure from federal funding. This is simply not an issue in many other countries that actually place value on modern infrastructure, or an issue that is quickly rectifying itself, except in the US.
But that doesn't put money into oil profits and hurts their bottom line.
IT need not be federal. Your state can do more than the federal government - some of the most effective changes are things the constitution doesn't give the federal government power over. Require 50 amp capability to every parking spot for example is something only the states can do (possibly you can limit this to residential). For that matter states could just build good transit systems, while there are federal subsidies most states are big enough to go alone and pay for it out of the savings from their road budget.
I charge every night on standard power. I only ever charge using fast chargers when I’m over 100 miles away from home and want to drive back same day - this barely ever happens.
I briefly owned a Smart EV, a decade ago or so, and handily recharged it from 110 overnight. But obviously with a larger vehicle, longer range, larger battery capacity, charging it from low to full must be quite the consumption of energy.
It would be nice if somehow we could move to lighter cars where the same range would require half the battery capacity, therefore half the charging resources to go from low to full.
Compromise. I love driving tiny cars, but once in a while I need to haul a large load (you can't rent a truck for this in many cases - I've tried: normally it isn't allowed in the contract even when it is there are restrictions. All that assumes you can find something for rent when you need it. So I drive a large truck. (well once a week I drive a large truck, most of the time I bike)
I seriously doubt you need to "upgrade" anything, just plug in the car.
Unless you're trying to have the highest grade fast charging at home, your existing electrical connection is almost certainly adequate. But since a car at home can charge overnight, you almost certainly don't need any kind of fast charging...
Depends on range. My PEHV only has 30 miles of range, sometimes my morning errands use that and it would be nice for a 1 hour charge over lunch for the afternoon errands. (most days 30 miles is plenty). Or better yet just mandate 70 miles minimum range which will get most daily errands.
This is why I keep saying it's good to put PV cells onto cars *despite* that being a suboptimal place for the cells and the car bodies not being big enough to generate 100% of what they need.
Putting them there makes the necessary grid upgrades much smaller than they otherwise would be.
A car and get maybe 200 watts in the best conditions - not enough to be significant. Even if parked in the sun all day you won't get much range from that.
Now a semi truck might actually get significant added range.
US collectively does ~3.3e12 miles per year[0], over 283e6 registered vehicles[1], or 32 miles per vehicle per day.
EV efficiency is around 24-30 kWh/100 miles[2], so that's around 8-10 kWh/day.
200 W is what I expect as a 24h average; that's 4.8 kWh/day, 48%-60% of average usage.
I'd expect a semi to be a much smaller percentage because of getting driven further each day — drivers get in the news for spending longer than they're supposed to behind the wheel.
200w is an instantaneous measure, not a daily measure. I would guess just over 1kw/h generated over the course of a day - between the panels not being at the correct angle, clouds, and just how long the sun is up that seems reasonable. You could get a large SUV up to maybe 3 with the most efficient panels in the desert.
I pointed out a semi because for long distance shipping they don't use much power (they get as much as 10mpg - but I don't know how to turn that into watts) and because of that long trailer they could potentially be close to energy neutral around mid-day (though only for a couple hours during ideal conditions).
>200 W is what I expect as a 24h average; that's 4.8 kWh/day
I guess we don't know where you live, but on the surface of planet Earth, you only get 12 hours of daylight, averaged over the course of a year. Plus dusk and dawn aren't really good for solar power. And then clouds are also a factor for many locations.
I'm already accounting for all that. Footprint of a car is close to 8-10m^2, that area of 20% cells with a 10-15% capacity factor (covering night and clouds) is 160-300 watts.
“China is at 50 percent EV penetration already,” Ricardo C. Rodriguez, the chief financial officer and treasurer of Aspen Aerogels, said on the call, saying the shift to China was a “no-brainer.” “In North America and Europe, we continue to dabble in this 10 percent to 15 percent level. So, you do start wondering, right, is that progress?”
All this "trade war" stuff to "combat" china would be like some kind of battle where your soldiers all do seppuku and call it victory.
Like the 49% tariff in south east asia to "combat" china influence. Really? You jack up the price by almost 50% and they'll like you more and not look elsewhere? How does this work?
The USA had a great opportunity to recognize the competition with China and invest more to win the competition (as it did with USSR). Instead, they decided that, as the top dog, the "best" option was to play protectionism and try to block China. This is the path of economic destruction for the US.
Most Europeans have this crazy idea that the US is as large as their country. They think traveling from France to Germany is international and a bid deal - people in the US travel farther than that all the time while remaining in the US.
So 3/4 will rearrange accordingly. It will take time and will be painful but for 96% of global population a step in right direction, there is only so many attacks and bullying one can stand.
I wish it didnt have to come to this, but here we are, direction is clear. No point waiting that next election cycle will be much different, it won't be.
Let's say this was SomewhereElsistan and they elected someone who just cancelled contracts, backed out of treaties, refused to pay balances, fired entire departments and maybe even arrest your international colleague working there and sent them to a foreign concentration camp.
Afterwards they elect Johnny Reasonable who doesn't do this.
Would you go back with any kind of assurance it wouldn't happen again? Nobody stopped the first guy.
The US reputation in international markets is hosed for decades unless some dramatic reversal and patching comes in, by both Congress and the courts or some wild thing where the states override the federal government somehow.
Otherwise the trust is gone for decades, perhaps forever.
He basically cleaned whole route for world dominance for China. All they have to do is to be more friendly to Europe, rest of Asia and literally rest of the world, thats enough. Just a bit friendly, nothing more.
Once oil starts trading in parallel in RMB, the only thing going for US will be waning momentum and its military, while China will be in reverse situation.
Just like putin being arrogant and aggressive about Ukraine wanting to join NATO, causing Finland and Sweden to join (which they wouldn't do otherwise), he is causing what he is causing. I am fixing my floating mortgage on monday, we have currently 0.2% SNB rate but the risk of it shooting up is massive.
Trump is leaning on the fact that US consumers are the golden geese of consumers. Which is in fact true. So he will go to the EU and ask them if they would rather sign new currency and trade agreements or lose the top 20% of their buyers. The currency and trade agreements will pretty much be "Let us weaken the dollar, and equalize trading tariffs, ideally at 0%. In return you will get continued military support and preferential future trading terms"
On the surface this actually isn't too terrible. But the problem is that Trump is an idiot and he is the one who has to navigate this.
Also that assumption is changing dramatically. Globally maybe 15 countries are on substantial upward trajectories that will last decades, similar to South Korea's transformation.
If you could travel to 2075 you're likely to find places like Vietnam and Nigeria rising economic stars.
There is no point in making a deal with someone who will not respect any deals. Remember the deal with Mexico and Canada in the first Trump mandate? They made a new agreement and that's what they received as payment. Any country or block that deals with this administration is basically lunatic or in deep despair.
>But the problem is that Trump is an idiot and he is the one who has to navigate this.
I mean I totally agree here. The goal however will be a deal that lasts decades and hopefully trump will be a rekoning and we will see a return to more stability in the future.
It seems we are boarding this bus no matter what, and Trump is driver. If he flies off a cliff, then we can all say "told you so" to the right on the way down, for whatever that is worth.
This is exactly the delusion that US media (news and entertainment) has enforced for 80 years. It is difficult for Americans not to believe in something that their media and politicians repeat daily.
Just got back from China, it's insane. EVs with green plates literally everywhere, not just in T1 cities like Shenzhen but even in smaller ones. The infrastructure’s on another level compared to the US.
Here in Sweden, 63% of new cars sold are electrical or PHEV. Still, unfortunately we still see a lot of fossil fueled cars on the roads... you immediately notice them because they're so damn noisy - and when you get used to the silence of EVs , it's hard to not notice them and be a bit disgusted.
It's just self-imposed sanctions in addition to severing ties with American allies.
On top of this, Russia has no sanctions, and we know that the US will cancel Russian sanctions too.
Again, it doesn't matter if Trump is some manchurian candidate. His behavior is 100% in line with him, and the behavior and policies are what do the damage to the USA.
Trump pretty much cancelled subsidies, so at least in the US this is the largest reason.
Thanks to Trump and to a lesser extent all other presidents of the US, 4C here we come my 2100 :( If not for Trump we would probably still hit 3.5C. 1.5 is a forlorn dream, and probably was a dream when it was decided upon.
I have been using RCP 8.5 for all of my long-term decision making (where to move and buy a house, how sustainably I plan to live).
Based off the downvotes I receive on here I think I'm too much of a collapsenik for the average HN poster, but one benefit of being neurotic is that by the time people finally start reckoning with the current state of collapse, I have already made peace with it. The downside is that I become miserable to talk to.
Although I'm fairly optimistic about carbon, I think we need pessemists to get any stuff like this done.
And we need a diverse set of baseline estimates — yours and worse, not just mine and better — so some of us survive whatever nonsense the next 75 years brings.
(I'm also a pessimist about many other things besides carbon).
The best invention against climate change is the bicycle. Few resources to produce (often 10% of the weight of the user, a car easily weighs 2000% of it's 1.3 average passengers), low requirements for infrastructure and with a folding bike you can take it with you anywhere. Personal transport is the segment that fails to do its bit against climate change and electric cars are still cars that need wide road, parking, electric infrastructure etc.
EVs are not the solution, they just shift the emissions elsewhere and perpetuate a car-based society which is a much larger issue. Policies like NYCs congestion pricing and light rail are infinitely more impactful.
The electricity grid is going emissions free faster than the transportation infrastructure. So the emissions from the production of both gasoline & electric vehicles are going down quickly.
That doesn't solve the environmental impacts of: tire usage, EV production, battery degradation, road maintenance, charging infrastructure, and all the costs downstream of suburban development built around cars like:
- millions of miles of electrical lines
- millions of sq ft of parking lots
- wastewater management infrastructure
- sewage infrastructure
- high municipal debt to service all of the above
That was the Chevy Volt. And it was a glorious piece of amazing engineering.
Not marketed. Barely sold. Dealers hated it (too reliable, too "weird"). Technology never transferred into a larger vehicle that "normal" Americans would want to drive. GM couldn't be convinced to make an Equinox or a Silverado with that kind of drivetrain, or even try. They decided that pure electric made more sense, but they also are incapable of marketing and selling that, either.
My cynical take is: Combustion engines and highways made North America as it is. The Baby Boomer "American Grafitti" generation that holds power lives and breathes gas burning auto culture as the apex of and very definition of progress.
ICE from their cold dead hands.
Our continent will go down literally burning because of it.
(Well, Trump is currently killing off what remains of the North American auto industry, so I guess we'll see...)
Please stop with the hyperbole. It's unproductive. Switching everyone to BEVs would require a massive investment in infrastructure. Given the speeds at which EVs charge, at least every other parking spot at the stop would need a charger to make it viable for the average consumer.
Assuming at least a quarter of those are actually charging at the same time, supplying that amount of power requires a massive upgrade to wiring and delivery to all road stops. We would need high voltage lines and a mini substation running to every stop along the road. Not to mention the massive upgrade in power generation capacity.
>Given the speeds at which EVs charge, at least every other parking spot at the stop would need a charger to make it viable for the average consumer.
That's what they do in China. Go to any random underground parking, and you'll find charging stations everywhere. Even the bikes are all electric and have chargers everywhere.
It's absolutely wild to me that the argument against BEVs is, "But we don't have the infrastructure right now, and we definitely won't be able to build it!"
It's also a totally off-base response when we were talking in this thread about a vehicle (the Volt, or even the Prius) that doesn't need that infrastructure anyways.
Like, let's just be fine with the "half-measure." If all drivers switched to a (strong) plugin hybrid tomorrow, emissions would be down significantly without any real need for this supposedly-blocking-progress infrastructure.
That we couldn't even get there underscores my point above. There are forces working against that. We should identify what they are and fight them.
Unless we're just still being climate change deniers. I guess we are.
Mine got totaled in an accident, and I was going to replace it with a new used one, only to find GM is not selling replacement parts for key things that are starting to go wrong on them. And being dicks about warranties.
So I'm driving a Polestar2 now. Which is fine, it's fun. But road trips suck.
It's nice but not worth the price to buy it new, not even close. I got mine used and quite depreciated.
And with the tariffs against Chinese vehicles it's been removed from sale in North America (for new vehicles, only available used) and it's questionable about how well I'll be able to get it serviced in the future. The local Volvo dealers apparently have a chip on their shoulders about Polestar and won't touch it, either.
> Given the speeds at which EVs charge, at least every other parking spot at the stop would need a charger to make it viable for the average consumer
This is not based in reality.
My car visits many dozens of parking spots in an average week. Only one of them needs a charger.
When I leave the house, its fully charged with >200mi of range. I drop the kids off at school, I don't need to charge. I go to the office, I don't need to charge (although there are chargers available). I go to a restaurant for lunch, I don't need to charge. I go to the pharmacy, I don't need to charge (although there are chargers available). I go to hardware store, I don't need to charge. I go to grocer, I don't need to charge (although there are chargers available). I pick up the kids from school, I don't need to charge. We go to the city park, I don't need to charge (although there are chargers available). I get home, and plug in. Finally, it charges, even though it didn't use 25% of its capacity. It can charge slowly over several hours, imparting about the same load on the grid than my air conditioner or pool pump.
I am absolutely an average American car consumer. Maybe only slightly less, as I don't own a pickup truck.
I do agree, an EV today probably isn't for everyone. People who routinely do very long road trips might not have a great experience depending on where they are. People who absolutely can't charge at home and there aren't many chargers around their grocery stores or office probably shouldn't get an EV. Currently EV pickup trucks are stupid expensive and aren't great for towing, so if you're the kind of person putting his boat in the lake every weekend its probably not right for you today.
But most Americans live in single-family homes, which generally speaking can easily get a several kW charger installed pretty cheap. And it wouldn't put much more load on the grid as any other appliance in their house.
My absolutely biased take is that ICE car drivers are so accustomed to their frequent trips to the gas station that they just can't imagine a vehicle that does not require this.
Granted, that observation applies mostly only to single family home owners who can run an L2 EVSE. It is naturally different for people who cannot charge at home.
But I think there's also often an assumption that an EVSE is some elaborate expensive thing. I charged for years at 3kW, and drove 100+km a day on that. It was fine. Even an L1 120v charge could just fine for people who are going like 30-40km a day, which is a lot of people.
> Switching everyone to BEVs would require a massive investment in infrastructure.
God forbid? Why is this phrased like a bad thing. We should be investing in infrastructure. Any country with a modicum of common sense invests in the basic functioning of that country going forward?
The real problem is that our auto companies (besides Tesla) are reliant and subsidized by the Government, making them highly inefficient, and unable to compete within a global market without giant subsidies.
The real problem is that American consumers are demanding these gigantic monstrosity SUVs and trucks which literally cannot fit on European streets. When Ford et al were making hot hatchbacks, they were incredibly popular overseas. The inefficiency is at the consumer level.
My town is filled with massive Ford pickups. Pristine and clean, nothing in the beds. These people are no 'utilizing' the thing, it's just a status symbol. Annoys me so much.
European streets? My American city isn't even that old - much of the infrastructure is mid 90s - but modern vehicles just barely fit in the parking lots throughout it. It's common to see some asshole parking their pickup horizontally.
The bespoke UK/EU models are not the priority, again because they aren't being made in the US, so yes the quality drops.
You cannot get, for example, a new Focus in the US market. When you could, they were much higher quality.
The only Chevrolet you can buy in the UK is the Corvette. Chevrolet makes nine SUVs, four trucks (with however many infinite variations), and exactly one shitbox non-Corvette car.
If US automakers started turning their eyes towards smaller more efficient cars, where hauling Brayden to and from their soccer games didn't require multiple tons of steel, then they could compete in the EU market.
TBF, pretty soon you won't be able to buy a new Focus anywhere else, production finishes this year. Stellantis is still making cars of a similar size and could brand them as Chrysler for the US market.
Others are pointing this out but for anyone curious Tesla has received a tonne of indirect subsidy via electric vehicle sales incentives on the consumer side of the equation which absolutely translates into increased corporate profits. Across the globe EV sales in developed nations are very boosted via government programs ((which is a good thing imo)). I'll just link a wikipedia page[1] since I don't want to find a solid source but this isn't really debated it's the real world effect of laws and bills passed by the US gov and dozens of other countries around the world and has been extensively studied.
I'm not a big fan of Tesla's owner, but I will say - what is the problem with subsidizing something that given enough research and development is considered a net good for our future or could be valuable on a global scale?
Lots of people are begging to get access to Chinese EV's, and guess what they were subsidized by their government for research and development.
We subsidize farmers but don't trash them. If EV's are the future why not provide assistance?
Because it allows the government to pick and choose winners. The big 3 were all losers and should have gone bankrupt back in 08, and now look, they're still highly inefficient and still heavily reliant on govt handouts 20 years later. They don't innovate, they can't compete globally, etc.
So why not change the subsidy structure and require measurable innovation and growth, and actually back it up by reevaluating funding on a regular basis and dropping all funding if metrics are not met. And not continuing just based on promises. If metrics are not met, you lose funding. Period.
Seems more like a problem of US companies being allowed to continue to stall for too long, often due to lobbying and political points, without measurable improvement than the subsidies.
Meanwhile China subsidizes much of their R&D and everyone is astounded at how fast they've improved. Sounds like they're just better at doing it.
> reevaluating funding on a regular basis and dropping all funding if metrics are not met.
The US government isn't going to exert that level of influence on a private enterprise without being a majority shareholder, which is what happened with GM in the 2008 bailout.
The government also can't be in a position where pulling billions in funding based on targets it sets leads to mass layoffs, that would be a political minefield come election time. Subsidies are about creating jobs as much as they are about enabling technology development.
Tesla is only in business today because it was able to sell carbon credits to other automakers. Take that government subsidy away and Tesla would have died in 2009.
This situation has little-to-nothing to do with the current US administration.
The reality is a lot more simple:
* The cars are expensive
* Gas isn't expensive enough right now to be a strong incentive to switch
* A lot of consumers are poorly informed and hung up on non-issues
The whole auto industry flew off the deep end thinking that EV demand would be enormous, that they'd basically STOP selling ICE cars almost completely.
As it turns out, consumers were not that eager to swap.
EV R&D is expensive. EV manufacturing is expensive. Modern car manufacturing uses a lot of common parts and frameworks to save money, but EVs required a lot of not-sharable tooling and parts with their ICE counterparts - driving up costs.
Some day all of this will be resolved, but it's not going to happen overnight. It'll be a slow burn over many decades.
"The situation has nothing to do with the current US administration" - who for the past decade has ran on keeping oil fields drilling, romanticizing gas/oil money, and before Elon actively campaigned against EV adoption and claimed climate change doesn't exist so keep burning that oil.
And lets say all of this is true - how does that explain China's massive adoption rate of EV's if its so prohibitively expensive and non-sharable. We suck at producing, place low value on auto research and development, and have an entire swath of people dedicated monetarily to keeping oil/gas around despite its adverse effects.
Most American cars are behind practically every other corner of the globe in reliability, safety, and cost.
The US already has (and has) a lot of expertise in ICE development. To catch up to the US in ICE they would have had to do a lot more in R&D just because the US is also moving there (though ICE has long ago reached the point of diminishing returns on investment)
It’s at least partially creditable to the nature of the models manufacturers chose to make, usually being midrange to luxury crossovers, SUVs, and performance cars. Yes the first two of those are popular categories and have no shortage of highly priced hybrid and ICE models, but EVs are too much of an unknown for too much of the population for those prices to be palatable.
Traditional automakers keep trying to replay Tesla’s entry into the market, but I don’t think that’s going to work. They need to instead be focusing on value above all else, which is something they’re severely allergic to. They don’t want to sell $20-$25k practical cars, they want to sell $60k SUVs with fat margins, but the appetite for expensive EVs is already well-sated with interested buyers having a plethora of options. So in a way, they’re guaranteeing their own failure when it comes to EVs.
I would say the used market starts to be more of a factor at $15k and below. Right now the value proposition of cars in the $15-25k range is truly awful, with it often making more sense to finance or lease a new car instead. When I was shopping last year I was seeing used Honda Fits that were the better part of a decade old north of the $15k mark, which is absurd considering they didn’t cost much more than that new. It’s even worse for in-demand models like RAV4’s.
I think you have cause and effect backwards. It's because there are so many people willing to pay $25K - $35K for a used SUV that used cars are so expensive.
Agreed. Our second car is > 12 years old now, and it will be replaced by a small electric city car. Won't be any time soon, because the selection is so poor.
> This situation has little-to-nothing to do with the current US administration.
This has everything to do with current policy in the US. Which is creating a lot of uncertainty, rolls back the clock on existing commitments, and creates huge disruption for existing manufacturers. This is a direct response to that and there will be more of it.
The notion that this is somehow going to save the US ICE car industry is misguided IMHO. I believe it will actually speed up it's demise. The domestic US market was already lagging behind international markets. GM and Ford are really struggling in those markets. Tariffs and counter tariffs are going to make that worse. Scaling back investments in technology that would allow them to catch up is not going to help either. It's a sign of weakness, not strength when companies stop investing in the future.
BYD is really crushing it in places like South America, Australia, all over Asia, etc. All markets where GM and Ford have to worry about keeping up. The Australian market is particularly interesting to watch because it's similar in tastes to the US but not crippled by tariffs (aka. taxes). It doesn't have a domestic car industry. Or an oil industry. So, they import what's good and affordable. And BYD and other Chinese manufacturers have a big presence there that is rapidly growing.
What happens inside the US is ultimately going to follow what is happening elsewhere. ICE cars are going the way of the dodo one way or another. It's process that's largely completed in China, well under way in Europe, and starting to happen all over the world now.
EVs aren't expensive anymore. That's a local problem in the US that has more to do with the US and how things (don't) work there than with the technology. You can get very decent ones below 20K now in many places. BYD will sell you EVs below 10K in China. The only thing keeping those off the market in the US is tariffs. The rest of the world is wide open to the Chinese and they are happy to grab market share wherever they can.
I have a Polestar 2 Performance, which is far from the paragon of efficiency, and it's still just $0.05 / mile in electricity to drive it.
A 40 MPG car, with gas at $3.29 / gallon is still $0.0823 / mile.
(EDIT I missed a zero and rounded wrong; number updated. Was not trying to argue it was an order of magnitude more expensive.)
Between fuel and maintenance, the EV has a much lower total cost of ownership. (And in some cases, has been approaching ICE levels for purchase, though it has a ways to go in the U.S. My example car was only an option as a 2 year old used vehicle... $40K off MSRP.)
I just paid $3.45 at a chargepoint charger for enough electricity for 22 miles. My plugin hybrid car gets 27 mi/ gallon. Gas is a cheaper source of energy for me
For sure, personal circumstances matter. Something like a third of U.S. drivers have a garage they could use for at-home charging without undue inconvenience (with some varying electricity costs across the nation) though a lot of U.S. homeowners like to use their garage for storage, which doesn't help!
Still, I think "gas being inexpensive" isn't exactly a winning argument when it can easily be 50% more expensive than electric.
My car performance would require a ~475 HP gasoline car (or arguably maybe 350-400 HP considering the weight differences), and would probably get 20 mpg, easily costing $0.16 / mile or more.
And there are EVs costing closer to $0.03 / mile on home electricity.
But if you're road-tripping or simply don't have home charging available, the calculus changes.
Does the total cost of ownership include battery maintenance? My Toyota 4Runner has 180k miles, still runs great, and is worth several thousands of dollars in Bluebook value. My biggest fear with EVs is that I've never heard a single positive story about what happens when the batteries fault.
That's because you might not be as well informed as you think probably.
180K miles is nothing for a decent EV. LFP batteries are good for 3000-5000 charging cycles. At around 250 miles per full charge that translates into 750K miles to 1.25M miles. NMC batteries last a bit less long. Their batteries might dip below 80% of the original capacity around the 750 cycle mark (190K miles). Most of the newer ones would do better than that at 1000-1500 cycles. Below 80% they don't suddenly fail. They just drive a bit less far than they used to.
Battery failures are pretty rare with EVs. Most manufacturers give 8 year warranties. That's because they are unlikely to fail before the warranty expires. So, it's a cheap promise to make. The model 3 has only been on the market for about 8 years now. Most of them are still under warranty. Most other EVs are newer than that.
Sure, but I'm not pointing out the longevity of the batteries, but rather the maintenance cost if/when they fault. I understand it will get better over time as technology improves, but it's been a large impediment to me (and probably others) from investing in them.
Here's a recent synopsis that suggests 50% of the car value on average back in 2020 [1].
A 250,000 mile car is worth scrap value whether it's gasoline or electric.
A battery failure and a timing chain break or other types of complete engine failure before that mileage are comparable concerns -- similar rate of occurrence and similar cost to fix.
Battery costs are continually declining. If you buy an EV today, and then if you need to replace the battery in 15 years, because you put 300,000 miles on it, it won't break the bank.
My calculator came up with $0.08225, so yes I missed the extra 2 and got my rounding wrong. You removed some precision though ;) so while I'm off by $0.00075 you're off by $0.00225, or about three times further from the correct number!
EDIT: Oh I see now you were more worried about the "0" I missed, fixed that now!
Even if it was, charging an EV just takes too long. I love my Tesla, but I can't drive it outside of town because there's nowhere to charge it. I can drive my gas-guzzling SUV anywhere in the US because when it runs out of gas, I pull into a gas station, spend two minutes gassing it up, and then keep going. The Tesla? Well, if I _can_ find a charging station that's actually working before I actually completely run out of charge, I'm going to be waiting a minimum two hours before I can keep going. AFAIK, there's no proposed solution for this; I can plug it in and home and keep it charged and it works great as long as I never drive it too far away to be plugged in and sit at home.
I have road tripped across the entire country multiple times with my Tesla and practically never had an issue charging. Also I've never had to wait more than 20-30 minutes to charge and keep going.
Yes its a little more inconvenient, but the US administration doesn't exactly place a value on making charging easy or providing incentives to develop/research unlike other developed countries. We don't innovate at all when it comes to infrastructure so no wonder EV adoption is lower here. Meanwhile many other developed countries are doing fine with their EV's.
Seems like most people would rather be stuck in the past hugging their gas vehicles than actually do something innovative because of some long foregone American Dream.
Gas is a lot more expensive ("fixed" with taxes) in the EU and the electric cars are losing steam here too.
You need to drive a lot (by EU urban standards at least) to justify the price premium and hassle of an all electric. Especially since we've been in a recession longer than the US which is just starting.
From TFA:
> But even before President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs on imports, many of those projects were being canceled — leaving thousands of jobs and the shift to clean energy in doubt.
Might have something to do with the end of free financing too...
I think the switch will happen sooner rather than later, considering the progress BYD is making in China (and many of their export markets).
It's true that electric vehicles remain a bit too expensive for many, but most of those people aren't buying brand new ICE vehicles either. Why spend lots of money to buy a brand new car of obsolete technology, when the alternative is to buy used and wait for electric ones to get cheaper? I know literally nobody in my age group (adults in their 30's) who has bought a brand new car in past few years. I live in rich EU country.
If the target, set by the government, is to be protectionist, then EVERYTHING in terms of investment needs to be canceled, because it does't make sense to invest when the internal market is going to be controlled by means of tariffs.
Given the chaos, how does any industry make long term investments any more? All financial plans could be flipped upside down for any reason at any time.
> Given the chaos, how does any industry make long term investments any more?
You could invest at the whims of the current administration and then invest further in supporting the autocracy.
That's how they do it in Russia.
I've heard the most prosperous times for the US are when the president's party is different from the congressional majority. Few laws get passed, so things stay stable for businesses.
No, the issue is half of Americans and American states are still into Red-state zero-sum policies which don't work very well in a modern world and modern economy. Today you want the black/female/trans/foreigner working at their absolute full potential, not slaving in your farm.
In the past it didn't matter so much economically because slaving in your farm was still one of the most important jobs. In 1900, ~40% of the American workforce was employed in agriculture. Yet even then the (ex) slave states were poor compared to northern states because they didn’t know how to invest in their population (still don’t).
You can make investments if you have a long term outlook. Odds are the president will be different in 4 years. Odds are the democrats take the house in 2 years (there is a small chance they take the senate too, though that seems unlikely). There is a 25% change Trump isn't even alive in 4 years just because of age, and the farther beyond that you look the less likely it is he lives.
Which is to say you have to invest for something knowing things will change and not knowing how. As always. This might even be a good time to invest if you have cash - prices are down and interest rates are up.
Democrats can't unring this bell. Decades of trust are irrevocably lost.
Ordinarily, I'd say you're right about investment. Long term, the market goes up. Trying to time the market isn't very effective; you might as well invest cash now.
These circumstances aren't ordinary. This is potentially a decade-long depression. I really hate saying that; "this time it's different" always sound stupid. But every nation on earth has just looked at the US and said, "Maybe not", and that's really unprecedented.
I'm not pulling out of the market myself, so you have to take everything with a grain of salt. Without more information, I don't know what to do, so I'm sticking with inertia, and hoping I'm wrong about the magnitude of the potential cataclysm.
they don't
Donald Trump has advocated for tariffs for 40 years. Agree with them or not, they were quite predictable, not chaos.
Yet he's already changed the amounts and/or start dates how many times in just a couple of months? It will continue like that because chaos is the nature of his whim-driven presidency.
Further, he won't be in power long enough to ensure nothing changes for 40 years – US trade policy isn't read-only form here on out. Painful tariffs might not even survive until the midterms next year, if Congresspeople start fretting about keeping their jobs.
This is larger than tariffs:
> But even before President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs on imports, many of those projects were being canceled — leaving thousands of jobs and the shift to clean energy in doubt.
Sure, his energy policy was predictable too, but you'd have needed to predict the election results too to act on them. Who knows that'll happen in 4 years, will it be more of this or will we see EV subsidies returned? That's the part that's hardest to predict.
What isn't predictable is how long things will last. Many in congress are for free trade and have the ability to stop tariffs in various ways. (tariffs fall under some emergency ruling not a low passed by congress as the constitution requires). There is likely to be more elections in the future with different people in charge with different intents. The question is will the next people in charge also keep tariffs high.
What's worse is lets say it takes you 3-4 years to get your factory online. A new admin comes in and rescinds all the tariffs. Now your new factory and all it's debt need to compete with the pre-tariff prices.
Doesn't even need to be a new administration.
Many people online are saying (or trying to convince themselves) that the tariffs are part of some smart negotiating strategy, and that they will be rescinded once other countries feel the pain (or when citizens revolt). So large companies will hold out on doing any major investment, lest they be holding the bag.
The administration's general instability and flip-floppiness makes it impossible to make any long-term business decisions. Having a leader who can't be trusted to change their mind on a moment's notice does damage regardless of the policies.
Maybe crashing the stock market really is part of the plan, i mean if you arent investing maybe you should use that money to open a factory? I hear AI will do all the labor for you and that will "only get better (TM)"
Although all those nvidia racks apparently use more power than any datacenter in the world has ever deployed in the past... so i hope you know how to run your own power plant onsite too
Oops you also need to install prison level security around all your buildings and homes because the entire population wants your blood, thats ok its an excuse to diversify into weaponized drone manufacturing and local deployment which is another big business opportunity. Wow so many opportunities for rich people!
> impossible to make any long-term business decisions.
Only if the long term decision depends on high tariffs. There are lots of business decisions that don't.
An awful lot of business decisions depend on the expected price of the materials and equipment your business needs, and/or what market price you can expect to be able to charge for whatever it is you plan to sell. Tariffs this sweeping will make both of those things much harder to predict for almost every business in the country soon.
The federal government does a lot more than dictate tariffs. There's immigration, monetary policy, war spending, etc. And Trump is not afraid to bully governors, so state policies will also be affected.
That's quite likely to happen given how American politics tend to go left to right then back almost every election. I suppose some companies (but not all) will prefer to lose some money now rather than to take the risk of investing in large factories in the USA and lose whole factories, along with all money they invested into it, later.
The tariffs are going to be used as leverage in negotiations in the following months. If countries sign on to trump's new trade agreements, it likely won't make sense to rescind them.
Stephan Miran, Trumps top economic advisor, laid out exactly what they are doing in an essay he wrote back in November[1]. For better or worse, this is what they seem to be moving forward with, and the document spells out things like unilateral tariffs and expecting a lot of potential market volatility, before offering trade terms that seek to devalue the USD in return for protection and favorable trade agreements.
In short, they are trying to force a global trade restructuring that will increase US manufacturing strength and weaken US financial strength - all while trying to keep reserve currency status.
[1]https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/rese...
This isn't 4d chess. The first trading partners he threatened were Canada and Mexico, who we set up a trading agreement with in his last presidency and declared it the best trade agreements ever.
Don't worry, I'm stuck on the same terrifying bus as you.
Sorry, but let's be clear about something. Capital has an overwhelming say in the direction of the American government. If they want to push us in a direction, they can simply buy that direction.
They bought this one, and now they are crying about it.
So the answer to your question is: go invest in a congress person. Buy stability. Or else remain flexible, don't invest, go out of business, whatever.
I don't understand what you are saying here at all.
I think what they mean is: these plans were made in another time so they might harm the company financially (or be extremely lopsided) given the "new mandate" (may change again too) from the Trump admin.
Just a measure to take a step back and assess the whole picture I'm assuming.
[flagged]
> “The Respected Comrade’s brilliant economic agenda is an all-encompassing plan to revive our economy by unleashing Chosun energy, implementing tariffs to level the playing field, and bringing trillions of won in historic investments to our country’s manufacturing sector,” minister Paek Sông-Ryông said.
> In North America and Europe, we continue to dabble in this 10 percent to 15 percent level.
Europe was 20% in 2023 and 25% in 2024. I think they're past the dabble phase.
UK BEV + PHEV cars make up 28.9% registrations for March 2025.
For March:
BEV registrations up from 48,388 in 2024, to 69,313 in 2025.
PHEV registrations up from 24,517 in 2024, to 33,815 in 2025.
1. https://www.smmt.co.uk/vehicle-data/car-registrations/
I live in Munich, where the main BMW factory is. That factory's currently being reconstructed to only produce EVs.
Dabbling it's not.
I just got my first EV in Europe and seriously contemplating changing my second car to an EV as well. Driving an EV is goddamn fantastic.
quick query in google says only 400k out of the 38 million vehicles in Spain are electric
EVs are expensive and unreliable for the time being
Electric cars are a new phenomenon. You don’t need to be a genius to figure that the old stock will be gasoline and diesel.
My Californian Fiat 500e is the most reliable car I've ever owned.
On the other hand, my friend's Model 3 has some recall or problem roughly every six months.
So, I guess it depends on which EV you buy, but I'm pretty sure the most reliable EVs are more reliable than the most reliable ICEs, simply because they have fewer moving parts (quite literally).
Yep, fewer moving parts tends to mean more reliable. Jet engines versus piston engines in aeroplanes is an example that's not about electricity, the difference in reliability is enormous, maybe 100:1 ratio.
Recall problem as in a software update?
No, stuff he had to go to the shop for.
At one point, they had to replace the brakes, then the whole chassis suspension (or something like that, I'm not sure if I understood exactly what he said), then one of the cameras didn't work anymore, and then the windshield wipers didn't come on automatically. Something breaks or needs to be replaced due to a recall at oddly regular intervals.
I also know someone who's Tesla also seems to have constant problems.
Even so, they love the vehicle, underscoring that the EV drivetrain is such a step up from ICE that if everything around it is mediocre, it doesn't matter.
I doubt that is the norm. Tesla does have very high customer satisfaction numbers.
Depending on how consumer satisfaction surveys are phrased, it totally could be the norm, given this:
> Even so, they love the vehicle
I.e. if Tesla owners are constantly having maintenance issues but manage to still love their vehicles despite that, then their satisfaction is still high.
Unreliable ?
Unreliable what? How?
I would love an EV but the charging infrastructure is absolutely abysmal if you live in an apartment in NYC like I do.
I've only visited NYC, but I think if I lived there I wouldn't want to drive a car at all. The public transportation and walkability are excellent. Is my impression a common misunderstanding?
It is an indication of US mismanagement that concentrated people can't be served with recharging infrastructure while distributed suburbanites in mcmansions can easily be served.
Like apartment buildings with parking. Why the hell aren't there funding projects to provide recharging for these highly concentrated housing where electrifying/reducing emissions has compounded benefits, where you need far less wiring to provide recharging for a far larger number of cars than an equivalent amount of suburban housing?
It speaks to how money is directed for infrastructure and utilities by the government.
It's basically madness.
> It is an indication of US mismanagement that concentrated people can't be served with recharging infrastructure while distributed suburbanites in mcmansions can easily be served.
No, it is an indication of good management for lower prices for all. Maybe an indication of lack of foresight, but electronics don't last forever, planning for EVs in 1960 would have been stupid - the fuse boxes (probably not modern breakers) would be worn out and replaced without every charging a single EV. Even today there have been a number of EV charger fires because outlets we thought were safe for EV currents for decades turn out to be marginal when put to that use and so again planning ahead would have put in the wrong thing.
Suburban houses have plenty of power because you might use the dryer, stove and AC at the same time and so need that much power - but in fact nobody every uses all their power so there is enough spare power to every house for an EV. An apartment can better rely on not everyone does all that at the same time and so they can build with much less extra power and in turn save costs for everyone.
Even in suburban locations, any one house has enough power, but the whole neighborhood might not and power companies are doing expensive upgrades to fix that. Not to mention power plants may not have enough spare capacity. (there are also commonly incentives to charge off peak thus using power when there is spare capacity in the system)
> It is an indication of US mismanagement that concentrated people can't be served with recharging infrastructure while distributed suburbanites in mcmansions can easily be served.
Um, not really. Almost all houses have 240V lines. It's non-trivial to add a ton of 240V connections into some basement that's barely wired for power.
If it was as non-trivial to do in apartment complexes as it is in houses, this wouldn't be an issue.
This isn't some grand scheme of mismanagement to screw over New Yorkers.
In NYC you can probably get by with the ~40 miles range of 120V charging, but this doesn't really negate your point about poor charging infrastructure.
Yes, and it's something that can be fixed and absolutely should be fixed.
Charging is an issue for almost everyone I know. If I could get my utility company PG&E to upgrade my power, I could consider it, but we're told we have to wait years. So we have no way to charge, and there are not enough chargers around here are.
I know a bunch of people who charge on standard 120V/15A. That'll let you add 40 miles of range overnight. It's not as good as 240V/50A that'll fully charge your car in 4 hours, but it is enough that they only rarely have to visit local fast chargers.
That's what I do. And I still don't even bother to charge most nights. If you live in a relatively urban area and don't do a lot of driving that is more than adequate.
The problem is your emissions are minuscule and the difference between you owning an electric car or gas car is meaningless if your goal is to save the climate.
The big, heavy carbon users need to switch. But they have needs that are difficult to serve by electric
Electric generation is the low hanging fruit but some nations are already at the stage that the power sector has lower emissions than the transport sector and it is probably the next dominoe to fall. The country saves money and gets cleaner air plus battery storage to aid in greening the rest of the grid.
Everyone needs to switch to carbon neutral eventually, not everyone has to do it at the same time.
> Everyone needs to switch to carbon neutral eventually, not everyone has to do it at the same time.
That was true decades ago, but now it's gone far too long without any real action, and things have gotten far enough out of control that everyone really does kinda have to do it at the same time if we want a shred of hope to turn this flaming bus ride over the cliff-edge around (or even slow it down at all). It could have all been a relatively painless transition, but now there will be suffering involved, and the longer it's delayed, the worse the suffering will be.
It was indeed already true decades ago.
I would say that the transition we are currently witnessing is real action: while the pandemic made it difficult to be certain, the extremely rapid growth of renewables — even though electricity is far from the only concern — seems to have resulted in emissions either peaking or being very close to peaking.
I'm not sure if we really could have gone much faster. 20 years ago I would have bet on nuclear energy and hydrogen cars, not because they were cheap, but because nuclear was already at the right scale and hydrogen can obviously be scaled up quickly whenever the energy is cheap. Instead, we got PV so cheap I'm planning on getting a balcony system with a pay-back period of less than a year because it makes sense to get that immediately while my partner and I plan how to do a full-power system, and batteries are so cheap they're not only used in cars but also for grid power time shifting.
But to expand on what I said before, electricity is far from the only concern: we need to reduce emissions by 99.9% to be sustainable. If you look at this graph, https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector, the remaining 0.1% is the smallest line in the pie chart — "grassland". Switching all road transport to electric helps a lot (11.9%), it's not something to be dismissed simply because other things also need to be fixed.
The direct impact of an individual vehicle is small. Collectively, they justify further investments in infrastructure and research, eventually addressing more needs.
I agree with the replies indicating emissions aren't trivial, but to answer to the more self-serving interests that are well represented on HN: have you experienced NEVER going to a gas station?
Seriously, that is a great feature of EVs...
Not to mention the massively reduced cost/mile. I expect my used Nissan Leaf to pay for itself in ~5years...
Not to mention the AMAZING acceleration of even a non-performance oriented EV...
My car is my biggest source of emissions in my life. (I use a heat pump except on the coldest days) Though I just got a PEHV, which has greatly reduced my profile. I also live where my electric comes from renewable sources (my local utility generates more wind in a year than all customers use), so I can just ignore the impact of electric generation.
Yes making a car uses a lot of carbon, but the car lasts a long time and generally in a ICE car the carbon emissions from using it are greater the manufacturing.
1 car has miniscule emissions, if you call 50 tons of CO2 emissions miniscule, I don't. 2 billion cars & trucks together comprise the largest source of carbon emissions.
[flagged]
I did that for years, just using an average power plug (now I moved to a house that already had a fast charger installed). The car, a PHEV, came with the recharger and charged fully overnight. The car only goes around 40km on EV alone, but that's more than enough for my daily needs. And it's almost "free", we did not notice any change in the electric bill after buying the car!
I find that the 30 miles my PHEV gives me is not enough for daily needs several times a week. Though I seem to be saving hundreds of dollars every month in gas while I haven't noticed a power bill increase (I've only had it for a few weeks so I can't fully gauge the impact, but so far it seems to line up with your report). At the point I can safely tell most people that they should just refuse to look at any new vehicle that isn't PHEV or full EV. Used car buyers should be willing to pay a lot more of the above - it will pay off in the long term.
Note that the big battery in a BEV is a great averaging mechanism. As long as your average drive is less than the amount you get from an overnight charge, you're likely fine. If you're adding 40 miles of range a night to a 300 mile battery, you have to have 4 consecutive days of 100 mile usage before you have to hit an external charger. Mix a few days of 20 mile usage between those 100 mile days and external charger usage is exceedingly rare.
Or, if we are getting fancy, 240V/20A, which can be run with just a single 12/2 Romex, provides around 3x the "range" per hour, since there is some fixed overhead losses to heat the battery pack, turn electronics on, etc.
In new-ish (but not new enough to have EV charger prewiring) construction, garages sometimes have a dedicated 20A receptacle circuit for a garage freezer. If its a dedicated circuit with one outlet, you can rewire the 120V/20A to 240V/20A to get 3.8kW vs 1.4kW on a 120V/15A. The cost to do this (to code) would be about $150, or $50 if you don't care about GFCI. Could also buy a used, cheap, hardwired EVSE rather than making it an outlet.
While it's not cost effective, I've been debating getting a $300 smart switcher that plugs into my dryer's 240V / 30A, and includes an adapter to the 50A plug my home charger users, while preventing charging while the dryer is in use.
Dryer is next to garage, still need to make a "fancy" hole in the wall, but definitely like the idea of the faster, more efficient charging option.
In the meantime, slow-ass 120V/15A charging is plenty for my needs.
I've thought about that, but technically those are not allowed by code in most places.
I don’t know where you live, but I charge my EV using two phase 240V outlet (same as the ones used by washing machine) and it takes about 8 hours to charge from 30% to full, which is more than enough for 99% of my use cases
Unfortunately, a lot of people here who live in apartments have to wait for any electricity to be added to the parking lot at all, even 120V is generally unavailable. It's definitely restricting adoption.
Yes, but also - people who live in apartments and condos are the most likely not to even own a car in the first place, and if they do, drive it the least.
The people who are doing the most driving are the suburban folks living in houses with big yards and driving 30 miles into work every day.
And that's a larger chunk of the total population in the US than the apartment dwellers who own cars.
Your metro may vary.
Rome wasn't built in a day.
Charging will come to newer apartments, and then older apartments.
In my metro there are a lot of apartments in the suburbs that are just as car dependent as any single family house. Some have bus service, but it is the service for those who after 5 DWIs can't get someone else to drive them, not the fast frequent service that makes people willing to take the bus if they have any other option.
Sure, same situation here. Lots of apartments in mostly car dependent areas.
But there's still a lot of single-family homes, yes? Like, the majority of people living in those areas are in single-family homes? So probably the majority of car owners?
30% in my suburb (10 years ago there were farms between it and the city so this is new) live in apartments of some sort. Majority is single family, but still a significant enough number in something else.
So 70% live in probably new build single family construction, likely with 200A electrical service in their garage. Those people can probably easily swap to an EV, outside other complications.
Easily 50%+ of households around you could probably have an EV. And yet people act like it's only some tiny miniscule slice of the population which could easily change to an EV.
Maybe people otherwise like me, but I've long ago realized for most people an EV with decent range (the leaf is not quite there) would work for most people. However such do not exist, if you buy new there are few options, if you are drive used cars you are stuck with what you can find.
So 70% - and this is a very atypical suburb.
It doesn't sound incredibly atypical. It actually sounds pretty typical to the areas I know, which are several of the largest metro areas in the US.
The atypical part is only that this is an all new one - suburbs have existed for more than 100 years now, so there are a lot of older houses in the suburbs, many of them don't have 200 amp service (though the owners are upgrading them as they as things like AC that need more power and were not considered in the original design)
Sure, there are suburbs that have existed for a long time and are still going strong. And a lot of 100 year old suburbs that became financially unviable and are now empty or torn down.
But large chunks of some of the largest metro areas are made up of massive suburbs largely built from the 2000s onwards. I'm talking Houston, Phoenix, DFW, Austin, Atlanta, Denver, San Antonio, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Tucson, Knoxville, and similar areas. And that's just areas I've visited.
Sure, there are 100+ year old neighborhoods in Dallas. But around me, some homes were made in the 50s, a big spurt were made in the late 70s and early 80s, then a massive amount were built in the 00's to literally still being constructed. Massive neighborhoods, apartment complexes, shopping centers, and more exist where there was farmland just five years ago. This makes up a large percentage of the growth of this city. It's not like they're building 100 year old houses for the 30% of growth over the last 25 years.
Go take a look at satellite images of Prosper TX. Of Princeton TX. McKinney TX. Allen TX. Rockwall TX. Dickinson TX.
Where I grew up in Houston in the late 80s/early 90s, you practically couldn't find a house that was built before 1975 other than the derelict remains of old farm houses. The house I grew up in was built in '93 and was kind of out there at the time (had to take a dirt road to get to the neighborhood!) And there's been a ton of construction since then, going further and further into the swamps. Woods where I grew up playing in are now full of single family homes.
So no, the sprawl of suburbs continuously marching more and more into the country side isn't a new thing and it isn't something rare in the slightest. It's happening practically everywhere that's growing in the US and has been for 30+ years.
Technically not two-phase, it is just both sides of the single phase.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMmUoZh3Hq4
This is a problem that an administration could easily solve given enough motivation, so it is fundamentally a problem with US administrations. Provide high incentives to provide easy access to charging infrastructure from federal funding. This is simply not an issue in many other countries that actually place value on modern infrastructure, or an issue that is quickly rectifying itself, except in the US.
But that doesn't put money into oil profits and hurts their bottom line.
IT need not be federal. Your state can do more than the federal government - some of the most effective changes are things the constitution doesn't give the federal government power over. Require 50 amp capability to every parking spot for example is something only the states can do (possibly you can limit this to residential). For that matter states could just build good transit systems, while there are federal subsidies most states are big enough to go alone and pay for it out of the savings from their road budget.
I can foresee a lot of places using battery “reservoirs” as batteries become cheaper. Gas stations don’t have pipelines straight to the pump.
It only makes more sense if you want to make the grid greener & have price arbitrage based on the time of day.
I’m sure there are problems with this (feel free to point them out).
On-site battery storage is the standard for DC fast charging installations. It's already cheaper.
I charge every night on standard power. I only ever charge using fast chargers when I’m over 100 miles away from home and want to drive back same day - this barely ever happens.
I briefly owned a Smart EV, a decade ago or so, and handily recharged it from 110 overnight. But obviously with a larger vehicle, longer range, larger battery capacity, charging it from low to full must be quite the consumption of energy.
It would be nice if somehow we could move to lighter cars where the same range would require half the battery capacity, therefore half the charging resources to go from low to full.
Compromise. I love driving tiny cars, but once in a while I need to haul a large load (you can't rent a truck for this in many cases - I've tried: normally it isn't allowed in the contract even when it is there are restrictions. All that assumes you can find something for rent when you need it. So I drive a large truck. (well once a week I drive a large truck, most of the time I bike)
> charging it from low to full must be quite the consumption of energy
Charging it from low to high generally uses the same energy as five charges of 1/5th the capacity.
I live in a house in San Diego, built in 1920.
It has 240v AC, which I use to charge.
I seriously doubt you need to "upgrade" anything, just plug in the car.
Unless you're trying to have the highest grade fast charging at home, your existing electrical connection is almost certainly adequate. But since a car at home can charge overnight, you almost certainly don't need any kind of fast charging...
Unlike what some people think you really don't need a 7kW charger at home. A dryer outlet will charge a car fully overnight.
Depends on range. My PEHV only has 30 miles of range, sometimes my morning errands use that and it would be nice for a 1 hour charge over lunch for the afternoon errands. (most days 30 miles is plenty). Or better yet just mandate 70 miles minimum range which will get most daily errands.
This is why I keep saying it's good to put PV cells onto cars *despite* that being a suboptimal place for the cells and the car bodies not being big enough to generate 100% of what they need.
Putting them there makes the necessary grid upgrades much smaller than they otherwise would be.
A car and get maybe 200 watts in the best conditions - not enough to be significant. Even if parked in the sun all day you won't get much range from that.
Now a semi truck might actually get significant added range.
US collectively does ~3.3e12 miles per year[0], over 283e6 registered vehicles[1], or 32 miles per vehicle per day.
EV efficiency is around 24-30 kWh/100 miles[2], so that's around 8-10 kWh/day.
200 W is what I expect as a 24h average; that's 4.8 kWh/day, 48%-60% of average usage.
I'd expect a semi to be a much smaller percentage because of getting driven further each day — drivers get in the news for spending longer than they're supposed to behind the wheel.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-drivers-log-328-trillion...
[1] https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/united-states/number-o...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_EPA_fuel_economy
200w is an instantaneous measure, not a daily measure. I would guess just over 1kw/h generated over the course of a day - between the panels not being at the correct angle, clouds, and just how long the sun is up that seems reasonable. You could get a large SUV up to maybe 3 with the most efficient panels in the desert.
I pointed out a semi because for long distance shipping they don't use much power (they get as much as 10mpg - but I don't know how to turn that into watts) and because of that long trailer they could potentially be close to energy neutral around mid-day (though only for a couple hours during ideal conditions).
200 watts instantaneous peak is one square meter, given panels are in the 20% efficiency range.
Most cars are around 2m wide, 4-6m long, less windows. Off noon, the side pannels become relevant.
Capacity factor for sensible systems are around 10-15%, which encompasses both weather and night.
>200 W is what I expect as a 24h average; that's 4.8 kWh/day
I guess we don't know where you live, but on the surface of planet Earth, you only get 12 hours of daylight, averaged over the course of a year. Plus dusk and dawn aren't really good for solar power. And then clouds are also a factor for many locations.
I'm already accounting for all that. Footprint of a car is close to 8-10m^2, that area of 20% cells with a 10-15% capacity factor (covering night and clouds) is 160-300 watts.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1kW%2Fm%5E2%2A8m%5E2%2A...
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1kW%2Fm%5E2%2A10m%5E2%2...
They aren't being cancelled in China.
What an absurd own-goal. BYD will eat the world.
“China is at 50 percent EV penetration already,” Ricardo C. Rodriguez, the chief financial officer and treasurer of Aspen Aerogels, said on the call, saying the shift to China was a “no-brainer.” “In North America and Europe, we continue to dabble in this 10 percent to 15 percent level. So, you do start wondering, right, is that progress?”
All this "trade war" stuff to "combat" china would be like some kind of battle where your soldiers all do seppuku and call it victory.
Like the 49% tariff in south east asia to "combat" china influence. Really? You jack up the price by almost 50% and they'll like you more and not look elsewhere? How does this work?
The USA had a great opportunity to recognize the competition with China and invest more to win the competition (as it did with USSR). Instead, they decided that, as the top dog, the "best" option was to play protectionism and try to block China. This is the path of economic destruction for the US.
That was the point of TPP which the US withdrew from in 2018.
Trump pulled out on his first day in office.
The rest of the countries carried on without the USA and to add to the irony, China applied to join it in 2021.
His claimed anti-China stance is one of his most effective lies.
There's this weird idea many Americans have, as if they're 80% of the world and nobody can live without them.
They don't travel abroad, can't point to other countries on a map... The level of international awareness is staggeringly low.
These policies only make sense under that common delusion
Most Europeans have this crazy idea that the US is as large as their country. They think traveling from France to Germany is international and a bid deal - people in the US travel farther than that all the time while remaining in the US.
US is 1/4 of World GDP, so that is (was?) a pretty big deal.
So 3/4 will rearrange accordingly. It will take time and will be painful but for 96% of global population a step in right direction, there is only so many attacks and bullying one can stand.
I wish it didnt have to come to this, but here we are, direction is clear. No point waiting that next election cycle will be much different, it won't be.
Not only but now the trust is broken
Let's say this was SomewhereElsistan and they elected someone who just cancelled contracts, backed out of treaties, refused to pay balances, fired entire departments and maybe even arrest your international colleague working there and sent them to a foreign concentration camp.
Afterwards they elect Johnny Reasonable who doesn't do this.
Would you go back with any kind of assurance it wouldn't happen again? Nobody stopped the first guy.
The US reputation in international markets is hosed for decades unless some dramatic reversal and patching comes in, by both Congress and the courts or some wild thing where the states override the federal government somehow.
Otherwise the trust is gone for decades, perhaps forever.
He basically cleaned whole route for world dominance for China. All they have to do is to be more friendly to Europe, rest of Asia and literally rest of the world, thats enough. Just a bit friendly, nothing more.
Once oil starts trading in parallel in RMB, the only thing going for US will be waning momentum and its military, while China will be in reverse situation.
Just like putin being arrogant and aggressive about Ukraine wanting to join NATO, causing Finland and Sweden to join (which they wouldn't do otherwise), he is causing what he is causing. I am fixing my floating mortgage on monday, we have currently 0.2% SNB rate but the risk of it shooting up is massive.
Trump is leaning on the fact that US consumers are the golden geese of consumers. Which is in fact true. So he will go to the EU and ask them if they would rather sign new currency and trade agreements or lose the top 20% of their buyers. The currency and trade agreements will pretty much be "Let us weaken the dollar, and equalize trading tariffs, ideally at 0%. In return you will get continued military support and preferential future trading terms"
On the surface this actually isn't too terrible. But the problem is that Trump is an idiot and he is the one who has to navigate this.
Also that assumption is changing dramatically. Globally maybe 15 countries are on substantial upward trajectories that will last decades, similar to South Korea's transformation.
If you could travel to 2075 you're likely to find places like Vietnam and Nigeria rising economic stars.
People will be traveling around Africa in an HSR network https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_high-speed_rail_by_... to bustling metropolises in places like Kenya and Ethiopia.
South East Asian countries like Thailand and Malaysia will have valuable international companies.
The customers in Columbus Ohio won't really be relevant.
> preferential future trading terms
There is no point in making a deal with someone who will not respect any deals. Remember the deal with Mexico and Canada in the first Trump mandate? They made a new agreement and that's what they received as payment. Any country or block that deals with this administration is basically lunatic or in deep despair.
>But the problem is that Trump is an idiot and he is the one who has to navigate this.
I mean I totally agree here. The goal however will be a deal that lasts decades and hopefully trump will be a rekoning and we will see a return to more stability in the future.
It seems we are boarding this bus no matter what, and Trump is driver. If he flies off a cliff, then we can all say "told you so" to the right on the way down, for whatever that is worth.
less than 50% of Americans even voted for this crap so maybe avoid the generalism.
This is exactly the delusion that US media (news and entertainment) has enforced for 80 years. It is difficult for Americans not to believe in something that their media and politicians repeat daily.
Just got back from China, it's insane. EVs with green plates literally everywhere, not just in T1 cities like Shenzhen but even in smaller ones. The infrastructure’s on another level compared to the US.
The adoption of electric scooters is phenomenal. It's like Vietnam but all electric.
Here in Sweden, 63% of new cars sold are electrical or PHEV. Still, unfortunately we still see a lot of fossil fueled cars on the roads... you immediately notice them because they're so damn noisy - and when you get used to the silence of EVs , it's hard to not notice them and be a bit disgusted.
It's just self-imposed sanctions in addition to severing ties with American allies.
On top of this, Russia has no sanctions, and we know that the US will cancel Russian sanctions too.
Again, it doesn't matter if Trump is some manchurian candidate. His behavior is 100% in line with him, and the behavior and policies are what do the damage to the USA.
Trump pretty much cancelled subsidies, so at least in the US this is the largest reason.
Thanks to Trump and to a lesser extent all other presidents of the US, 4C here we come my 2100 :( If not for Trump we would probably still hit 3.5C. 1.5 is a forlorn dream, and probably was a dream when it was decided upon.
I have been using RCP 8.5 for all of my long-term decision making (where to move and buy a house, how sustainably I plan to live).
Based off the downvotes I receive on here I think I'm too much of a collapsenik for the average HN poster, but one benefit of being neurotic is that by the time people finally start reckoning with the current state of collapse, I have already made peace with it. The downside is that I become miserable to talk to.
At that level of CO2, your brain is fucked even if you're otherwise ok.
I'm more ambivalent about CO2 than just about anybody, but I'd go to war over that concentration.
I say plan for the worst and hope for the best.
> but I'd go to war over that concentration
I think this is why the US is trying to annex greenland.
Although I'm fairly optimistic about carbon, I think we need pessemists to get any stuff like this done.
And we need a diverse set of baseline estimates — yours and worse, not just mine and better — so some of us survive whatever nonsense the next 75 years brings.
(I'm also a pessimist about many other things besides carbon).
[flagged]
Your ideology is demonizing and burning the company most effectively fighting climate change.
The best invention against climate change is the bicycle. Few resources to produce (often 10% of the weight of the user, a car easily weighs 2000% of it's 1.3 average passengers), low requirements for infrastructure and with a folding bike you can take it with you anywhere. Personal transport is the segment that fails to do its bit against climate change and electric cars are still cars that need wide road, parking, electric infrastructure etc.
EVs are not the solution, they just shift the emissions elsewhere and perpetuate a car-based society which is a much larger issue. Policies like NYCs congestion pricing and light rail are infinitely more impactful.
> they just shift the emissions elsewhere
The electricity grid is going emissions free faster than the transportation infrastructure. So the emissions from the production of both gasoline & electric vehicles are going down quickly.
That doesn't solve the environmental impacts of: tire usage, EV production, battery degradation, road maintenance, charging infrastructure, and all the costs downstream of suburban development built around cars like:
- millions of miles of electrical lines - millions of sq ft of parking lots - wastewater management infrastructure - sewage infrastructure - high municipal debt to service all of the above
Which company? BYD, NIO or maybe Wuling?
https://archive.is/qPILX
Biggest own goals of the 21st century ....
UK: Brexit
USA: Donald Trump
[flagged]
That was the Chevy Volt. And it was a glorious piece of amazing engineering.
Not marketed. Barely sold. Dealers hated it (too reliable, too "weird"). Technology never transferred into a larger vehicle that "normal" Americans would want to drive. GM couldn't be convinced to make an Equinox or a Silverado with that kind of drivetrain, or even try. They decided that pure electric made more sense, but they also are incapable of marketing and selling that, either.
My cynical take is: Combustion engines and highways made North America as it is. The Baby Boomer "American Grafitti" generation that holds power lives and breathes gas burning auto culture as the apex of and very definition of progress.
ICE from their cold dead hands.
Our continent will go down literally burning because of it.
(Well, Trump is currently killing off what remains of the North American auto industry, so I guess we'll see...)
Please stop with the hyperbole. It's unproductive. Switching everyone to BEVs would require a massive investment in infrastructure. Given the speeds at which EVs charge, at least every other parking spot at the stop would need a charger to make it viable for the average consumer.
Assuming at least a quarter of those are actually charging at the same time, supplying that amount of power requires a massive upgrade to wiring and delivery to all road stops. We would need high voltage lines and a mini substation running to every stop along the road. Not to mention the massive upgrade in power generation capacity.
>Given the speeds at which EVs charge, at least every other parking spot at the stop would need a charger to make it viable for the average consumer.
That's what they do in China. Go to any random underground parking, and you'll find charging stations everywhere. Even the bikes are all electric and have chargers everywhere.
It's absolutely wild to me that the argument against BEVs is, "But we don't have the infrastructure right now, and we definitely won't be able to build it!"
This is such a sad capitulation.
It's also a totally off-base response when we were talking in this thread about a vehicle (the Volt, or even the Prius) that doesn't need that infrastructure anyways.
Like, let's just be fine with the "half-measure." If all drivers switched to a (strong) plugin hybrid tomorrow, emissions would be down significantly without any real need for this supposedly-blocking-progress infrastructure.
That we couldn't even get there underscores my point above. There are forces working against that. We should identify what they are and fight them.
Unless we're just still being climate change deniers. I guess we are.
Yeah, the Volt is one of the best cars made this millennium. It's criminal that everybody ignored it.
Mine got totaled in an accident, and I was going to replace it with a new used one, only to find GM is not selling replacement parts for key things that are starting to go wrong on them. And being dicks about warranties.
So I'm driving a Polestar2 now. Which is fine, it's fun. But road trips suck.
That's a damn nice car, though.
It's nice but not worth the price to buy it new, not even close. I got mine used and quite depreciated.
And with the tariffs against Chinese vehicles it's been removed from sale in North America (for new vehicles, only available used) and it's questionable about how well I'll be able to get it serviced in the future. The local Volvo dealers apparently have a chip on their shoulders about Polestar and won't touch it, either.
> Given the speeds at which EVs charge, at least every other parking spot at the stop would need a charger to make it viable for the average consumer
This is not based in reality.
My car visits many dozens of parking spots in an average week. Only one of them needs a charger.
When I leave the house, its fully charged with >200mi of range. I drop the kids off at school, I don't need to charge. I go to the office, I don't need to charge (although there are chargers available). I go to a restaurant for lunch, I don't need to charge. I go to the pharmacy, I don't need to charge (although there are chargers available). I go to hardware store, I don't need to charge. I go to grocer, I don't need to charge (although there are chargers available). I pick up the kids from school, I don't need to charge. We go to the city park, I don't need to charge (although there are chargers available). I get home, and plug in. Finally, it charges, even though it didn't use 25% of its capacity. It can charge slowly over several hours, imparting about the same load on the grid than my air conditioner or pool pump.
I am absolutely an average American car consumer. Maybe only slightly less, as I don't own a pickup truck.
I do agree, an EV today probably isn't for everyone. People who routinely do very long road trips might not have a great experience depending on where they are. People who absolutely can't charge at home and there aren't many chargers around their grocery stores or office probably shouldn't get an EV. Currently EV pickup trucks are stupid expensive and aren't great for towing, so if you're the kind of person putting his boat in the lake every weekend its probably not right for you today.
But most Americans live in single-family homes, which generally speaking can easily get a several kW charger installed pretty cheap. And it wouldn't put much more load on the grid as any other appliance in their house.
My absolutely biased take is that ICE car drivers are so accustomed to their frequent trips to the gas station that they just can't imagine a vehicle that does not require this.
Granted, that observation applies mostly only to single family home owners who can run an L2 EVSE. It is naturally different for people who cannot charge at home.
But I think there's also often an assumption that an EVSE is some elaborate expensive thing. I charged for years at 3kW, and drove 100+km a day on that. It was fine. Even an L1 120v charge could just fine for people who are going like 30-40km a day, which is a lot of people.
ICE drivers are also accustomed to filling the gas tank to the top. You can save a lot of time by stopping charging at 80%.
> Switching everyone to BEVs would require a massive investment in infrastructure.
God forbid? Why is this phrased like a bad thing. We should be investing in infrastructure. Any country with a modicum of common sense invests in the basic functioning of that country going forward?
I have no idea who you think you're arguing against, but it isn't me.
Well we have Tesla.
The real problem is that our auto companies (besides Tesla) are reliant and subsidized by the Government, making them highly inefficient, and unable to compete within a global market without giant subsidies.
The real problem is that American consumers are demanding these gigantic monstrosity SUVs and trucks which literally cannot fit on European streets. When Ford et al were making hot hatchbacks, they were incredibly popular overseas. The inefficiency is at the consumer level.
My town is filled with massive Ford pickups. Pristine and clean, nothing in the beds. These people are no 'utilizing' the thing, it's just a status symbol. Annoys me so much.
European streets? My American city isn't even that old - much of the infrastructure is mid 90s - but modern vehicles just barely fit in the parking lots throughout it. It's common to see some asshole parking their pickup horizontally.
Ford has plenty of cars that fit european roads. The problem is that their cars are garbage.
The bespoke UK/EU models are not the priority, again because they aren't being made in the US, so yes the quality drops.
You cannot get, for example, a new Focus in the US market. When you could, they were much higher quality.
The only Chevrolet you can buy in the UK is the Corvette. Chevrolet makes nine SUVs, four trucks (with however many infinite variations), and exactly one shitbox non-Corvette car.
If US automakers started turning their eyes towards smaller more efficient cars, where hauling Brayden to and from their soccer games didn't require multiple tons of steel, then they could compete in the EU market.
TBF, pretty soon you won't be able to buy a new Focus anywhere else, production finishes this year. Stellantis is still making cars of a similar size and could brand them as Chrysler for the US market.
They cancelled the best selling car in the UK, the Fiesta.
Others are pointing this out but for anyone curious Tesla has received a tonne of indirect subsidy via electric vehicle sales incentives on the consumer side of the equation which absolutely translates into increased corporate profits. Across the globe EV sales in developed nations are very boosted via government programs ((which is a good thing imo)). I'll just link a wikipedia page[1] since I don't want to find a solid source but this isn't really debated it's the real world effect of laws and bills passed by the US gov and dozens of other countries around the world and has been extensively studied.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_incentives_for_plug...
I'm glad someone said it.
Tesla is literally one of the most heavily subsidized auto companies in American history.
I'm not a big fan of Tesla's owner, but I will say - what is the problem with subsidizing something that given enough research and development is considered a net good for our future or could be valuable on a global scale?
Lots of people are begging to get access to Chinese EV's, and guess what they were subsidized by their government for research and development.
We subsidize farmers but don't trash them. If EV's are the future why not provide assistance?
Because it allows the government to pick and choose winners. The big 3 were all losers and should have gone bankrupt back in 08, and now look, they're still highly inefficient and still heavily reliant on govt handouts 20 years later. They don't innovate, they can't compete globally, etc.
So why not change the subsidy structure and require measurable innovation and growth, and actually back it up by reevaluating funding on a regular basis and dropping all funding if metrics are not met. And not continuing just based on promises. If metrics are not met, you lose funding. Period.
Seems more like a problem of US companies being allowed to continue to stall for too long, often due to lobbying and political points, without measurable improvement than the subsidies.
Meanwhile China subsidizes much of their R&D and everyone is astounded at how fast they've improved. Sounds like they're just better at doing it.
> reevaluating funding on a regular basis and dropping all funding if metrics are not met.
The US government isn't going to exert that level of influence on a private enterprise without being a majority shareholder, which is what happened with GM in the 2008 bailout.
The government also can't be in a position where pulling billions in funding based on targets it sets leads to mass layoffs, that would be a political minefield come election time. Subsidies are about creating jobs as much as they are about enabling technology development.
Tesla is only in business today because it was able to sell carbon credits to other automakers. Take that government subsidy away and Tesla would have died in 2009.
Without supportive Californian policies Tesla would never even have existed for Musk to buy into.
The modern EV was born from Californian regulation but that early lead has been squandered.
In most cases I'd agree with your point.
Speaking only for myself, I see Musk's wealth as a contributing factor to a serious, credible risk to democracies in the US and EU.
So I consider destroying Tesla to be preferable to letting Musk remain wealthy / influential.
I accept that others may see it differently.
Tesla is subsidized too. Honest question, do you think the care companies producing EVs in China are subsidized by the government?
Besides Tesla?
Tesla is the most heavily subsidized, what are you talking about?
This situation has little-to-nothing to do with the current US administration.
The reality is a lot more simple:
* The cars are expensive
* Gas isn't expensive enough right now to be a strong incentive to switch
* A lot of consumers are poorly informed and hung up on non-issues
The whole auto industry flew off the deep end thinking that EV demand would be enormous, that they'd basically STOP selling ICE cars almost completely.
As it turns out, consumers were not that eager to swap.
EV R&D is expensive. EV manufacturing is expensive. Modern car manufacturing uses a lot of common parts and frameworks to save money, but EVs required a lot of not-sharable tooling and parts with their ICE counterparts - driving up costs.
Some day all of this will be resolved, but it's not going to happen overnight. It'll be a slow burn over many decades.
"The situation has nothing to do with the current US administration" - who for the past decade has ran on keeping oil fields drilling, romanticizing gas/oil money, and before Elon actively campaigned against EV adoption and claimed climate change doesn't exist so keep burning that oil.
And lets say all of this is true - how does that explain China's massive adoption rate of EV's if its so prohibitively expensive and non-sharable. We suck at producing, place low value on auto research and development, and have an entire swath of people dedicated monetarily to keeping oil/gas around despite its adverse effects.
Most American cars are behind practically every other corner of the globe in reliability, safety, and cost.
China didn't have massive gas adoption. It was starting to come, but they were starting from a different place where gas didn't already exist.
They also started behind the US on EV adoption and R&D but look where we are now.
The US already has (and has) a lot of expertise in ICE development. To catch up to the US in ICE they would have had to do a lot more in R&D just because the US is also moving there (though ICE has long ago reached the point of diminishing returns on investment)
It’s at least partially creditable to the nature of the models manufacturers chose to make, usually being midrange to luxury crossovers, SUVs, and performance cars. Yes the first two of those are popular categories and have no shortage of highly priced hybrid and ICE models, but EVs are too much of an unknown for too much of the population for those prices to be palatable.
Traditional automakers keep trying to replay Tesla’s entry into the market, but I don’t think that’s going to work. They need to instead be focusing on value above all else, which is something they’re severely allergic to. They don’t want to sell $20-$25k practical cars, they want to sell $60k SUVs with fat margins, but the appetite for expensive EVs is already well-sated with interested buyers having a plethora of options. So in a way, they’re guaranteeing their own failure when it comes to EVs.
The market for $25K cars is served by used cars. Most people I know would rather buy a used SUV than a new hatchback.
I would say the used market starts to be more of a factor at $15k and below. Right now the value proposition of cars in the $15-25k range is truly awful, with it often making more sense to finance or lease a new car instead. When I was shopping last year I was seeing used Honda Fits that were the better part of a decade old north of the $15k mark, which is absurd considering they didn’t cost much more than that new. It’s even worse for in-demand models like RAV4’s.
I think you have cause and effect backwards. It's because there are so many people willing to pay $25K - $35K for a used SUV that used cars are so expensive.
If that’s the case it’s rather unfortunate that everybody who just wants a small city car to grab groceries with gets dragged along for the ride.
Agreed. Our second car is > 12 years old now, and it will be replaced by a small electric city car. Won't be any time soon, because the selection is so poor.
> This situation has little-to-nothing to do with the current US administration.
This has everything to do with current policy in the US. Which is creating a lot of uncertainty, rolls back the clock on existing commitments, and creates huge disruption for existing manufacturers. This is a direct response to that and there will be more of it.
The notion that this is somehow going to save the US ICE car industry is misguided IMHO. I believe it will actually speed up it's demise. The domestic US market was already lagging behind international markets. GM and Ford are really struggling in those markets. Tariffs and counter tariffs are going to make that worse. Scaling back investments in technology that would allow them to catch up is not going to help either. It's a sign of weakness, not strength when companies stop investing in the future.
BYD is really crushing it in places like South America, Australia, all over Asia, etc. All markets where GM and Ford have to worry about keeping up. The Australian market is particularly interesting to watch because it's similar in tastes to the US but not crippled by tariffs (aka. taxes). It doesn't have a domestic car industry. Or an oil industry. So, they import what's good and affordable. And BYD and other Chinese manufacturers have a big presence there that is rapidly growing.
What happens inside the US is ultimately going to follow what is happening elsewhere. ICE cars are going the way of the dodo one way or another. It's process that's largely completed in China, well under way in Europe, and starting to happen all over the world now.
EVs aren't expensive anymore. That's a local problem in the US that has more to do with the US and how things (don't) work there than with the technology. You can get very decent ones below 20K now in many places. BYD will sell you EVs below 10K in China. The only thing keeping those off the market in the US is tariffs. The rest of the world is wide open to the Chinese and they are happy to grab market share wherever they can.
I have a Polestar 2 Performance, which is far from the paragon of efficiency, and it's still just $0.05 / mile in electricity to drive it.
A 40 MPG car, with gas at $3.29 / gallon is still $0.0823 / mile.
(EDIT I missed a zero and rounded wrong; number updated. Was not trying to argue it was an order of magnitude more expensive.)
Between fuel and maintenance, the EV has a much lower total cost of ownership. (And in some cases, has been approaching ICE levels for purchase, though it has a ways to go in the U.S. My example car was only an option as a 2 year old used vehicle... $40K off MSRP.)
I just paid $3.45 at a chargepoint charger for enough electricity for 22 miles. My plugin hybrid car gets 27 mi/ gallon. Gas is a cheaper source of energy for me
For sure, personal circumstances matter. Something like a third of U.S. drivers have a garage they could use for at-home charging without undue inconvenience (with some varying electricity costs across the nation) though a lot of U.S. homeowners like to use their garage for storage, which doesn't help!
Still, I think "gas being inexpensive" isn't exactly a winning argument when it can easily be 50% more expensive than electric.
My car performance would require a ~475 HP gasoline car (or arguably maybe 350-400 HP considering the weight differences), and would probably get 20 mpg, easily costing $0.16 / mile or more.
And there are EVs costing closer to $0.03 / mile on home electricity.
But if you're road-tripping or simply don't have home charging available, the calculus changes.
Does the total cost of ownership include battery maintenance? My Toyota 4Runner has 180k miles, still runs great, and is worth several thousands of dollars in Bluebook value. My biggest fear with EVs is that I've never heard a single positive story about what happens when the batteries fault.
> I've never heard a single positive story
That's because you might not be as well informed as you think probably.
180K miles is nothing for a decent EV. LFP batteries are good for 3000-5000 charging cycles. At around 250 miles per full charge that translates into 750K miles to 1.25M miles. NMC batteries last a bit less long. Their batteries might dip below 80% of the original capacity around the 750 cycle mark (190K miles). Most of the newer ones would do better than that at 1000-1500 cycles. Below 80% they don't suddenly fail. They just drive a bit less far than they used to.
Battery failures are pretty rare with EVs. Most manufacturers give 8 year warranties. That's because they are unlikely to fail before the warranty expires. So, it's a cheap promise to make. The model 3 has only been on the market for about 8 years now. Most of them are still under warranty. Most other EVs are newer than that.
I have a 10-year-old EV and the battery is just fine. It hasn't really degraded much, either, and is still our family choice on trips under 600 miles.
Sure, but I'm not pointing out the longevity of the batteries, but rather the maintenance cost if/when they fault. I understand it will get better over time as technology improves, but it's been a large impediment to me (and probably others) from investing in them.
Here's a recent synopsis that suggests 50% of the car value on average back in 2020 [1].
[1]: https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/costs-ev-battery-repl...
A 250,000 mile car is worth scrap value whether it's gasoline or electric.
A battery failure and a timing chain break or other types of complete engine failure before that mileage are comparable concerns -- similar rate of occurrence and similar cost to fix.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/average-battery-cell-pric...
Battery costs are continually declining. If you buy an EV today, and then if you need to replace the battery in 15 years, because you put 300,000 miles on it, it won't break the bank.
https://insideevs.com/news/754979/hyundai-ioniq-5-400000-mil...
It seems to be a very uncommon expense:
https://insideevs.com/news/717187/ev-battery-replacements-du...
> A 40 MPG car, with gas at $3.29 / gallon is still $0.83 / mile.
That would be $0.08 / mile.
My calculator came up with $0.08225, so yes I missed the extra 2 and got my rounding wrong. You removed some precision though ;) so while I'm off by $0.00075 you're off by $0.00225, or about three times further from the correct number!
EDIT: Oh I see now you were more worried about the "0" I missed, fixed that now!
>A 40 MPG car, with gas at $3.29 / gallon is still $0.83 / mile.
$0.083 / mile
> A 40 MPG car, with gas at $3.29 / gallon is still $0.83 / mile.
That math doesn't work out.
(And I say that as an ardent EV enthusiast for the past decade.)
> Gas isn't expensive enough
Even if it was, charging an EV just takes too long. I love my Tesla, but I can't drive it outside of town because there's nowhere to charge it. I can drive my gas-guzzling SUV anywhere in the US because when it runs out of gas, I pull into a gas station, spend two minutes gassing it up, and then keep going. The Tesla? Well, if I _can_ find a charging station that's actually working before I actually completely run out of charge, I'm going to be waiting a minimum two hours before I can keep going. AFAIK, there's no proposed solution for this; I can plug it in and home and keep it charged and it works great as long as I never drive it too far away to be plugged in and sit at home.
I have road tripped across the entire country multiple times with my Tesla and practically never had an issue charging. Also I've never had to wait more than 20-30 minutes to charge and keep going.
Yes its a little more inconvenient, but the US administration doesn't exactly place a value on making charging easy or providing incentives to develop/research unlike other developed countries. We don't innovate at all when it comes to infrastructure so no wonder EV adoption is lower here. Meanwhile many other developed countries are doing fine with their EV's.
Seems like most people would rather be stuck in the past hugging their gas vehicles than actually do something innovative because of some long foregone American Dream.
> waiting a minimum two hours before I can keep going.
??? What model and year? Do you have one of the CHAdeMO Teslas?
> * Gas isn't expensive enough right now to be a strong incentive to switch
This is easily fixable.
Is artificially changing a price to make something less affordable "fixing" a problem or creating one that didn't exist yet?
At the moment the price of gas is artificially low due to indirect subsidies. Eliminate those to give a fair playing field.
I can see now why Russia hasn't been taxed (because of the oil)
> This is easily fixable.
Gas is a lot more expensive ("fixed" with taxes) in the EU and the electric cars are losing steam here too.
You need to drive a lot (by EU urban standards at least) to justify the price premium and hassle of an all electric. Especially since we've been in a recession longer than the US which is just starting.
From TFA:
> But even before President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs on imports, many of those projects were being canceled — leaving thousands of jobs and the shift to clean energy in doubt.
Might have something to do with the end of free financing too...
I think the switch will happen sooner rather than later, considering the progress BYD is making in China (and many of their export markets).
It's true that electric vehicles remain a bit too expensive for many, but most of those people aren't buying brand new ICE vehicles either. Why spend lots of money to buy a brand new car of obsolete technology, when the alternative is to buy used and wait for electric ones to get cheaper? I know literally nobody in my age group (adults in their 30's) who has bought a brand new car in past few years. I live in rich EU country.