https://apnews.com/article/hyundai-georgia-electric-vehicle-...
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/commit...
Not to mention spending a lot on lobbying against clean air regulations aroun the world https://thedriven.io/2023/05/11/toyota-under-fire-for-anti-c...
https://www.forbes.com/wheels/news/kia-hyundai-car-thefts-se...
Every manufacturer has got a story at this point.
Not to devil's advocate, but it's tough to prove a negative. All we can say for sure is that they've not been caught yet.
Georgia and South Carolina tend to be the poorest states. The Poverty rate is around 14.5% for both. Compare that to California where the poverty rate is 12.5%. Though the poverty rate is lower, California has more people in poverty than Georgia and South Carolina combined. Anyway, using the word "impoverished" is grossly misleading.
Problem is, it's not paying off - the state isn't benefiting overall from it, and as soon as they stop providing these sweetheart tax breaks and freebies, comopanies will pull up and move to the next state willing to do so
It's more likely that southern states are willing to throw huge incentive packages to these manufacturers. Probably not so much on the coasts or the northern states.
Also, unions are less common in the south; those states tend to be right-to-work states.
Finally, you used the word "impoverished", which is ridiculous. But wages are lower in the south so that is probably another reason.
For context: Tesla is guiding for $10+B a year capex spending for the next 3 years.
Nevada factory took $6.2B and Tesla plans to spend additional $3.6B
Toyota is still under-investing in EV. $1.3B is nothing.
When you run a company as large and old as Toyota, you always hedge your bets. There are some other options to battery-powered electric vehicles (hydrogen IC). They are currently not as mature but anyone running something as big as Toyota needs to hedge against that sort of outlier tech. If Toyota abandoned IC, got rid of its IC production lines, they would suffer hugely if hydrogen IC one out as the green tech. All the major car companies do such things. That's why they have survived as long as they have.
Would Tesla survive if a new hydrogen storage killed the market for battery-powered cars? Toyota has seen and survived a few such revolutions.
I dont quite understand why the sales of EVs in the US is considered to have flattened out according to some statistics.
Update:
People who may not have been following closely what Biden has accomplished during his Presidency might have questions.
In this case, the Inflation Reduction Act specifically has credits to encourage battery manufacture in the US.
https://www.orrick.com/en/Insights/2022/11/Section-45X-of-th...
More generally, the IRA and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the CHIPS act has encouraged investment in US manufacturing, which is surging.
https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/manufactur...
First this HN post: Toyota to invest $1.3B in Kentucky factory to build battery packs and new EV
A few lines below that: Toyota Refused To Hop On The Electric Vehicle Bandwagon, And It Paid Off Big Time [1]
We'll see where the chips fall but thus far it seems Tesla is one of the few western companies which manages to profitably produce and sell consumer EVs. I suspect Chinese companies like BYD run at a profit as well but it is hard to get access to reliable data. Volkswagen seems to be aiming for 'profit parity for EVs' in 2025 but they seem to have a long way to go [2].
[1] https://dailycaller.com/2024/02/07/toyota-2023-fiscal-year-3...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/volksw...
Sometimes investment makes sense, and then things change and it doesn't make sense anymore. That's fair, isn't it?
These empty promises are how we ended up electing Trump the first time and it's virtually guaranteeing that we'll elect him a second time.
Rural Kentucky is in horrible shape and a lot of people here were placing hope in this, much like they have so many other empty promises from their leaders, so at least stop acting surprised when the consequences show themselves.
The 30% number you cite could be true but perhaps in order for Chinese (or any other country) manufacturing to be economical perhaps it needs to be 60%. Mexico is actually important here.
The Georgetown plant currently produces Camry and Rav4.
You might be on to something there. It would certainly explain the size of the investment. A $1.3B plant might not build a lot of EVs, but it could build quite a few PHEVs.
kWh makes sense if your goal is to stimulate US battery production but I really wish there were an all-electric range requirement, A hypothetical 6.8kWh Prius Prime would get more range that the 21kWh Wrangler 4xe.
https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/credits-for-new-clean...
[0]https://www _ copilotsearch _ com/posts/states-with-the-most-electric-vehicles/
Seems like a smart place to build your own batteries to me.
Apple opened up shop outside of Austin (ie, not Travis County) because of lower taxes and more incentives provided by other county. Multi Trillion dollar company by the way. Amazon has been opening up warehouses in the sticks, soaking up all of those incentives from those desperate small towns looking to giveaway the land for a couple of decades in exchange for short term gains (mayor/city council able to say, we brought X jobs to Y town!1). Yet another multibillion company taking advantage of the desperate.
What do the people get in return? Getting the opportunity to work shit hours in a non-union job. Possibly back breaking work. No investment in their future. Just cogs in the wheel which are completely fungible (broke your back? File a claim with insurance. Fuck off. Deal with it. Not our problem. Then hire the next sucker to replace you. Rinse and repeat)
Toyota has been good to the area.
Off topic, but is there a popular tech meetup in the state? Moved back a year and some change ago and would love to get more involved.
I know people around these parts think that Tesla has uncovered some magical factory building ability, but can you even consider the fact that maybe Toyota knows what they are doing?
>Toyota is still under-investing in EV. $1.3B is nothing.
This is one factory.
Not a Tesla fanboy (I'm turning mine in for a Rivian), but the OP wasn't saying this, not sure how you got that conclusion. They are saying for a car company they are (1) way behind and (2) any investments they are making won't reach fruition for years, nor likely make a dent in the industry.
Outside of MB and the Chinese EVs, the design of Tesla motors is far superior. Their build quality and finishing is awful however - something the traditional players do really well.
Telsa had to deploy their capital very efficiently in a capital intensive industry. Say their bet on the Shanghai factory, despite obvious IP leak risks and spawning deadly competitors like BYD, was their only choice to reach scale at a low cost.
Do you really think this $1.3B is Toyota's entire capex in EV?
As a hybrid technology, it has a case. If you run 80% of the time on battery and 20% of the time on hydrogen at 50% RTE, you burn 120% of the fuel. But if you weigh 30% less, you could end up saving energy. The up to 60% efficiency of the fuel cell is losing energy as heat, and people like to run the heater, so some of that energy isn't lost in appropriate climates. And of course, refueling is faster for road trips. The best system weight is probably for the experimental direct-ammonia alkaline membrane fuel cells, assuming it's possible to stabilize them, because ammonia fuel systems (about 100 psi) are much simpler than hydrogen systems (about 10000 psi!). So there's a little room left for the hydrogen fans. But it's fundamentally a battery-powered car most of the time.
the world is not only southern California and Sweden.
I would also add since insurance companies don't want to insure the transportation of batteries in container ships, it makes it difficult for Toyota to produce electric cars in all regions, it would mean they would always need to have a battery factory nearby. https://toyotatimes.jp/en/toyota_news/1055_1.html#anchorTitl...
The same infrastructure they need for everything else in their life. I bet they have way better access to electricity than they do hydrogen. Or even gasoline, frankly. Solar panels are cheap.
That sounds really interesting, I'd love to learn more. What such revolutions has Toyota survived?
It's already bad to have any sector that is protected from competition (foreign or domestic), why look to expand it?
Economics, Neoliberalism is dead. The pandemic killed it. Policy makers well understand the economy can tolerate a lot of disruption.
Politics: Dispossessed voters turning to fascism has sharpened politicians and sane business leaders minds.
Global Warning and new Tech: Solar, wind, batteries, and the need to faze out fossil fuels creates risks and opportunities. Risks will be born by those that try business as usual.
Increased automation: Low skilled dirt cheap labor is less important than it was 20-30 years ago. That changes the balance point between low cost offshored labor and the pain in the ass that offshoring is.
>But people might be more happy walking, biking, etc.
No scenario where division does not increase especially after this upcoming election.
Politics. Some people want it to be true, so they conflate an easing of the growth rate as an actual rate reduction. It could also be innocent ignorance of statistics.
The real hang up with EVs right now is primarily price. They're just reaching the point where TCO is a wash. Historically, most people are extremely responsive to fuel cost advantages, so as the capital cost comes down most people will switch. At least the ones who can charge at home, which is most.
I do feel bad for people who live in places with high electricity prices, like California and Massachusetts. Makes it harder to win on TCO, but at least the convenience factor is still there. But for those who can access sub-10 cent per kWh pricing, it's nice to spend a few hundred dollars per year for fuel.
I think you need a blend of solar for that
https://www.energybot.com/electricity-rates/
The cheapest in the country is $0.1122/kWh in Utah. The average is $0.17/kWh
The real point is that Tesla has been driving prices lower than other manufacturers are willing to stomach, and that resistance to price matching shows up as cars sitting on lots.
If you look at growth charts in US factory capital it started spiking just before the signing of CHIPS act which was pitched to congress in 2019, which was a bipartisan effort seeded from the Trump admin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act
And the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act which Biden admin pitched to congress, which also got pretty smooth bipartisan support:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Investment_and_...
But it's success will be defined on how successful the factories are, not just how many billions/trillions of free $$ the US gov gives to megacorps to prop up these projects. We've seen many, many gov-incentivized factory announcements that went no where. Or worse wasted a ton of time & money of local govs + small town employees. The Obama admin had a few really bad examples of this.
Indeed. China had even more examples, but overall they found the winners and boosted them. The US instead defunded and now China produces 80% of all solar panels in the world. It's similar for VC firm, for example, they'll invest in 10 companies and expect only a couple to be profitable.
> If you look at growth charts in US factory capital it started spiking just before the signing of CHIPS act which was pitched to congress in 2019, which was a bipartisan effort seeded from the Trump admin.
Do you have those charts available? I was initially going to give a commendation for pointing out the Trump's administration's role in the Chips act, but... the Chips act was passed in late 2022! "The bill was signed into law by President Joe Biden on August 9, 2022." [1]
What's more, while the CHIPS act was initially bi-partisan, it passed in a relatively partisan vote: "Every senator in the Senate Democratic Caucus except for Bernie Sanders voted in favor of passing the CHIPS Act, and they were joined by seventeen Republican senators" [1]
Bottom line, seems like this bill was presented to Senators* in 2019 and then took time to work its way through Congress. It does not seem the Trump admin had much to do with this (I would more says the CHIPS act was seeded from an initial bipartisan effort that originated in the Senate; there's no mention I see that the executive branch had anything to do with it in 2019; if anything, it seems that congress of 2019 and whatever role the executive had at the time both _failed_ to get the CHIPS act through; it was the next congress that got it done in 2022)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act
* I'm not entirely sure if 'presented' to senators means there was an executive branch role. My reading of the wiki article is that it sounds like the original 2019 bill originated in the Senate. I just don't see anything that mentions the executive's role in 2019 or 2020.
But it is true that the CHIP had bipartisan support, but the ones who supported it were not MAGA types, but people like McConnell.
https://www.orrick.com/en/Insights/2022/11/Section-45X-of-th...
More generally, the IRA and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Investment_and_...
https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/manufactur...
There's also the CHIPS act.
By the way, anyone active in the green tech space knows that the IRA has been an absolute game-changer.
This was something the President activity campaigned on (Build Back Better), pushed through Congress, and signed into law as The Inflation Reduction Act.
While it did little to reduce inflation (outside of medicine), it was a massive win for people who wanted more investment in clean power generation, more funds for the ACA, lower drug prices, and higher taxes on certain corporate entities.
Still, in my eyes that only makes it more intriguing how they bridge the cultural differences, since whatever they are doing seems to be working.
I was just quoting what the documentary said. There was so much contention between the management and the workers in the American glass factory featured in the documentary. In the end, the management hosted a competition between the American workers and the Chinese workers. Chinese workers won with a big margin.
What metrics is this based on?
I'm pretty sure every country says that about themselves. It's more a statement of national pride than of fact.
And it most often results in the Winner's Curse: the entity providing the greatest subsidies win's the "investment", but they give up so much in the process that the economic benefits are wiped out.
See: Tesla in Buffalo, VW in Ontario, FoxConn in Wisconsin.
Tesla in Sparks NV, BMW in Greer SC, or Mercedes in Alabama and SC? It seems like those have more than paid for themselves by now. In at least one of those cases, they've had huge regional impacts.
AFAIK - they got $3B in FUTURE benefits - of which none came to fruition.
Foxconn delivered nothing and also got almost nothing (~1% of that $3B).
Yeah - it was a dumb political stunt - and it unfortunately worked for the time. But it wasn't the massive financial disaster people think it was.
When everyone else is subsidizing you have to subsidize too or you lose.
https://www.kentucky.com/news/business/article143755074.html
Toyota has been moving ops to states with lower cost of living for awhile now. Toyota corp in USA shifted ops from CA to TX a decade back. Many workers hate or regret the move. C-level executives are excited because they pay less in state taxes. Probably even got a nice deal on the land.
Don't know of many waterways that are solely in one state so the EPA automatically has jurisdiction as well.
What is it that you are purposing? That companies don't go to states with low cost of living?
The idea that "it's KY" is bigoted. They are people, just like anyone else. We don't tolerate it when others are dismissive of people based on their race and we should not be tolerant of the attitude based on where they live either.
Now you might say they will just leave the US and manufacture elsewhere. Well thats where tariffs come in and the UAW is a core voting block so they will have to alter any plans to move to Mexico. Higher inflation will be the result but its probably worth it long term.
No one at these Toyota facilities has an appetite for that. The benefits package and overall lifestyle for a TMMK worker is quite nice compared to the average person in the Lexington metro and the jobs are competitive.
Perhaps ironically, when I was in school, the biggest issue was finding engineers that would accept the pay which was generally lower than guys on the floor.
Sorry, but to be frank, you just don't know what you're talking about.
I did a co-op at TMMK in Georgetown, KY many moons ago and it was a short drive from Lexington where I was studying for my mech engineering degree at UK. It is a massive university with a solid engineering school, for the uninitiated. The metro also has an excellent network of technical colleges and during my various other stints over those years, I was always impressed with the quality of the workforce on the factory floors.
As someone born in the coalfields of Appalachia, I'll admit that the ignorant hillbilly stereotype has some merit, but that's two hours of interstate driving east of where this is happening and the cultures have almost nothing in common. Hill people don't really leave the hills and Lexington is quite the "big city" for where I come from, full of hifalutin Whole Foods shoppers. I think the series "Justified" does a good job of describing this phenomenon.
There is a lot more I could address about your thoughts on labor and poverty, but it's hard to move past your premise and I don't have time to write a treatise... but JD Vance did and it's pretty good.
California is much more likely to have better social services and AFAIK it is less violent in poor neighborhoods than southern states
I would much rather be poor in NYC than Georgia
They don't even have to be good PHEVs. I agree that there should have been a range requirement.
If they make a promise to spend money and economic conditions change to the extent that they would lose money, it makes sense to not continue with that commitment.
Comparing a company making a profit with a politician trying to get elected is not fair.
It means you can't hold it against a company if an investment no longer seems profitable.
Blame your politicians, who feel the need to hold a ribbon cutting ceremony before anything is signed.
"Rural KY" is not all that big, a couple million people, if that, and solely exists to the rest of the US for low-key victim-blaming election cycle human interest dreck.
These news stories about manufacturing expansion are all about development just outside large towns and cities, like bowling green, louisville, cincinnati, ... and will draw similar demographic than if they were in Texas, Georgia, or North Carolina.
And fwiw, just nitpicking, "rural ky" can also include the bluegrass, and that's just plain comfortably rich.
https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/manufactur...
Mostly in red-states, tbh, because they have fewer regulations slowing down building stuff.
Also, Trump is a prove loser who will lose again.
- https://lextalk.tech/ - should be another one in April or may
- https://www.meetup.com/The-Bluegrass-Developers-Guild on Meetup - lots of good events here
- https://www.bluegrassdevs.org/ - join our slack
I really suggest coffee and code. It is super chill and a great way to meet folks around the area: https://meetu.ps/e/MN0XK/1RyZP/i
We are always looking for folks to help out.
- PHP user group (https://www.meetup.com/kentucky-php-user-group/events/298973...)
- Bluegrass Developers Guild (https://www.meetup.com/the-bluegrass-developers-guild/events...)
Also, being an early employee at a startup, I've been attending the rare Startup Lexington event I can make it to.
Feel free to contact my email (in profile) if you want to connect
I also lurk on these slacks: bluegrass-dev.slack (same folks as the meetup I assume), Louisville Tech louisville.slack, and startuplexington.slack
Hope we keep this ball rolling a bit longer on meetups and gatherings both in person and online.
But he no doubt was a major reason domestic manufacturing shot to the top of Biden's election priorities, after it was a major sticking point that Trump fared far better with the working class vs Hillary.
Even Michael Moore conceded back then that his messaging around rebuilding gutted industry was far better, so it's not surprising it was co-opted.
Which is a good thing, what matters is listening to people and getting results at the end of the day.
Showing that the Chinese workers won by a big margin doesn't prove anything. It definitely doesn't prove anything outside of that specific scenario.
it's as disconnected as building roads and selling aluminum if you have bauxite ore.
[1]:https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/4454085-uaw-says-m...
That is demonstrably not true. That tool is reporting "average rates" for each state and excluding time-of-use. E.g. I pay 4.7 cents/kWh inclusive of all grid fees, but only after 9pm. It's trivial to schedule charging for an EV so it happens when you sleep.
What do you pay before 9pm?
I only drive like 3-6k miles/yr anyways.
tbf the car market seems to have out stripped baseline inflation in general though.
Ironically, you go to the website and there's a fake image of the factory, based on previous promises.
I can't speak to the others, but I'm sure there's some positive outliers!
Because when the government hands tax money over to profitable companies to "create jobs", you are inherently distorting the market.
>It seems like there are more successes than failures
Maybe, but I'm skeptical.
The OP drew a direct comparison from what Tesla spent on a plant, to what Toyota is spending on a factory. How can you draw a different conclusion? What makes Tesla "right" and Toyota "wrong"?
>They are saying for a car company they are (1) way behind and (2) any investments they are making won't reach fruition for years, nor likely make a dent in the industry.
Way behind what? The RAV4 sold more units than the Model Y last year, and that's just one model. Again, people have this weird way of extrapolating what Tesla is doing in the EV market (dominating) to the overall car market (rounding error).
https://insideevs.com/news/706169/tesla-model-y-best-selling...
Car and Driver also says the Rav4 outside the Model Y, fwiw.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g43553191/bestselling-cars...
but these charts/analysis come from the White House so they are going to be a bit biased (how much is proposed vs real, etc).
I don't really see the value in debating the details of the policies as it's pretty clear Trump made rebuilding industry his #1 message, which was later co-opted by Biden in the 2nd election. Trump was just an utter failure at working with (a very hostile) congress and COVID destroying factory construction didn't help private industry either, or public spending priorities.
I also take issue with the idea China's success in manufacturing was a result of the gov choosing winners = a good thing. Gov as a giant VC sounds like a horrible idea, here in Canada they tried that in tech and it was an embarrassment. China's mass urbanization, huge cheap labour base, a culture of hard work, and the West happily destroying their own industry...it's easy to 'pick' winners in a flush market.
Rebuilding a dead one is different story.
> I don't really see the value in debating the details of the policies
> Trump made rebuilding industry his #1 message
Not debating policy. I don't see the evidence that Trump is linked to the CHIPS act. While that might be his message (as you claim), the evidence of him doing anything for that relative to the CHIPS act is lacking. The attribution beyond two bipartisan senators proposing the CHIPS act in 2019 is so far without evidence. Further, when the CHIPS act did pass, it was despite Republican opposition. In essence, there doesn't seem to be any evidence Trump had anything to do with the CHIPS act other than holding office while it failed to go anywhere in congress.
> I also take issue with the idea China's success in manufacturing was a result of the gov choosing winners = a good thing.
My claim is that without Chinese government support, China would not be producing 80% of today's solar panels. According to 'ucigcc', the Chinese government played a big role in creating a domestic market (demand) for solar panels. [1] Further: "Credit lines to expand manufacturing capacity were brokered and backed by local governments and state-owned firms, even in the years after the global financial crisis when the collapse particularly of European markets led to overcapacity in global solar markets. " [1]
Taking stock from [1], the Chinese government induced demand for solar panels (subsidized them), and supported the industries producing the solar panels.
From the same reference: "In 2015 the central government launched a so-called Top Runner program. Top Runner projects injected incentives to deploy advanced solar PV technologies and retire the production of dated technologies. Module cost continued to fall because of these incentives, while module efficiency continued to increase. Particularly installations of high-efficiency panels in Western China were able to achieve grid parity because of those incentive changes, yet broader issues, including the perpetual underfunding of the renewable energy fund, the low profitability of domestic manufacturers, overcapacity, and broader trade tensions remained unresolved."
The reference does not 100% back my claim, but I would say strongly supports it. It's hard to see the Chinese solar industry being the same without all of the government support.
> Gov as a giant VC sounds like a horrible idea
On its face, sure. Though, when there is a war or during the pandemic this cames into play. That is an extreme example, there are less extreme examples. In these extreme examples, the government shifts market forces by implementing price caps and forcing production. Governments do similar in less heavy handed ways all the time.
Reference [2] supports this notion, there is a history of governments selecting strategic industries, supporting them, creating demand for that industry - and then once seeded the industry has legs to run on its own. To do this, Governments can create entire markets, which in turn creates enough demand for suppliers to come online.
From [2]: "The emerging U.S. advanced battery industry represents a bold experiment by the federal government in direct financial support of private companies to establish a domestic manufacturing industry."
"The photovoltaic industry is an example of a U.S. high-tech sector that has lost global share but has a solid opportunity to re-emerge as a leader with the right mix of federal and state policy support. In the case of solar power, a deciding factor will be whether the United States will become a big enough market to support a large-scale, globally competitive manufacturing industry. Federal and state incentives will be essential for the next few years, until the cost of solar energy can compete against electricity generated from fossil fuels without subsidies. Another question is whether U.S. companies that focus on products incorporating promising new technologies will be able to survive surging imports of low-cost photovoltaic cells and modules based on mature technologies long enough to attain economies of scale. "
"This turn of fortunes is primarily due to strategic moves and investments in new technologies by U.S. semiconductor manufacturers. Yet, their success also rests on the important contributions of U.S. policy that was driven by an engaged industry. There were two additional interrelated elements to the U.S. success:10 The research consortium SEMATECH, a $200 million-a-year research effort co-funded by the federal government and most large American chip companies, accelerated productivity and innovation in semiconductor manufacturing based on a common technology roadmap and enabled a rapid decline in prices.11 Persistent trade negotiations and enforcement of previous agreements won commitments from Japan to open its market to U.S. semiconductors and curtail dumping in any world market.12 This was deemed essential to prevent the United States from becoming a high-priced island in a sea of underpriced semiconductors. Had that occurred, it would have severely disadvantaged downstream American electronics equipment producers compared with competitors producing abroad utilizing lower-priced dumped chips."
"The decline and resurgence of the U.S. semiconductor industry offers many useful lessons for policymakers and industrialists grappling with how to bolster other American high-technology sectors facing intense international competitive pressure. It shows that erosion of U.S. leadership in manufacturing is not irreversible as long as both industry and government are committed to cooperative action, both on trade policy and in well-designed research programs that will lead to innovation"
What are some examples of this? Tax-credits is a big one. Think of Tesla, sales were boosted because there was an EV tax-credit. Further, there is actually no Tesla without the US department of Energy. "In January 2010, the Department of Energy issued a $465 million loan to Tesla Motors to produce specially designed, all-electric plug-in vehicles" [3] Without that loan, Tesla would have been toast.
> China's mass urbanization, huge cheap labour base, a culture of hard work, and the West happily destroying their own industry...it's easy to 'pick' winners in a flush market.
While that might all be true - when China was building its solar panel industry - the market was not flush. To your point, the Solyndra example and the subsequent divestment are good examples of the US destroying its solar industry. The lack of subsidies for solar panel meant demand and production remained anemic, meanwhile there were strong subsidies given directly to oil companies. The USG effectively cut-off the tap before demand picked up, why would then any US company produce very expensive solar panels with nobody really to buy them? Now that the price has come down, China just dominates, it was their innovation and supports that created the conditions for that to happen.
> I also take issue with the idea China's success in manufacturing
I am being specific to the solar industry. A broader generalization to all of manufacturing would need its own evidence. Yet, there are broad over time and across many governments, examples of industries that got their roots from government support. The solar example is very salient because it was so notable with Solyndra and then the US not strongly supporting renewables, and then lost out big on that industry.
[1] https://ucigcc.org/blog/how-solar-developed-from-the-bottom-...
Surely that's an easier task than deploying a similar amount of capital in an industry that isn't capital heavy.
BYD was founded in 1995 and its automotive subsidiary 2003 (via aquisition)
Yes, their bus and ICE lines long predated, and they had hybrids built out of forced technology transfers from Toyota. But their EV lines that are so popular didn’t start until after Tesla acquired their corporate license and rights to build their gigafactory. If you’ve done business in China you know forced technology transfers and training of competitive local workforces is contingent on those stages. The factory itself and its parts supply chain would also have required transfer of technical knowledge, skill, and local supplier ability without exclusivity.
It’s not a knock on Chinese people to say the Chinese government is intertwined in Chinese industry (it is communist after all and ultimately the means of production is a public trust), or that there is no “fairness” by western standards in Chinese industry and governmental influence. But it’s also disingenuous to believe BYD pivoted to a full on global Tesla competitor in 4 years from being a low end hybrid and bus manufacturer based purely on their tenacity and innovation, neither of which is BYD known for in its history (having been propped up as a money loser for decades by the government and facing a lot of intellectual property lawsuits from Toyota, Mercedes, Renault, and others throughout its history). It’s too implausible to take seriously and there’s no reason to be credulous.
It’s not like BYD appeared out of thin air a few months after Tesla opened shop.
If I understand you correctly, this is my reading of the pandemic as well. We suddenly all realized there is a _ton_ of slack in the system. On the individual level, but as well as societal.
Geopolitics: China's sudden shift to authoritarianism under the new emperor has everyone fleeing for the exits as the US and Europe abandon the project to bring China into the club.
“When governments permit counterfeiting or copying of American products, it is stealing our future, and it is no longer free trade.” So said US President Ronald Reagan, commenting on Japan.FYI, many if not most business leaders were Fascist or Nazi sympathizers or at least admired various key aspects of their ideologies.
Don't rely on them doing the right thing.
Further, that top spot is not for a specific Ford truck, but for all F-series trucks put together. That's an apples to oranges comparison.
Speaking as a 2004 Prius daily driver, the Toyota approach works. And I guarantee I'm a hell of a lot more "environmentally friendly" than anyone who commissioned literal tons of metal to be dug out of the earth to make their "green" new Tesla.
https://www.tesla.com/impact (see page 22)
And that's not even mentioning that in 20 years we won't be mining materials out of the ground anymore, will just be recycling existing battery materials
If the electricity is from coal, the break-even is after 5 years; even then, the lifetime emission of the EV is not even 10% less than that of the conventional gas car.
If the electricity is from hydro and other 100% non-fossil fuel renewables, than the break-even is even shorter, under a year, and over the lifetime the emissions are about 70%~80% less overall (and the longer the car is driven compared to a conventional gas car, more than 13 years, the greater the reduction in lifetime emissions)
All data from this source:
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/ELECTRIC-VEHICLES/EMISSIONS...
(Full webpage, for context: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-d...)
1. Conflict of interest. Is there any alternative report?
2. 2 years is vague, do we have it in kms?
3. Which car is it against? How does it compare with Prius 2024?
In fact, reading through the lines of Tesla's own fluff piece, in places like China the Prius is net-environmentally positive even year by year as compared to the Model 3. China has the most emissions of any country, so that's a pretty big caveat to simply ignore. But again, fluff piece by the fluff company.
E.g., the first Prius was released in 1997:
The average BEV is lasting just as long as any other car on the road and the used market is not filled with "broken EVs requiring expensive maintenance". The opposite seems to statistically be the case: the used market for EVs is "barren" because the cars don't need expensive maintenance and often stay with their first owners for longer and when they do move to new owners don't often go through the traditional used market because they don't need as much maintenance.
You've been lead to believe some interesting misinformation. Toyota themselves have been a source of some of that misinformation, which is further unhelpful.
- the used car industry is just barren post-pandemic. Prices are up and inventory is super low [1]
- EVs are generally not that old! Why put a BEV up as a used car when it's just a few years old? The average age of a used car is 6.1 years (according to CBC in Sep-2023) [2]. Further, that 'used car' age is up from 4 years, which further indicates the first point that the used car market is very short on supply. Most of Tesla's sales have been in just the last 4 years [3], Tesla represents a lot of BEV car sales in the US (going from memory, it was about 75% and is down to around 55%). In such a short amount of time, most BEVs are essentially still brand new. Thus, BEVs not being in the 'used' market is somewhat expected since they are half the age of the average used car, most of them are under 4 years old.
Thus, their lack of presence in the used car market could easily be more a function of their age (relatively brand new) compared to: "don't often go through the traditional used market because they don't need as much maintenance."
[1] https://www.cbtnews.com/the-state-of-used-car-prices-why-are...
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/26/3-things-to-consider-when-bu...
[3] https://cleantechnica.com/2023/04/22/tesla-just-passed-4-mil...
Teslas haven't even existed as a car producing company for as long as most cars last, Toyotas in particular. Model 3's certainly not.
> The used market for EVs is "barren"
I just pulled up hundreds in a 10 mile radius of me on craigslist. Probably most needing $20,000 battery services.
> You've been lead to believe some interesting misinformation
No, you.
Then why did they go all in on hydrogen cars?
https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/analysis-it-is-now...
Sure, but that isn't the comparison here. Buying a new EV and then holding on to it for 20 years will be even more environmentally friendly.
The early EVs have passed their 10 year marks. Some are closer to 15 years. There's a very long tail of BEVs already on the road. The only models that statistically have shown "battery degradation" enough to remark on have been the early model years of the Tesla Model S and Nissan Leaf before both companies invested in active thermal management of their batteries. So far "to remark on" was "noticeable compared to factory spec", but most of those batteries remained in first use (as car batteries). I've heard of Nissan Leaf battery replacements as a mini-industry, but not due to battery degradation, due to massive jumps in density upgrading the early Leafs to larger range than their original spec. There doesn't seem to be much of a market yet for Tesla battery replacements and most of the numbers thrown around are speculation and/or misinformation.
Another thing to consider, the picture is changing quite a bit somewhat recently. The supply crunch is fading, used car prices are coming down [1], and the effects of higher interest rates is taking hold. Would you say those recent trends are consistent with your hypothesis?
When my early-2000’s Prius battery died Toyota only offered a full swap out for $insane. However there were 4 different shops within cheap/free towing distance that would swap out individual failed battery cells for around 1k with a multi-year warranty. It is my understanding that most EV batteries are in the same boat. So, like many stories, I would not count this post against all EVs, just against stupid Teslas.
At best they're 0.5% of the total number of vehicles in use.
Their history of engineering and execution.
What makes you think think they can't? EV proponents like to argue that the simplicity is what makes EVs so great, but at the same time making arguments like "no one can catch up".
Believe it or not, it's not a certainty that EVs are going to be the solution, rather than just an improvement on our way to something else.
To catch up from behind, you need to do more than your competition.
Toyota's battery complex in North Carolina is a greater spend than the entire annual budget from Tesla and will have about the same output as Tesla's "gigafactory". The $1.3 billion in Kentucky is in addition to that.. it's a mistake to think they're not investing heavily.
https://www.just-auto.com/news/toyota-to-double-investment-i...
And it's a bet that's working well so far: https://fortune.com/asia/2023/12/28/toyota-hybrid-cars-sales...
https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/details/wheels-falling...
https://www.motortrend.com/news/toyotas-fix-bz4x-disconnecti...
That doesn't get the headlines and attenion that a icon enlargement software update on Tesla does on HN.
It's really easy to cherry pick problems when someone makes millions of cars every year.
They have a whole line of them "coming any day now".
They have a lot of people who love the Toyota/Lexus brand.
They don't need to catch up to anything.
The RAV4 is the top selling "SUV" in America(1) and it looks like close to 50% of those are the hybrid model.
1. https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g43553191/bestselling-cars...
In 2022 it was 48%: https://evstatistics.com/2022/07/48-of-1h-2022-toyota-rav4-s...
If Toyota were shipping the same battery capacity as Tesla they could make every car they sell globally a hybrid or plug-in hybrid and they are at about 30% of that.
This is probably true, hybrids may win in the US market in the short term until they are outlawed?
In the US? When hell freezes over. In the Nederlands? Probably in 5-6 years.
All it needs is more battery capacity, which apparently they are indeed investing in.
Plugin hybrids are the future.
Ended up leasing a BMW i5 because of the complete waste of time and hassle.
I'm glad it wasn't my car but, based on the experience, I wouldn't go near that joke of a company ever again. Lost a repeat customer too.
Takeaway: their staff listen more to their robot portal software than they do to rational customer experience.
And I know I'm p'ing in the wind ... but Tesla (in my experience) get way too much credit. I've had better experiences with conventional dealerships (and that's saying something considering how bad they are).
N=1
I don't know how.
I've got dealing with conventional car dealers down to an art form, and it still isn't even remotely comparable.
To get a Tesla you order it online and then go in for an appointment to pick it up. Hand them the payment, they already have all the paperwork ready for signatures, they give you the key cards and offer to help you install the app. You accept delivery and drive home. If you want, you can easily be in and out in 15 minutes or less. And the delivery guy doesn't try to sell me anything. No extended warranty, nothing.
So I bought another Tesla. At this time the Toyota experience has left such a sour taste that I will probably not ever consider one of their products in the future. Other manufacturers have really stepped up their game anyway, so it's not like Toyota makes the only reliable car you can buy.
Toyota sold 30k in 2023, the lowest number ever.
Tesla sold 400k of Model Y and 210k of Model 3 and 31k of Model X in 2024.
So Model Y outsold Prius by 13x in US in 2023.
---
https://carfigures.com/us-market-brand/toyota/prius-family
https://cleantechnica.com/2024/01/29/tesla-model-ys-huge-gro...
Hybrids may turn out to be a more popular option.
IMO hybrids could have a lot of life as a stopgap, but full EVs are pretty clearly where things are going. We've got chargers being installed (Tesla 4th Gen) that can charge at 600kW. Cars can't handle that yet, but the current 800V platforms are getting closer. Once you can get the better part of a full charge in less than 10 minutes, it's not really less convenient than stopping for gas on a trip. And as more people get EVs (and even PHEVs), more buildings will be equipped with charging. Even a regular 120V outlet is fine for most people for day to day overnight charging - especially if they can get a quick top-up to near full at a supercharger when needed.
Summary: hybrids are great for a lot of people right now and in the near future. In the medium to far future, EVs are going to be superior in, I think, all relevant metrics^. (Even cost, as batteries will get cheaper, while the cost of added hybrid components will stay roughly flat.)
^Well, except weight and sound, specifically thinking of sports cars. I'd be a lot more excited about the new electrified Porsche 718 (Cayman/Boxster) platform if it were hybrid instead of full electric, for those reasons. Not super relevant for commuter cars though.
volvo hybrids force engine operation in case gas wasn't refilled/used for too long.
when i was buying hybrid volvo a few years ago and talked to dealership boss, i was told that volvo got surprised by demand and they simply don't have enough battery packs in order build more.
and things like battery pack for car, it's not something that you can just ramp up capacity from today to tomorrow.
What I got was 5 months of hot potato juggling, inept delivery advisors (which I later discovered to be because they had no power and rigidly stuck to their what their portal says), confusion and countless hours spent handholding a very simple order. Only for it to collapse at the end because pricing changed (BECAUSE of delays when Tesla messed up the order).
Anyway ... joke company, and I'll not go near them again.
Tesla would've locked in cheaper lithium supply than toyota.
Here's one article from 2018 where they secured 100% of the sales rights to an Argentinian lithium mine that is equivalent to all of the lithium Tesla used worldwide in 2021.
https://www.toyota-tsusho.com/english/about/project/04.html
It's actually inconceivable to me how Musk & Tesla were able to launch a new auto manufacturer, especially with a novel drivetrain. The amount of things that had to go right, the number of decisions they had to make, the number of supplier agreements and sales agreements are a massive, monumental lift. The world is a better place for Tesla existing and for proving the market for electric cars.
However...
People massively underestimate the amount of money the big OEMs can throw at these problems. Toyota Group has an entirely separate mining and materials company with as much annual revenue as Tesla's entire org: https://www.toyota-tsusho.com/english/ir/library/integrated-...
Tesla has ~$100 billion in assets, Toyota has >5x that. I hope Musk settles down with his silly time-wasting edgelord nonsense on Twitter and focuses on Tesla and SpaceX - with more of a steady hand and a singular focus on EVs, I think they could be the largest manufacturer in the world but they're not there yet and a slightly cheaper lithium supply isn't the unique advantage that's going to get them there.
Wheels are actually designed to fall off in an accident.
Compare that to the tens of thousands of ACTUAL INCIDENTS identified by Reuters through Tesla internal documents and Tesla's refusal to even cover the repairs, let alone proactively recall all potentially affected vehicles. Much of what was covered by Reuter's occurred AFTER China forced a recall for the exact same issues.
https://pressroom.toyota.com/toyota-is-conducting-a-safety-r...
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-mu...
Toyta sold ten million cars that year so scale wise that doesn't even qualify as a rounding error. The Teslas suspension problems that caused some wheels to fly off effected tens of thousands.
also, this is volvo. no idea how other hybrids tackle this issue
4. Toyota RAV4 (434,943 units sold)
5. Tesla Model Y (385,900 units sold, estimated)
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g43553191/bestselling-cars...
This source says the Model Y sold 403,897 (still behind the RAV4) https://www.visualcapitalist.com/best-selling-vehicles-in-am...
This source says Model Y sales were 394,497: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/06/top-10-best-selling-cars-in-...
https://wolfstreet.com/2023/12/07/tesla-model-y-is-2-us-best...
My point stands, Model Y sales are matching RAV4 sales, for all practical purposes. And it happened in the space of a couple years. Toyota sells a lot of cars, but they're not the undisputed king of the hill.
Also, not all RAV4s are hybrids. Model Y definitely outsold RAV4 hybrids. Though hybrids aren't any kind of EV (unless they are plug-in), so that's moot.
Wait lists for a single model? I mean, maybe Hyundai just aren't making a lot of EV9s.
It starts at €70k. In what world is this not expensive? Maybe in Bay Area Fang wages.
That is a matter of opinion. As a brand new technology, I think a market share approaching 10% is incredible. Only fans thought this was possible even 5 years ago.
Even if you care more about build quality and comfort, there are cars from VW, Audi, Hyundai, Mercedes, etc, that are better than, say, the Toyota bZ4X while having better range and charging. Toyota simply doesn't make the best pure electric cars.
Does it? Ferraris, Zondas and Koenigseggs also have big waiting lists.
Expensive things to the well off sell easier than average products to the ever shrinking middle class.
And yes, HEV's are EV's the same way BEV's are.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1181404/alternative-sale...
> new cars sold in 2035 and beyond are zero-emission vehicles which includes battery electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and fuel cell electric vehicles.
it just says: zero emission, and hybrids are obviously not
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/cars-and-light-tr...