Tesla Gets the Go-Ahead To Build Cars In China (bbc.com) 94
Tesla has been granted approval to start manufacturing its cars in China. The BBC reports: The electric carmaker, which is run by billionaire Elon Musk, is building a $2 billion factory in the eastern city of Shanghai. Tesla plans to build at least 1,000 of its Model 3s each week in the Chinese factory, which could be up and running within weeks. The new factory will give Tesla access to China, which is the world's biggest car market. It would also help the company avoid higher import tariffs that are imposed on cars made in the US.
The new factory, known as the Gigafactory 3, is the first fully-foreign owned car plant in China. Permission to build the plant has been seen as a sign that Beijing is looking to open up its car market. Authorities in Shanghai have offered Tesla some help to speed up construction of the plant. Meanwhile, China excluded Tesla vehicles from a 10% tax on cars.
The new factory, known as the Gigafactory 3, is the first fully-foreign owned car plant in China. Permission to build the plant has been seen as a sign that Beijing is looking to open up its car market. Authorities in Shanghai have offered Tesla some help to speed up construction of the plant. Meanwhile, China excluded Tesla vehicles from a 10% tax on cars.
It is even better than that, (Score:2)
Aliexpress will soon be flooded with discount models X, Y, Z and T, free shipping with the Cainaio service (no tracking).
Re: It is even better than that, (Score:1)
"Seeking to open up its car market." (Score:5, Insightful)
More likely, "seeking to locate another foreign high-tech factory on its soil to improve its ability to steal the technology".
Tesla is in a unique position as being far and away the leader in electric vehicles. It's not like with the ICE manufacturers that are more or less on equal footing, where you can play them off each other to extract concessions.
I guarantee that within 5 years anything that Tesla has deployed in China will be replaced by locally produced "TellSa Motors" in Tianjin.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I guarantee that within 5 years anything that Tesla has deployed in China will be replaced by locally produced "TellSa Motors" in Tianjin.
China already has plenty of local EV manufacturers, like BYD. They produce both electric cars and electric buses, and several large cities already completely switched to electric public transportation. If anything, in 5 years Western companies will be copying China.
Re:"Seeking to open up its car market." (Score:5, Informative)
There's a difference between being an electric vehicle manufacturer and being Tesla in the same way there is a difference between being a rocket manufacturer and being SpaceX. Both electric cars and rockets have been made for over a century, but Tesla and SpaceX have pushed R&D in the segment far beyond anyone else. At a surface level they're just refining old technologies, but the amount of R&D they've put in to improve the performance and efficiency of these technologies has put them firmly ahead of the competition. Tesla doesn't have a peer-level competitor yet on that front (the legacy automakers have made some solid products but nothing that pushes the envelope the way Tesla does).
It's like in the early days of hybrid cars where Toyota had pretty much a lock on that market because they had put in the R&D. Sure, Honda beat them to market by a few months, but Honda's simple flywheel-replacement IMA mild-hybrid system was flat out primitive compared to what Toyota's HSD was capable of.
China wants the fruits of Tesla's R&D, badly precisely so they can improve their large electric vehicle manufacturing base.
For comparison, China has a very large industrial base for producing turbofan jet engines, but have been struggling to reach the capabilities of Russian and American designs. They cloned the Su-27 airframe but couldn't completely reverse-engineer the AL-31 engines, consequently their domestic fighter aircraft are underpowered. They managed to steal F-35 designs but failed to steal the designs of the P&W engines that power it. China is desperate for a low-to-mid bypass fighter engine. Meanwhile they managed to arrange partnerships for civilian high-bypass turbofans from GE and outright stole data from GE via CFM, and now the C919 is built with that tech.
China is genius at mixing and matching technologies into products -- (they're way better at that than America, where it's hard to get product variants to market), but is terrible at R&D. Their education system is built around the idea that you have to rote memorize the works of the masters of your craft over and over until you become the master, and only then are you allowed to try to innovate. Consequently for much of their industry, product R&D consists of "How can we combine and repackage what we have in new ways?", and fundamental R&D consists of "How can we copy advancements from the west?".
Re:"Seeking to open up its car market." (Score:4, Informative)
This isn't a wikipedia article. If you doubt something I said, call it out specifically, and voice your skepticism.
Quick google work for specific stuff though, advancements in battery management systems by tesla, as well as the motor tech they use, and how they built their frames specifically around it.
If it's about SpaceX, well the reusability is obvious but also thrust to weight ratio on Merlin engines, Raptor engine being first full flow closed cycle methalox engine, etc.
Regarding engine woes of China, google articles about their WS-15 woes, attempts to reverse engineer the AL-31, and eventual licensing from GE and theft of LEAP designs from CFM for production of the C919. Some of that info just came out, I'll even give you a link since it's so new:
https://www.extremetech.com/ex... [extremetech.com]
Regarding what the Chinese are *really* good at, well, a visit to taobao should answer that pretty quick. You want some generic electric car drivetrain mated to a fiberglass frame that looks like a horse with a giant penis? You can get that. You can get anything on taobao. One that looks like a bootleg colonel sanders? They have that. Want a screwdriver that also has an earwax removal tool? They have that. Combine any two random bits of tech together with some other random styling or livery, and they have that. China is *really* good at mixing and matching, and when something sticks they're really good at making lots and lots of it, but they are not so good at core innovation.
Re:"Seeking to open up its car market." (Score:5, Interesting)
Innovation is exactly the reason why Tesla sees more advantage in China than risk. Apart from the fact that Chinese companies already try to steal from them even in the US (there've been several major incidents), Musk is not a fan of "tech moats" - indeed, all of his companies' business plans can be summed up as "bridging other peoples' moats". Rather, he's of the view that it's pace of innovation that matters - how quickly you can iterate through generations of technology. So basically, if some Chinese company steals component of Tesla's designs and brings some clone of it to market in their next production cycle... great, enjoy your obsolete tech.
Tesla is so unafraid of "boosting the local competition" that they've established not just a factory in China, but are also building an engineering office, to tap into the local engineering talent pool. Yep, any of those engineers can at any point in time be poached by other companies. But again, that already happens with Tesla in the US. If the company doing the poaching can't iterate designs fast enough... well, they'll lose regardless.
As a random example, as of a few years ago, their best battery tech involved a single cooling channel snaking through a bunch of inserted cells. Coolant went in cold on one end and out the other, hot.
Then for the Model 3, they switched to having bandoliers produced like bullet clips, with many parallel paths in each module (now 4 modules per pack), reducing the number of cells that the coolant passed by before exiting the pack, along with binding them with an intumescent goo for added fire safety and structural strength.
In their latest patent [freepatentsonline.com] that just got released, they're now looking to have coolant free-flow through all the cells (grouped into even smaller self-balancing modules), and replace the intumescent material with a material that fills the same safety role, but also undergoes a phase change at around 30C, with the energy soak from the phase change allowing the cells to remain at a nearly constant temperature. The cells are physically joined to the top and bottom plate (forming a structural sandwich), and at least some of the cell structural components are not formed individually, but stamped out and used as a conjoined group. Electrolyte is also filled as a conjoined group. The pack coolant can be inserted and withdrawn at arbitrary points in the pack in the new design (each mini-module has its own inlet and outlet) and covers every cell on all sides. The coolant pumping system is designed to periodically reverse the direction of coolant flow, so which cells are near the "hot end" and which are near the "cold end" keeps switching.
If you want to be part of the future, you need to be able to iterate quickly.
Re: (Score:1)
Which means Musk is impossibly arrogant.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically, if some Chinese company steals component of Tesla's designs and brings some clone of it to market in their next production cycle... great, enjoy your obsolete tech.
If some Chinese company clones your tech, then you'll find it hard to recoup your investment and you'll eventually spend yourself into oblivion. Most of the successful tech companies repackage technology made by others, because constantly innovating is really, really freakin' expensive.
China became a prime source of manufacturing because they make stuff that is Good Enough.
Re: (Score:1)
Whittle's single stage centrifugal compressor design was an order of magnitude cheaper to manufacture in the volumes required in wartime, even if it was slightly less fuel efficient and couldn't scale up above ~10klbs thrust. Centrifugal and axial-centrifugal compressor designs are still used in small turbines for cost reasons.
Re: "Seeking to open up its car market." (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that they have the designs. What they lack is the ability to produce them with the same precision and materials that American companies can do.
I could give anyone the designs for a new engine but without the machines to produce this engine it's not helpful. I could give the molecular structure for a cancer treatment drug, carbon nanotubes, or transparent aluminum, but without knowing the chemistry to build these molecules it's not all that helpful. It shows it's possible to build this, which is
Re: (Score:2)
Since the late 1970s Russian air crafts are superior to amarican ones, except for electronics.
The fly longer, farer and faster. Have better maneuverability. The only reason american planes are considered better is the electronic integration and superiour missiles.
Re:"Seeking to open up its car market." (Score:4, Insightful)
Looking at previous work, trying it in different ways, coming up with something new.
Thats basically how all science and technology has been for all times
All this crap about stealing technology is lawyerese.
True innovation does not need trade secrets. You simply keep moving ahead of whoever is copying you.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like in the early days of hybrid cars where Toyota had pretty much a lock on that market because they had put in the R&D. Sure, Honda beat them to market by a few months, but Honda's simple flywheel-replacement IMA mild-hybrid system was flat out primitive compared to what Toyota's HSD was capable of.
Toyota actually beat Honda's Insight (1999) to the punch with the Prius (1997), but they both wound up with about the same mileage. (Honda only had a concept in 1997.) But do we really care whose system is more complicated if they both offer the same economy? I mean sure, as a matter of knowledge it's interesting, but it doesn't matter to the consumer.
Re: "Seeking to open up its car market." (Score:2)
But do we really care whose system is more complicated if they both offer the same economy? I mean sure, as a matter of knowledge it's interesting, but it doesn't matter to the consumer.
What are you, a fucking humanties major?? Complexity determines both reliability and repair ability, Unthinking One.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you, a fucking humanties major?? Complexity determines both reliability and repair ability, Unthinking One.
More complicated doesn't necessarily mean less reliable if it's also better designed, and/or made with higher-quality materials. Maybe you should try that thinking stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
The Insight of the time could only compete by drastically lowering the weight and drag of the vehicle. Its drivetrain was incapable of functioning with the gasoline engine off because the electric motor was actually inside the gasoline engine (replacing the flywheel normally used to smooth engine revving). This limited its ability to provide assistance and recover energy to very small levels, and meant that the car still needed the engine running to move even at tiny speeds (which is very inefficient).
Toyot
Re: (Score:2)
The Insight of the time could only compete by drastically lowering the weight and drag of the vehicle. Its drivetrain was incapable of functioning with the gasoline engine off because the electric motor was actually inside the gasoline engine (replacing the flywheel normally used to smooth engine revving). This limited its ability to provide assistance and recover energy to very small levels, and meant that the car still needed the engine running to move even at tiny speeds (which is very inefficient).
And yet the combined mileage is within the error range of the Prius.
Toyota's system had a much larger electric motor that could power the vehicle all by itself at slow speeds, and capture far more energy in regenerative braking. It did all this with a real 4-seat sedan.
You call that a real 4-seat sedan? Where's the trunk? It's a... I don't know what to call it, short wagon? Liftback? And the back seat is a bad joke. It also handles like garbage, although that doesn't differentiate it from any other Toyota of the era.
I wouldn't buy either one, but I'd far rather have the Honda. And if I were to buy a new hybrid car and could choose any non-luxury/sport model (just to put some kind of limitation on it) I'd
Re: (Score:2)
The Insight was a coupe with a very small storage area with incredibly reduced weight. That's how it managed comparable fuel economy.
The 2nd gen Prius was basically a liftback/hatchback, yes, but the rear storage area was fairly substantial. The 1st gen was definitely a sedan with a small but usable trunk. The Prius and the (original) Insight are definitely not remotely comparable in terms of usable volume. Yes the Prius was not amazing in terms of maneuverability but that wasn't the point.
The main point is
Re: (Score:3)
No idea where you got your information from: about what China might have stolen.
It sounds like the 1980 - 1990 myth that russian fighter planes are inferior to american ones.
The myth started with the idea that the SR 71 is made from Titanium ( which is right) and expanded that all american fighters are made from Titanium (which is wrong) and went further and further proclaiming that the Russian Su's and Mig's where made from steel. Hence the super strong engines. From the super strong engines and the weight
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Seeking to open up its car market." (Score:5, Informative)
If we want to fix global warming, we should all be sharing technology, not hoarding it.
We all share the same atmosphere.
Re: "Seeking to open up its car market." (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Jmho but after reading tea leaves for many many years, this is a clear signal that they'd like to shut down the Fremont plant and move all production to China. It makes no sense that they're building them for the local market when that market has absolutely cratered and won't recover any time soon.
Also, I can't imagine the terms with Chinese creditors were very good given Tesla's constantly dire financial position. In the end the Chinese will fully own that asset when Tesla files. Will be interesting to
Re: (Score:2)
Come again? They're still on target to beat last year's U.S. sales. For the first six months of this year, Tesla's U.S. sales exceeded the same-month sales from the previous year, and even the last three months are only off a little. I'd hardly call that cratering. Most companies would kill to fail that well.
Re: (Score:2)
There were a bunch of companies churning out crappy cars that were just enough to qualify for the full tax credit. If you can get an $8k tax credit from the government why make a nice 300-mile sedan that costs $40k when you can make a $10k golf cart technically qualify for the same $8k credit and only charge your customers $2k?
China cutting subsidies helps Tesla. The new subsidies are a percentage of price based so if you want to sell a $10k golf cart then you only get $1k. If you sell a $40k Tesla yo
Re: (Score:2)
NIO failed because Tesla killed them.
* Interest in NIO's offerings has been slashed by Tesla
* Tesla's ability to mass produce and sell cars without any of the (formerly massive, increasingly unsustainable) government incentives that the local manufacturers had got the government to consider that it can meet its electrification goals with only a "stick" and no "carrot" - and consequently, local incentives got heavily slashed. (The "stick" - things like license plate fees/limits and outright
Re: (Score:2)
Ah. That makes a lot more sense. But as worded, it looks like it is saying that it makes no sense to continue making things in the U.S. for the local market, because it has cratered. :-)
Either way, I think that the theory about closing Fremont is probably wrong, though. Shipping cars across the
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between widely deploying a product and putting in the R&D to develop the core technologies of the product in the first place. China is a master of the former, not the latter.
Re:"Seeking to open up its car market." (Score:4, Informative)
Man, Tesla better hurry up and catch up in their ability to mass produce piston engines and multi-gear transmissions then!
Meanwhile, when it comes to electric vehicle components [twimg.com]...
From a price perspective, Model 3 absolutely is mid-Tier. Pricing equivalent to that of a BMW 3-series or Audi A4, your sort of "entry-level" BMWs and Audis. The unoptioned price is around the average price of a new car in the US.
From a TCO perspective, it's not even close. The difference in US 3-year 12k-mile lease rates (12k ~= US average driving distance) between a Model 3 SR+ (not even the cheaper, off-menu SR- !) and a fully unoptioned base-model Honda Accord is (*after* yesterday's price hike) $124 per month. Between fuel and maintenance, that price difference is not hard to rack up. Versus a freaking base-model Accord.
While they don't offer longer-term leases, they'd be even more favourable, as depreciation rates slow with time.
As for fuel savings for said 12k miles per year:
$3/gal / €0,71/l = $91/mo [US average for premium and diesel] ;) ]
$4/gal / €0,95/l = $121/mo [A bit cheaper than the California average price for regular gasoline]
$5/gal / €1,18/l = $152/mo [Gas prices in Mono, CA; a bit under average EU fuel prices]
$6/gal / €1,42/l = $182/mo [Gas prices in the UK (sorry, petrol!)
$7/gal / €1,66/l = $212/mo [Gas prices in Iceland and Norway ]
In EPA combined driving, the Model 3 SR+ is rated at 253 Wh/mi wall to wheels (not pack to wheels). At US average electricity rates - $0,13/kWh - and in EPA combined driving - the Model 3 SR+ costs $32,94/mo in electricity. California's electricity is more expensive - average $0,18/kWh ($45,60/mo). Electricity prices in the EU range from €0,10/kWh ($27,87/mo, €25,33/mo) to €0,31/kWH ($87,69/mo, €78,55/mo), averaging €0,21/kWh ($59,42/mo, €53,21/mo)
For maintenance, it's a lot more than just oil changes. The maintenance checklist for the Model 3 in the first three years literally has only three things on it: tire rotation, a brake fluid check, and a cabin air filter swap - none of which, if you don't do them, will void your warranty. For the Accord, it's that plus a whole table of ICE-specific things to do in each year of ownership, some of which will void your warranty if you don't do them.
And to reiterate, we're comparing the Model 3 SR+ (not the cheaper SR-!), a car with a 5,4s 0-60 / 5,6s 0-100, "refuels" at home, autopilot, continuous OTA updates, glass roof, alcantara trim, sentry mode, remote app that can control almost all of the vehicle's functions, free streaming radio, awesome responsive screen, amazing sound system, inbuilt support for things like Spotify, Netflix, Youtube, and on and on and on... a car that Edmunds describes as "drives better, handles better, and is more fun" than a BMW 3-Series.... to a base-model Accord. A car which doesn't even come stock with things like parking sensors, power seating, or heated front seats.
People obsess too much over sticker prices. Lease rates capture the true difference, in that they also reflect residual value at the end of a fixed timeperiod.
Re: (Score:2)
Hasn't Tesla already offered up their patents for others to use?
https://www.tesla.com/about/le... [tesla.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Seeking to open up its car market." (Score:5, Informative)
There are easier ways. They could just... use Tesla's patents.
https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you/ [tesla.com]
Re: (Score:2)
More likely, "seeking to locate another foreign high-tech factory on its soil to improve its ability to steal the technology".
Like stealing the patented technology that Tesla has made freely available to everyone already?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla are one of the front runners but not "far and away the leader" in EVs.
They have some nice high performance tech, although others have had better chargers than Tesla's superchargers for a couple of years now. They still suffer from quality issues (a recent software update nerfed Model 3 range by about 6% for example) and they aren't even the kings of efficiency - that award goes to Hyundai with their still competitive 2016 Ioniq.
Where they really fell behind is on cost optimization. They $35k Model 3 h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How to craft an electric car is not exactly a secret. Every ten year old, smart/strong enough to handle the tools can do it.
Welcome (Score:4, Informative)
Make sure your brand keeps its good Social Credit.
Dont mention Tibet, the protests for freedom in Hong Kong, the political cartoon bear, organ transplants, the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, South Park...
no we just add autopilot to jail mode so they can (Score:3)
no we just add autopilot to jail mode so they can just push an button to just have the car drive anyone they want right to the jail.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
China has long left Communism, what it has is crony capitalism. Which you have too in various degrees.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how you reconcile calling them communist with their rapid economic growth. 'Not real communism' perhaps?
Re: (Score:2)
Right up Musk's alley (Score:1)
It's pretty clear he will bend over for some cash, just like Lebron.
The spying he already does on his customers should fit right into China's authoritarian mindset.
How long? (Score:2)
Re:How long? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I love how everybody in this thread thinks they're smarter than Elon Musk.
In general I think that syndrome is hilarious, but this is one of those cases where it remains to be seen who's smart. Hopefully he's getting enough money out of the deal in early years to prop up Tesla, because there's still a good chance that it will go badly, sadly wrong as it has for everyone else so far. Musk has tried to get people to use his IP before, though, so I don't think that's his biggest concern... as long as he can make basically any profit it's a win for his stated goals if they do copy him
Smart move. (Score:5, Insightful)
We already know China is looking to steal as much IP as possible and thus are very interested in copying Tesla cars. Objectively, one may say, this is a stupid move because they'll get ripped off. However, you should consider that may actually be the objective. Tesla wasn't founded to be the electric car company, it was founded to prove electric cars were viable and to proliferate them(the exact reason they let people use their patents). Wall Street types will say it's a gamble but copied (proliferating EVs) or not (cheaper construction), Tesla still wins.
Motive is important.
Re: (Score:3)
Since Tesla opened their patents there isn't really anything to steal.
Anyway, the Chinese are way ahead with EV technology so there probably isn't much they could learn that they don't already know or didn't get from a teardown (which all the western manufacturers did too, by the way). They have been building and running much bigger batteries (550kWh for busses/trucks) and faster charging for years now.
Maybe Tesla has some performance tech that might be of interest, but they are mostly focused on value at t
Re: (Score:2)
A factory selling the same product would open... after a Western brand got approval to build a factory in Communist China.
Western brands look at other brands products for very different reasons...
China wants electric cars but... (Score:2)
What China wants more than electric cars is a carbon neutral fuel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Electric cars might be viable for the average commute but electric airplanes are not viable for transoceanic flight. A Boeing 737 has a maximum takeoff weight of about 80 tons. About 40 tons of this is the plane itself. About 20 tons is the passengers and cargo. The last 20 tons is fuel. If the energy of the fuel is cut in half for the same mass then the cargo carried by this plane over the same distance
Re: (Score:2)
A modern internal combustion engine can now burn air so cleanly that the exhaust is often cleaner than the air that went in.
Prove it with a video of you inhaling exhaust for an hour or so. The claim you make is based on what ? VolksLiar ?
Re: (Score:2)
Energy density is only part of the issue. Electric power trains are four time more efficient than gasoline power trains for road vehicles. So one fourth of the energy density.
In a gasoline car, weight has a serious effect on efficiency. You spend energy to accelerate the vehicle, and then when you brake all the kinetic energy is converted
Re: (Score:2)
Now multiply them up 0.25 * 0.667 * 0.333 =~ 0.05, meaning 5% of the energy density is enough for battery vehicles.
Let's assume this is true. I believe this is a total bullshit calculation, but let's go with it. What is the energy density of a lithium-ion battery from Tesla compared to that of other automotive fuels in common use today. A quick Google search tells me that a Tesla battery provides 265 Wh/kg, which is just a bit short of 1 MJ/kg. Which is a slight improvement from what is listed on this Wiki page on energy density: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Now, what is the energy density of gasoline from that
Re: (Score:2)
You always forget that a heat engine in earth atmosphere has a maximum efficiency of 42% ... while a battery + electric engine is close to 100%.
Re: (Score:2)
You always forget that a heat engine in earth atmosphere has a maximum efficiency of 42% ... while a battery + electric engine is close to 100%.
The calculations used assumed a car with an internal combustion engine had an efficiency of 1/4 that of a battery electric car, if we assume 42% efficiency then the battery electric vehicle looks worse. That means the battery needs to have something closer to 10% of the energy density of gasoline, instead of about 5% that was calculated, to reach parity.
So, instead of being nearly halfway to parity, batteries need an improvement in energy density of 5 times from the 2% they have now.
The calculation used is
Re: (Score:2)
You are mixing up fuel energy density with efficiency. What is it worth if your high energy/weight only has a yield of 20% - 40%?
Re: (Score:2)
Your/my numbers are not too far off. A typical gas car has much larger range than a Tesla. Easily 400 miles for the ice car. Adjust for that my 5% becomes 3.5% and it is within the tolerance for approximate calculations. It is not one or two orders of mag different as you were claiming.
The energy density is not an issue now, and it is improving continua
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cleaner has a meaning dumbass. ...
Obviously the CO2 produces would kill them in the long run.
Dumbass thinking he is smart
Re: (Score:2)
As long as we still have the option to choose (Score:1)
this is huge (Score:5, Interesting)
is the first fully-foreign owned car plant in China
This is huge. It's much bigger than most people here realize.
For decades, the only way to produce in China was to have a joint-venture with a chinese company. At least in the automobile industry this was the case, don't know about others (but I'd guess it's the same).
That meant your partner got all your secret information. Many German car manufacturers avoided China for exactly that reason for years and years, until market pressures forced them. The first ones who went quickly made the discovery that all their fears were correct - in the first year, you made great sales on the chinese market. In the second year your sales plummeted. In the third your you finally figured out that your joint-venture partner built an identical factory, just without you, a few cities away and is selling your cars under their brand name.
Being able to manufacture in China without a joint-venture means that Tesla keeps its trade secrets, and that's a huge step forward.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is by far not the same as having the original plans in a file, you know?
Country with high pollution wants EVs? Good! (Score:3)
The sooner EVs become widely used, the better for our environment.
Re: (Score:2)
They already want EVs. China is the largest EV market by a landslide. But they also want EVs that don't suck. They already buy Teslas, even though they are expensive when imported. Now they will buy even more Teslas. But it won't increase EV adoption, or at least not much. It will primarily increase Tesla adoption.
Repatriation of funds (Score:2)
In reality, it would probably prove very profitable for Tesla to simply reincorporate in China or just outside of the US in general. As the unions become a bigger problem for Tesla in the states, it will almost certainly be cheaper for them to produce entirely outside of the US anyway.
China belt road (Score:2)
Sad state of affairs (Score:5, Insightful)
Point of fact: Tesla wants into China because it's the largest automotive market in the world. The USA has also got a trade war going on with the worlds largest market which makes importing Tesla's into the worlds largest auto market far more expensive than it need be.
China wants Tesla because China has a tremendous air quality problem in major cities and as part of the solution, wants zero emission vehicles wherever possible. China is also determined to become the next great superpower in the world and part of this is to control the lions share of the worlds industry and be on the leading edge of new technologies and the next wave of industry.
The USA by contrast has become complacent. It has spent decades allowing their nation to tilt towards towards rich, established players who have firmly entrenched their positions through various means such as creating walled gardens to protect their business, and utilized lobbying to prevent regulations or squelch upstart competitors and a healthy dose of propaganda to keep the masses in line lest they be forced to change from the status quo. Heaven forbid that all that liquid gold gets left in the ground unburned... Frankly, just look at the comment section here whenever a Tesla story comes up, or climate change comes up. What should be celebrated as an American success story along with the next opportunity to innovate and solve a crisis, and thus maintain the nations status as the global superpower, is instead met with hostility, trolling and denialism.
Re: (Score:1)
Once again the Slashdot comment section is pitted with nonsense.
Well you know this is going to be good.
Now the same folks who've vigorously argued for years that Tesla and Musk are bound for failure in the USA because the established legacy players can simply flood the market with cheap superior EV's whenever they decide to get around to it, flip the script and now argue that that Tesla and Musk have made a major mistake opening a factory in China because the Chinese just want to get their hands on Tesla's superior technology.
I have no idea how you think these are somehow mutually exclusive ideas. The doubts about Tesla's future were in no small part based on the barriers to entry in auto production, marketing, and distribution. Even if you have the superior tech, that doesn't mean you're going to get it to market successfully. I don't know about where you live, but I don't exactly see fleets of Teslas running around. Then, should some "established legacy player" in a country with a lax