China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars Electric Vehicle Push

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
User avatar
MitchJi
1 GW
1 GW
Posts: 3195
Joined: Jun 02, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Marin County California

China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars Electric Vehicle Push

Post by MitchJi » Sep 10, 2017 12:10 pm

Hi,

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... hicle-push

China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars in Electric Vehicle Push

September 9, 2017, 4:54 AM PDT
Regulators are working on a timetable of the ban, Xin says
China joins U.K., France to phase out combustion-engine cars
China will set a deadline for automakers to end sales of fossil-fuel powered vehicles, a move aimed at pushing companies to speed efforts in developing electric vehicles for the world’s biggest auto market.

Xin Guobin, the vice minister of industry and information technology, said the government is working with other regulators on a timetable to end production and sales. The move will have a profound impact on the environment and growth of China’s auto industry, Xin said at an auto forum in Tianjin on Saturday.

A ban on combustion-engine vehicles will help push both local and global automakers to shift toward electric vehicles, a carrot-and-stick approach that could boost sales of energy-efficient cars and trucks and reduce air pollution while serving the strategic goal of cutting oil imports. The government offers generous subsidies to makers of new-energy vehicles. It also plans to require automakers to earn enough credits or buy them from competitors with a surplus under a new cap-and-trade program for fuel economy and emissions.

Honda Motor Co. will launch an electric car for the China market in 2018, China Chief Operating Officer Yasuhide Mizuno said at the same forum. The Japanese carmaker is developing the vehicle with Chinese joint ventures of Guangqi Honda Automobile Co. and Dongfeng Honda Automobile Co. and will create a new brand with them, he said.

Internet entrepreneur William Li’s Nio will start selling ES8, a sport-utility vehicle powered only with batteries, in mid-December. The startup is working with state-owned Anhui Jianghuai Automobile Group, which also is in a venture with Volkswagen AG to introduce an electric SUV next year.

China, seeking to meet its promise to cap its carbon emissions by 2030, is the latest country to unveil plans to phase out vehicles running on fossil fuels. The U.K. said in July it will ban sales of diesel- and gasoline-fueled cars by 2040, two weeks after France announced a similar plan to reduce air pollution and meet targets to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).
Best Wishes!

Mitch


The best quality batteries and lowest priced batteries for DIY EV's are tier 1 OEM Quality Cells from salvaged (wrecked) EV packs. Two examples are Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf packs.

Nissan Leaf Module specs are here
Chevy Volt Pack Info - Salvage 16kwh Packs Under $2k here
The cells are rated conservatively by GM at 7.8C, Yabert's tests of Volt packs on the DiyEv car forum suggest a higher C rate, 15+ C!.

$1,400 plus $360 freight. Still over $1k less than new lead!

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8331
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars Electric Vehicle P

Post by Hillhater » Sep 10, 2017 4:29 pm

Obviously, a lot has been lost in translation !....
:roll: .yes.."working on a timetable".. Means .." Ask us again about this in 10-20 years ".
China are smart, they know how to present the right appearance such that the rest of the world believe they are doing one thing , when in reality they are doing something different.
They know that economic development depends on a few key things, .Transport, and energy being two of those and they wont do anything that slows down the development of either. Hence why they will still continue to build coal fired powerstations by the hundred (over 200 by 2020 !), and petrol/diesel cars and trucks by the million.
They know the EV sector cannot develop fast enough to satisfy even internal demand, let alone the exports they crave.
You do realise that that 2030 "cap" is just that...
..they will limit their emmissions to the level they reach in 2030 !
That is "committment" for you.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
Izits
100 W
100 W
Posts: 152
Joined: Jan 02, 2017 2:01 am
Location: United States of America.

Re: China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars Electric Vehicle P

Post by Izits » Sep 18, 2017 3:35 pm

MitchJi wrote:...The government offers generous subsidies to makers of new-energy vehicles. ...
The key point is right there. The electric cars are NOT cost effective. If they were, people would choose to buy them without being forced to pay for them at the point of a gun.
The only enemy of the electric bicycle community is the government. Think about it. Who bans or restricts your use of electric bikes, other than the government? Smaller Government = More Freedom.

User avatar
liveforphysics
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 14453
Joined: Oct 29, 2008 1:48 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA, USA

Re: China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars Electric Vehicle P

Post by liveforphysics » Sep 18, 2017 4:17 pm

Izits wrote:
MitchJi wrote:...The government offers generous subsidies to makers of new-energy vehicles. ...
The key point is right there. The electric cars are NOT cost effective. If they were, people would choose to buy them without being forced to pay for them at the point of a gun.
A world without the oil subsidies would require no EV subsidies, and the real cost of using oil is the millions of lives a year and life support system for the shared spaceship infinitely transcends all "money" with respect to value.
Each carcinogen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for cancer.

Each mutagen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for reproductive genetic defects in your children.

Each engine start sprays them into a shared atmosphere which includes beings not offered an opportunity to consent accepting these cancer experiences and defective genetics life experiences.

Every post is a free gift to the collective of minds composing the living bleeding edge of LEV development on our spaceship.

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 620
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: san diego

Re: China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars Electric Vehicle P

Post by billvon » Sep 18, 2017 4:21 pm

Izits wrote:
MitchJi wrote:...The government offers generous subsidies to makers of new-energy vehicles. ...
The key point is right there. The electric cars are NOT cost effective. If they were, people would choose to buy them without being forced to pay for them at the point of a gun.
Given that people are buying EV's in places that have no incentives, that is provably not true. (Of course, sales are much higher with incentives.)
--bill von

User avatar
Izits
100 W
100 W
Posts: 152
Joined: Jan 02, 2017 2:01 am
Location: United States of America.

Re: China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars Electric Vehicle P

Post by Izits » Sep 18, 2017 9:38 pm

billvon wrote:
Izits wrote:The key point is right there. The electric cars are NOT cost effective. If they were, people would choose to buy them without being forced to pay for them at the point of a gun.
Given that people are buying EV's in places that have no incentives, that is provably not true. (Of course, sales are much higher with incentives.)
Actually it's not provably untrue because there is no fixed definition of 'cost effective'. You would have us perceive that if a tiny number of people buy an EV at whatever price, that makes the car cost effective. Which is ridiculous of course.

I'll re-phrase my statement to be more clear. The electric cars are not considered cost effective to everyone who is being forced against their will to subsidize them.
The only enemy of the electric bicycle community is the government. Think about it. Who bans or restricts your use of electric bikes, other than the government? Smaller Government = More Freedom.

Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4249
Joined: May 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: England

Re: China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars Electric Vehicle P

Post by Punx0r » Sep 19, 2017 4:12 am

So, having said they're not cost effective, you then ridicule the use of "cost effective" before modifying your stance from cost effective generally to "I can think of someone, somewhere it's not cost effective for". Way to move to goalposts...

I have no idea what you mean by subsidise at gunpoint. You must have some weird shit going on wherever you happen to live.

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 620
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: san diego

Re: China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars Electric Vehicle P

Post by billvon » Sep 19, 2017 10:43 am

Izits wrote:I'll re-phrase my statement to be more clear. The electric cars are not considered cost effective to everyone who is being forced against their will to subsidize them.
That is even more false. I can think of a few hundred people at my company alone who are being "forced against their will to subsidize them" - and they consider them cost effective, since they own or lease them. Indeed, most people around here find EV incentives a lot more palatable than the fossil fuel incentives they are being forced to subsidize.
--bill von

User avatar
Ianhill
100 kW
100 kW
Posts: 1117
Joined: Sep 25, 2015 5:55 pm
Location: Wales UK

Re: China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars Electric Vehicle P

Post by Ianhill » Sep 19, 2017 11:02 am

I can buy a used ICE car for penny's then run that into the ground for very little extra if I choose engine size etc wisely, so until electric can compete with that it's purely for the new buyer market only and due to the fact most house's don't have a garage it's more of a rich green thing to keep up with the Jones''s in the mainstream avenue.
With us being avid electric users our view is distorted from the truth and that's electric cars do not even total 1% of earth's total transport, to say the shift will happen faster than we think is nonsense it's going to take time for these new machines to devalue and even then they will not suit the needs of most due to the charging infastructure being weak in comparison to oil.
I'm not debateing what is best for mother earth I'm just pointing out that people are lazy and like the easy quick fill option and also don't like to carry debt so they choose the cheaper option even if governments force the issue electric is not for everyone at the moment so they are actively forcing tax payers off the road, it will destroy business and force an Ai uprising to take the place of many workers that can no longer make the trip everyday from a isolated area's on issue is we don't all live in urban ideal situations or have an area to pack our cars with a solid electrical supply.

User avatar
TheBeastie
1 MW
1 MW
Posts: 1636
Joined: Jul 28, 2012 12:31 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars Electric Vehicle P

Post by TheBeastie » Sep 19, 2017 2:09 pm

Theres still talk about cars powered by hydrogen that put out nothing but pure H2O
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... rd-it.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle

I still have a dream of the ultimate clean car that helps plants grow that puts out nothing but puts out nothing but pure Dihydrogen Monoxide and Carbonic Anhydride as its exhaust, imagine that!
1w5fdz.jpg
1w5fdz.jpg (132.81 KiB) Viewed 532 times
https://youtu.be/0C9yLPbqTVw
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles range http://goo.gl/1JNL53
Over Charging Kills ur battery bit.ly/1hzWKl4
Beware of dodgy 18650 cells! youtu.be/eOshOXcSkDA
Consider PAS as your only throttle http://goo.gl/m17J9j
CO2 is core to Photosynthesis https://youtu.be/t5mvDONB6FI
Check out the Bill Gates nuclear reactor https://goo.gl/Rtky9q
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

User avatar
Izits
100 W
100 W
Posts: 152
Joined: Jan 02, 2017 2:01 am
Location: United States of America.

Re: China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars Electric Vehicle P

Post by Izits » Sep 20, 2017 12:52 am

Punx0r wrote:I have no idea what you mean by subsidise at gunpoint. You must have some weird shit going on wherever you happen to live.
All subsidies are enforced at gunpoint because they are all paid for with taxation which is always enforced at gunpoint. It's not "weird shit", it works exactly the same where you live. The purpose of any subsidy is to force people to pay for things against their will. I'm sure you already know this.
The only enemy of the electric bicycle community is the government. Think about it. Who bans or restricts your use of electric bikes, other than the government? Smaller Government = More Freedom.

User avatar
Izits
100 W
100 W
Posts: 152
Joined: Jan 02, 2017 2:01 am
Location: United States of America.

Re: China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars Electric Vehicle P

Post by Izits » Sep 20, 2017 1:02 am

billvon wrote:
Izits wrote:I'll re-phrase my statement to be more clear. The electric cars are not considered cost effective to everyone who is being forced against their will to subsidize them.
That is even more false. I can think of a few hundred people at my company alone who are being "forced against their will to subsidize them" - and they consider them cost effective, since they own or lease them. Indeed, most people around here find EV incentives a lot more palatable than the fossil fuel incentives they are being forced to subsidize.
It's not false, you just didn't bother to read it properly. The people at your company who you claim own or lease EV vehicles, are not the ones being forced against their will.

Furthermore, I find it bizarre that you attempt to defend the concept of subsidies when we're talking about electric vehicles and yet you turn right around and call them unpalatable when it comes to fossil fuel subsidies. Which by the way, were enacted and are enforced by your beloved government which you're always trying to make us believe we need so badly to make these kinds of decisions for us.
Last edited by Izits on Sep 20, 2017 2:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
The only enemy of the electric bicycle community is the government. Think about it. Who bans or restricts your use of electric bikes, other than the government? Smaller Government = More Freedom.

Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4249
Joined: May 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: England

Re: China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars Electric Vehicle P

Post by Punx0r » Sep 20, 2017 2:22 am

I think you just have strong anti-government views and that colours every issue you happen to look at.

Most folk here are concerned with the technological, scientific and perhaps sociological aspects of EVs.

User avatar
Izits
100 W
100 W
Posts: 152
Joined: Jan 02, 2017 2:01 am
Location: United States of America.

Re: China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars Electric Vehicle P

Post by Izits » Sep 20, 2017 2:35 am

Punx0r wrote:I think you just have strong anti-government views and that colours every issue you happen to look at.
Most folk here are concerned with the technological, scientific and perhaps sociological aspects of EVs.
I have strong anti-murder and anti-rape views too. There's nothing wrong with seeing both the good and the bad in every issue.

Most folks do have everything you described, I agree. The socialists also have a strong desire to force their views on others. That's exactly what the word "push" means in the title of this thread.

I admit I'm curious about what you mean by it 'colors' my views. I guess you mean that I always choose peace over violence and that I always choose freedom over slavery. Am I supposed to prefer violence sometimes just for the sake of appearing less polarized? You didn't say any of that but I suspect that's what you're getting at.
The only enemy of the electric bicycle community is the government. Think about it. Who bans or restricts your use of electric bikes, other than the government? Smaller Government = More Freedom.

User avatar
nutnspecial
1.21 GW
1.21 GW
Posts: 3794
Joined: Mar 03, 2015 10:19 pm
Location: PA

Re: China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars Electric Vehicle P

Post by nutnspecial » Sep 20, 2017 3:43 am

Hehe I like Izits.
Backing that stance as well as Beastie and HH.
Most folk here are concerned with the technological, scientific and perhaps sociological aspects of EVs

uhh yeah.gif
uhh yeah.gif (347.55 KiB) Viewed 471 times
And some just want to argue when they have no argument . . .
-Possibly known as 'punking' ? :lol:

- - - - - -
And I'd like to see some studies/evidence that compare long term effects on our earth and humanity from ICE VS EV . . . . .

. . I'd be willing to bet the resources and manipulation for similar scale EV will quickly outweigh simple steel and combustion in 'renewability' aka 'counter-effectiveness' aka 'damages' . . .

BUT by the same token I think there is no real 'damage' as it pertains to humans or earth.
Because 'nature' is never 'unnatural'. . . it just changes, as do we.

On a smaller more generational/lifetime scale, I'd say we're doing all right and mainly just need to aim at practicing more personal moderation in all things, while also striving generally to not be unthinkingly repeating fanatical slants of one 'side' or the other. :D

Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4249
Joined: May 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: England

Re: China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars Electric Vehicle P

Post by Punx0r » Sep 20, 2017 9:11 am

Izits wrote:
Punx0r wrote:I think you just have strong anti-government views and that colours every issue you happen to look at.
Most folk here are concerned with the technological, scientific and perhaps sociological aspects of EVs.
I have strong anti-murder and anti-rape views too. There's nothing wrong with seeing both the good and the bad in every issue.

Most folks do have everything you described, I agree. The socialists also have a strong desire to force their views on others. That's exactly what the word "push" means in the title of this thread.

I admit I'm curious about what you mean by it 'colors' my views. I guess you mean that I always choose peace over violence and that I always choose freedom over slavery. Am I supposed to prefer violence sometimes just for the sake of appearing less polarized? You didn't say any of that but I suspect that's what you're getting at.
What I mean is you take a look at something chiefly technological but your view is just always just clouded by angry political opinions. So instead of an objective, apolitical assessment of the technological benefits of a piece of technology, you find a way to shoehorn an existing political rant into the subject at hand.

That your response is full of emotive phrases like choosing freedom over slavery and rails against socialists (I'm not sure where this came from, did my saying "sociological" trigger a false alarm in your head?), would seem to support this.

I'm not sure why we can't just debate the merits of the technology. This topic chiefly concerns reducing air pollution in urban areas and the associated known health risks. It's also aimed some way in the future when technology is very likely to have changed.

User avatar
Izits
100 W
100 W
Posts: 152
Joined: Jan 02, 2017 2:01 am
Location: United States of America.

Re: China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars Electric Vehicle P

Post by Izits » Sep 20, 2017 10:31 am

Punx0r wrote:What I mean is you take a look at something chiefly technological but your view is just always just clouded by angry political opinions. So instead of an objective, apolitical assessment of the technological benefits of a piece of technology, you find a way to shoehorn an existing political rant into the subject at hand.
You're giving a very slanted and unfair summary that backs your personal views. Virtually no one here just gives an "apolitical assessment of the technological benefits", that's rubbish. There's no end of people saying "We should ban cars" or "blue motorcycles should be limited to whatever" or "the government should do this over here" or "I like this subsidy" or "they shouldn't have the freedom to charge that price". Virtually everyone is constantly talking about how they want their views forced on others in every single thread. Maybe you just aren't used to identifying it. I've actually never had to shoehorn anything, there's always someone saying they want to oppress others and I'm just addressing their statement.

I already identified for you that the very title of this thread already contained support for violent political action through the use of subsidies. When I call out that violence and champion peace instead, I'm not introducing anything at all, I'm just adding a voice to a topic that's already there.

The difference is you probably support forcing your views on other people (whether you've thought about it or not) so you give others a pass when they voice support for violence but you get irked when I voice opposition to violence. Your bias can be seen in your use of charged words, calling my posts "angry" and a "rant".

Punx0r wrote: That your response is full of emotive phrases like choosing freedom over slavery and rails against socialists (I'm not sure where this came from, did my saying "sociological" trigger a false alarm in your head?), would seem to support this.
This is all just personal attack with more charged words.

Punx0r wrote:This topic chiefly concerns reducing air pollution in urban areas and the associated known health risks. It's also aimed some way in the future when technology is very likely to have changed.
You must be kidding me. This topic, as posted by MitchJi, is CHOCK FULL of forcing people to do things against their will.

"A ban on combustion-engine vehicles will help push both local and global automakers to shift toward electric vehicles"
"phase out combustion-engine cars"
Use government violence to tell people what they may or may not buy or even own.
Use government violence to force automakers not to manufacture what the people want to buy.

"The government offers generous subsidies to makers of new-energy vehicles."
Use taxes collected at gunpoint to force people to pay for things they don't want to buy.

"It also plans to require automakers to earn enough credits or buy them from competitors with a surplus"
Use government force to meddle in the economy which raises prices, lowers wages and makes everyone poorer.

"The startup is working with state-owned Anhui Jianghuai Automobile Group"
I love this one. Force the taxpayers at gunpoint to pay some random company to develop a product that they then sell to the very same taxpayers.
Last edited by Izits on Sep 20, 2017 2:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The only enemy of the electric bicycle community is the government. Think about it. Who bans or restricts your use of electric bikes, other than the government? Smaller Government = More Freedom.

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 620
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: san diego

Re: China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars Electric Vehicle P

Post by billvon » Sep 20, 2017 12:32 pm

Izits wrote:
billvon wrote:
Izits wrote:I'll re-phrase my statement to be more clear. The electric cars are not considered cost effective to everyone who is being forced against their will to subsidize them.
That is even more false. I can think of a few hundred people at my company alone who are being "forced against their will to subsidize them" - and they consider them cost effective, since they own or lease them. Indeed, most people around here find EV incentives a lot more palatable than the fossil fuel incentives they are being forced to subsidize.
It's not false, you just didn't bother to read it properly. The people at your company who you claim own or lease EV vehicles, are not the ones being forced against their will.
Your own words - "The electric cars are not considered cost effective to everyone who is being forced against their will to subsidize them." I am being "forced to subsidize them"- I have to pay the same taxes to support EV's that everyone else does. And I think they are cost effective. So do the people here who own EV's. So do many people who do NOT own EV's, because they feel that more EV's will drive gas prices down (which they will) and because they feel they will make the air cleaner (which they will.)

So, contrary to what you claimed, there ARE people who are "being forced against their will to subsidize them" who think they are cost effective.

Why not make a more defensible claim, like "I think they are not cost effective?" That's completely supportable.
Furthermore, I find it bizarre that you attempt to defend the concept of subsidies when we're talking about electric vehicles and yet you turn right around and call them unpalatable when it comes to fossil fuel subsidies.
Either end all subsidies (which would be somewhat foolish) or enact subsidies that benefit society (like EV subsidies.) I am OK with both, although the latter makes more sense on a longer time scale.
--bill von

User avatar
Izits
100 W
100 W
Posts: 152
Joined: Jan 02, 2017 2:01 am
Location: United States of America.

Re: China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars Electric Vehicle P

Post by Izits » Sep 20, 2017 2:30 pm

billvon wrote:Your own words - "The electric cars are not considered cost effective to everyone who is being forced against their will to subsidize them." I am being "forced to subsidize them"- I have to pay the same taxes to support EV's that everyone else does. And I think they are cost effective. So do the people here who own EV's. So do many people who do NOT own EV's ...
//
... or enact subsidies that benefit society (like EV subsidies.) I am OK with both
I can't believe how pedantic you're being here. But you still have it wrong. Once you say you support the subsidies, you are no longer paying them "against your will". Do you want the subsidies cancelled? No.

My initial statement was functionally correct, I only revised it for you because you were doing whatever it was you were doing.
Fundamentally, subsidies are to force people to pay for things they would not otherwise choose to pay for. The people who don't buy the cars know it would be a bad choice for them to expend money on EV cars but the government is there with a gun taking the money away from them and giving it to the people who buy the EV cars. The EV cars would not sell as well without subsidies. They are not cost effective enough on their own to sell at the volume that the subsidy causes them to sell at. You know all this is true, you just don't like me shining a light on it.
The only enemy of the electric bicycle community is the government. Think about it. Who bans or restricts your use of electric bikes, other than the government? Smaller Government = More Freedom.

User avatar
Izits
100 W
100 W
Posts: 152
Joined: Jan 02, 2017 2:01 am
Location: United States of America.

Re: China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars Electric Vehicle P

Post by Izits » Sep 20, 2017 2:46 pm

billvon wrote: (a lot of stuff)
Unlike that guy and his cat, you're obviously no dummy. Would you be willing to talk with me about some fundamentals of socialism? I have an excellent understanding of the free market but I really don't get socialism, I'd love to ask you a few questions. If we're going to banter we might as well cover something useful.

Usually when I talk to a liberal I lay a little logic on them and they sort of turn green and tell me they don't want to talk to me anymore. I don't have to chase after you, you're already in my face all the time.

What say ye?
The only enemy of the electric bicycle community is the government. Think about it. Who bans or restricts your use of electric bikes, other than the government? Smaller Government = More Freedom.

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 620
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: san diego

Re: China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars Electric Vehicle P

Post by billvon » Sep 20, 2017 3:11 pm

Izits wrote:I can't believe how pedantic you're being here. But you still have it wrong. Once you say you support the subsidies, you are no longer paying them "against your will".
Of course you are. I have no choice; I pay them against my will. As do the other people here who do not have EV's but still think EV's are a good idea.
Fundamentally, subsidies are to force people to pay for things they would not otherwise choose to pay for.
Specifically, they are to _encourage_ people to purchase things they would not otherwise choose to _purchase._ (Forcing people to pay for something that isn't purchased is a plain old tax.)
The people who don't buy the cars know it would be a bad choice for them to expend money on EV cars but the government is there with a gun taking the money away from them and giving it to the people who buy the EV cars.
Yes.

And the people who don't drive know it would be a bad choice for them to expend money on roads, but the government is there with a gun taking the money away from them and giving it to the people who use roads.

And the people who don't fight in the military know it would be a bad choice for them to expend money on nuclear bomber operational costs, but the government is there with a gun taking the money away from them and giving it to the people who fly nuclear bombers.

And the people who aren't firefighters know it would be a bad choice for them to expend money on fire departments, but the government is there with a gun taking the money away from them and giving it to firefighters.

And the people who aren't doctors know it would be a bad choice for them to expend money on all sorts of medical research, but the government is there with a gun taking the money away from them and giving it to CDC to fight disease.
The EV cars would not sell as well without subsidies.
That's certainly true - subsidize ANYTHING and it sells better. We used to subsidize hybrids; now they are mature and they don't need to be subsidized any more. The subsidy worked. Now we subsidize EV's, and it's working; they are becoming mature, and in places sell without subsidies. The goal is to get them to the point where they are a reasonable option without subsidies - and we are approaching that now.
Unlike that guy and his cat, you're obviously no dummy. Would you be willing to talk with me about some fundamentals of socialism?
Uh - OK. Not a big fan of socialism, but I don't mind talking about it. Is this thread the right place for it?
--bill von

Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4249
Joined: May 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: England

Re: China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars Electric Vehicle P

Post by Punx0r » Sep 21, 2017 3:25 am

I'd say "no". I think Izit's teenage angst has taken this thread off-topic enough already.
Izits wrote:You're giving a very slanted and unfair summary that backs your personal views
I haven't expressed my personal (and certainly not my political) views in this thread. I notice you have, though. As you do in every thread you post in.

User avatar
nutnspecial
1.21 GW
1.21 GW
Posts: 3794
Joined: Mar 03, 2015 10:19 pm
Location: PA

Re: China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars Electric Vehicle P

Post by nutnspecial » Sep 21, 2017 8:57 am

Lol don't the people using 'teenage etc' in such a way realize what that signifies, and what they're actually doing? :lol:

User avatar
Dauntless
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 5927
Joined: May 29, 2010 1:49 am
Location: Coordinates: 33°52′48″N 117°55′43″W

Re: China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars Electric Vehicle P

Post by Dauntless » Sep 21, 2017 1:38 pm

"China to Ban. . . ." in the title makes the very first concept of this thread into socialism, before electric vehicles are even mentioned. Afterall, if you're happy to support the subsidies you shouldn't be arguing that you're paying them against your will or that it does make economic sense. But the most basic tenet of socialism is about forming a group that gets to force their way on everyone else. Socialism IS Totalitarianism. Which is the point Izits is trying to make. As long as it starts with China, socialism is a proper topic.

Subsidies that destroyed the economy are what brought down the Soviet Union. There's some explanation in the video. But as Nutspecial is trying to point out you're not coming up with any argument against what Izits is saying, you're just trying to dismiss him, as well as use the Rationalization Fallacy against him. The party formed by Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, etc. in the 1890's was called "National Social Democratic." Bernie Sanders kept trying ARGUE that there's some sort of difference between the greatest failure of Socialism in history, the U.S.S.R., and the 'Social Democrat' he was trained by the Soviet Union to be. Of course he also argued with people calling him a socialist and said he didn't understand why they did, even though he's spent his life as a registered socialist voter, only joining the Democratic party on the eve of the presidential primaries, as well as campaigning in every presidential campaign of his adult life and working for a socialist candidate. Just because you can come up with some ARGUMENT why you can dismiss what you see with your own eyes does not mean you get say people are supposed to believe you over their own eyes. As Barbara Boxer laughed (Cackled, really) out loud about live on the air on News Radio in Los Angeles, her great joy in government was making people do things they didn't want to do. This is why these types love socialism so much.

Izits, meanwhile, could learn the lesson of one Billy De Mota, a guy who was fighting fraud and racketeering some years back. Billy made a little mistake, so it was all coming down on him. He talked about the bad guys making all these mistakes and they just get away with it, he makes one and he's in trouble. I pointed out it him that it's sort of like Nietzsche; "Whomever fights monsters must be careful not to become one." The bad guys here will argue well beyond anything on the 'Chiefly Technological' but they'll sure find fault with Izits doing the same. Yeah, you just don't get to make the same mistakes as the bad guys do. Such is often referred to as stooping to their level. It's better to remain upright and talk down to them. Plus it pisses them off.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM MAGIC!
- Arthur C. Clarke

markz
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4737
Joined: Jan 09, 2014 11:38 pm
Location: Alberta Canada

Re: China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars Electric Vehicle P

Post by markz » Sep 26, 2017 1:24 pm

Battery Lifespan is not environmentally friendly.

Post Reply