5 ms·

This is weird-ass reasoning. The argument says "since the companies would need to build production lines, they would not innovate". That is such a naive and sim

by vaidhy 4y ago

This is weird-ass reasoning. The argument says "since the companies would need to build production lines, they would not innovate". That is such a naive and simplistic outlook that I had to look at the bias of the author. Why not consider that by having more money coming through sales, they can spend more on R&D? Or the fact that, charging stations will become a utility and will allow for competition on features leading to better cars?

brundolf 4y ago
> This is weird-ass reasoning But it's on reason.com! It's right in the name! Jokes aside, almost every time I see a politically-wacky headline on HN it comes from this website. "If you have to say it", etc.
stonogo 4y ago
Hyundai/Kia are building a production facility in Georgia specifically so that their cars will qualify for upcoming EV subsidies. We'll have the opportunity to see whether building a factory in one hemisphere somehow stifles innovations in an R&D lab in another hemisphere.
AtlasBarfed 4y ago
Yeah, because going gung-ho on the Model A or Model T production by Ford TOTALLY stifled ICE innovation. And EVs really aren't that complicated to boot. It is a 1-4 motors and a battery. Building EV factories certainly won't stifle battery innovation. Electric motors are largely a solved problem from ... hundreds of years of electric motors. Sure Tesla and some other EVs are working on a percent or two of efficiency... EVs are not ICEs, where engines with cams, cylinders, different cycles, fuel injection valves, cooling/radiators, turbos/compression, spark plugs, fuel pumps, flywheels, timing belts, alternators, exhaust, multispeed transmissions, and a ?dozen? embedded computers, and if we had done it right in the last two decades, a mini-EV hybrid system. The real scaling is in the battery manufacturing, and that has left the building a decade ago (and has several orders of magitude of scaling likely to go) and that hasn't stopped LFP/LMFP and sodium ion chemistries from being rolled out as well as a dozen NMC style chemistries innovated over the last two decades, and whatever comes out of sulfur and solid state research. Actually you know what would have REALLY helped regulatory wise? The second the EPA/etc saw the prius and insight in 1997, and should have declared "every production vehicle in ten years must be a hybrid or you pay a $2000 surcharge". That would have sparked development of EV drivetrains probably 10 years before Tesla got up to steam. "reason.com" -- ohhhh right I saw this site a long time ago when I was tracking down some pro-oil stooge's writing trying to connect the dots with their extreme laissez-faire think tank stuff. The fact this extreme right wing pro-corporate blog is trying to say with a straight face that production scaling and economies of scales don't involve innovation is ... sad.

by vaidhy 4y ago

brundolf 4y ago

> This is weird-ass reasoning But it's on reason.com! It's right in the name! Jokes aside, almost every time I see a politically-wacky headline on HN it comes from this website. "If you have to say it", etc.

stonogo 4y ago

Hyundai/Kia are building a production facility in Georgia specifically so that their cars will qualify for upcoming EV subsidies. We'll have the opportunity to see whether building a factory in one hemisphere somehow stifles innovations in an R&D lab in another hemisphere.

AtlasBarfed 4y ago

Yeah, because going gung-ho on the Model A or Model T production by Ford TOTALLY stifled ICE innovation. And EVs really aren't that complicated to boot. It is a 1-4 motors and a battery. Building EV factories certainly won't stifle battery innovation. Electric motors are largely a solved problem from ... hundreds of years of electric motors. Sure Tesla and some other EVs are working on a percent or two of efficiency... EVs are not ICEs, where engines with cams, cylinders, different cycles, fuel injection valves, cooling/radiators, turbos/compression, spark plugs, fuel pumps, flywheels, timing belts, alternators, exhaust, multispeed transmissions, and a ?dozen? embedded computers, and if we had done it right in the last two decades, a mini-EV hybrid system. The real scaling is in the battery manufacturing, and that has left the building a decade ago (and has several orders of magitude of scaling likely to go) and that hasn't stopped LFP/LMFP and sodium ion chemistries from being rolled out as well as a dozen NMC style chemistries innovated over the last two decades, and whatever comes out of sulfur and solid state research. Actually you know what would have REALLY helped regulatory wise? The second the EPA/etc saw the prius and insight in 1997, and should have declared "every production vehicle in ten years must be a hybrid or you pay a $2000 surcharge". That would have sparked development of EV drivetrains probably 10 years before Tesla got up to steam. "reason.com" -- ohhhh right I saw this site a long time ago when I was tracking down some pro-oil stooge's writing trying to connect the dots with their extreme laissez-faire think tank stuff. The fact this extreme right wing pro-corporate blog is trying to say with a straight face that production scaling and economies of scales don't involve innovation is ... sad.