4 ms·

Its funny how the EU is now 'investigating subsidies' in China. China has been building this sector for like 30 years. While Europeans were so proud of their

Its funny how the EU is now 'investigating subsidies' in China. China has been building this sector for like 30 years. While Europeans were so proud of their diesel vehicles and how clean they were and the Germany companies endlessly talking about hydrogen and green fuels. While Europe has basically no resource extraction related to batteries or much of any battery refinement for most of that period. But now that this bears fruit for China the EU is like 'what what what, I though our brilliant hydrogen plan was gone work'.

tooltalk 3y ago
Its funny how the EU is now 'investigating subsidies' in China. There is nothing "new" here. The EU warned against China's "funny" NEV policies back in 2018 -- see the EU's WTO complaint WT/DS549, "China — Certain Measures on the Transfer of Technology." You could also tell that Biden's response (aka, the IRA, enacted in 2022) to clean energy was inspired by and modeled on China's "funny" NEV policies -- ensuring that no Chinese EV/battery company set their foot in the territory, or receive tax credit/subsides. The EU is at least playing by the book. China has been building this sector for like 30 years I wonder why forced tech transfer and other highly discriminatory/anti-competitive protectionist measures were necessary if China had so much time to build the sector. While Europe has basically no resource extraction related to batteries or much of any battery refinement for most of that period. The West wants clean energy, but doesn't want to get their hands dirty. As usual, they outsource all the dirty work of resource acquisition, mining, refining to the 3rd world -- let China pollute their land, air, water for clean energy!
- panick21_ 3y ago
  Subsidizing some technology or another isn't new. The US electric car subsidies and other policies date back further then 2018. And Europe has plenty of subsidies for their car industry, with the car industry being politically powerful. > if China had so much time to build the sector. Because its not just about cars, its everything from mine to the battery. And their policies weren't that anti-competitive, European and US car makers made a lot of money in China for quite a while and they didn't transfer much EV technology. > let China pollute their land, air, water for clean energy! Or lets actually take responsibility for the policy we have and act accordingly.
  - tooltalk 3y ago
    Subsidizing some technology or another isn't new. No, you just don't seem to understand how subsidies work. There are legal subsidies -- take for instance, food or defense industries, or anything that's produced and consumed domestically is up to individual country to decide. Then, there are illegal subsidies: "export subsidies" or "import substitution." China, as a member of WTO, is prohibited from giving any subsidy contingent on export performance, or on the use of domestic over imported goods. So for instance, China's subsidies were only given to EVs with domestic batteries made by domestic companies over foreign companies -- even if they were made in China, since 2015. China forced out foreign competitors, eg LG Chem which had close to 50% of the Chinese EV battery market share prior to this now down to less 1%, despite being the world's largest EV battery maker outside China, and ensured that only their domestic champions received EV subsidies in a market where subsidies accounted for as much as 40% of new EV cost. This is all ok, so long as China never intends to sell their EVs over the water -- after all, it's their money. China's EV initiative however was geared towards exports and dominating the field. EV subsidies elsewhere are obviously legal b/c, unlike, China's, they don't violate those rules. Because its not just about cars, its everything from mine to the battery. And their policies weren't that anti-competitive, European and US car makers made a lot of money in China for quite a while and they didn't transfer much EV technology. China's EV initiative didn't really start until 2009 when they first announced their EV subsidies. CATL for instance wasn't even founded until 2011; BYD was really nobody back then. The modern lithium ion batteries really became popular after SONY's first commercialization in the early 1990's -- the Japanese and Korean really kept the industry going since. And the leaders in the battery industry for instance were LG, Panasonic, Samsung, BASF, all of whom were asked to give up their IPR in exchange to access China's NEV market. This is detailed in the EU's WTO dispute against China's forced tech transfer - WT/DS549. While China has long dominated the metal refining/processing industry largely due to developed countries' aversion to pollution, China's EV resource acquistion/spree likewise didn't really start until 2010's.
AbrahamParangi 3y ago
All’s fair in economic war, it’s not like the Chinese market is remotely open to foreign competition.
- holoduke 3y ago
  No market is open. Every country more or less handles the same principle. If there is a local threat things will get stricter for the foreigner.
  - fomine3 3y ago
    China has been far close than others. WTO approve was mistake.
  - a_random_canuck 3y ago
    Yeah, in principle no market is open, but in the other hand the “openness” of the European vs Chinese markets is not even comparable. China’s market is notoriously difficult for foreign companies to enter and to operate in. For starters, Europe doesn’t have the Communist Party dictatorship that can arbitrarily fuck your business over on a whim with no possibility for recourse because the Party is judge, jury and executioner. China is a scary place to do business if you’re not a huge multinational with leverage. Do you owe debts for a business deal/partnership gone wrong? Congrats your creditors can have you banned from leaving the country until they are paid. Oops you weren’t even notified there would be a court hearing against you, so you’re not aware of the debt until you tried to board a flight. I hope you didn’t think you had any chance to appeal that bad decision because the courts will side with the local Chinese over the foreigner. Oh and let’s not forget the Canadian Michaels’ ordeal. 欢迎来中国.
mattgrice 3y ago
I don't believe anyone with a brain ever thought hydrogen was going to be practical for cars. Governments (thankfully not the US much) pushed hydrogen as a stalling tactic knowing it would never be viable or reduce demand for fossil fuels.
- _hypx 3y ago
  You are just being brainwashed by BEV propaganda. Not only do people with a brain still believe in hydrogen for cars, that includes the majority of automotive engineers. BEVs are the weird, government mandated BS cars that few people want. If the car industry was given a democratic choice, it will pivot to hydrogen as the future.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    > that includes the majority of automotive engineers That is hilariously untrue. Even compared to your usual nonsense. > If the car industry was given a democratic choice, it will pivot to hydrogen as the future. In Germany the govenrment wanted to enact more pro-hydrogen polices and the car makers literally told them not to it was a waste of time. And of course we had many periods, in the US, Europe and Japan where hydrogen was favored and pushed by the govenrment and a grand total of nothing came from it. The German government has spent 100s of millions on hydrogen cars alone, let alone other hydrogen projects. I don't even want to know how much Japan spent. Reality is many of the subsidies world wide are not for BEV specifically but apply to lots of zero emission vehicles. You simply can't deal with the reality that hydrogen vehicles are pointless nonsense that no sane person would ever try push and BEV have trounced them in every way imaginable. So lets see what all the hydrogen subsidies and clean vehicle subsidies have amount to: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E81i9OgWEAAcmSp?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E81i9OgWEAAcmSp?format=jpg&name=... But that was from 2020, so you say that Hydrogen cars must have pickup up since then: https://www.ev-volumes.com/ https://www.ev-volumes.com/ > Sales of Fuel Cell Vehicles (FCEV) in the light vehicle sector have declined by -25 % so far and stay below 20 000 units annually. Current sales are from 5 vehicle models and most sales are in South Korea and USA. We estimate their current population to ca 60 000 units. and > BEVs reaching 10 million units But I'm sure the 10 million vs 20k is totally just government subsidies. It really takes next level delusion to think hydorgen cars are the future. Even pretty much all the former pro hydrogen car makers have given up. Its positively laughable that you keep believing in this.
protastus 3y ago
Traditional automakers largely got trapped in the innovator's dilemma. China had no attachment to ICE technology and skipped straight to BEV. Dieselgate was a blessing to VW because it forced them to discuss BEVs to save face. Europe leads the world in legislation and regulation, both good and bad. Their labor laws are the strongest in the world. Manufacturing in Europe can't compete on price, and the price disparity will be significant, so they will regulate and tax imports.
- chii 3y ago
  Related is that china's manufacturing is more focused on low cost labour, rather than high skill, intricate (and thus higher cost) work. Surprisingly, an ICE car is more intricate, and has more labour intensive parts that require a high skill labour force. Things like engine block manufacturing (and design), spark plugs, etc. Battery EV are actually low labour - after all, motors are not "intricate", as they don't need to contain explosions! I think that china has, prior to BEV, tried to reach the same level of car manufacturing as europe (ala germany), but has found that no matter what economic policies they put in place, the labour and value chain in china just cannot catch up to the well established ones in europe. It actually makes sense that china abandon the ICE manufacturing sector, because the BEV sector at the time had no competition, and capitalism (and the innovator's dilemma) has prevented ICE car manufacturers from entering until they see the real demand - but by then, china has fully controlled the supply chain of critical components such as the batteries, minerals and capacity. I do not believe that europe (or the US) can really catchup without a major shift in technology of the battery.
- _hypx 3y ago
  China is imposing a government mandate on its car industry. It is a top-down solution that is reminiscence of the Soviet Union. If you actually looked closely, you'll that there is a mountain of question businesses tried to extract subsidies from the government. In reality, China's BEV strategy is going to be disrupted and will be wiped out. It is pursuing a dead end technology that few people want. It will only take a zero emissions technology that costs a lot less to finish off their BEV strategy.
  - 3y ago

tooltalk 3y ago

Its funny how the EU is now 'investigating subsidies' in China. There is nothing "new" here. The EU warned against China's "funny" NEV policies back in 2018 -- see the EU's WTO complaint WT/DS549, "China — Certain Measures on the Transfer of Technology." You could also tell that Biden's response (aka, the IRA, enacted in 2022) to clean energy was inspired by and modeled on China's "funny" NEV policies -- ensuring that no Chinese EV/battery company set their foot in the territory, or receive tax credit/subsides. The EU is at least playing by the book. China has been building this sector for like 30 years I wonder why forced tech transfer and other highly discriminatory/anti-competitive protectionist measures were necessary if China had so much time to build the sector. While Europe has basically no resource extraction related to batteries or much of any battery refinement for most of that period. The West wants clean energy, but doesn't want to get their hands dirty. As usual, they outsource all the dirty work of resource acquisition, mining, refining to the 3rd world -- let China pollute their land, air, water for clean energy!

panick21_ 3y ago
Subsidizing some technology or another isn't new. The US electric car subsidies and other policies date back further then 2018. And Europe has plenty of subsidies for their car industry, with the car industry being politically powerful. > if China had so much time to build the sector. Because its not just about cars, its everything from mine to the battery. And their policies weren't that anti-competitive, European and US car makers made a lot of money in China for quite a while and they didn't transfer much EV technology. > let China pollute their land, air, water for clean energy! Or lets actually take responsibility for the policy we have and act accordingly.
- tooltalk 3y ago
  Subsidizing some technology or another isn't new. No, you just don't seem to understand how subsidies work. There are legal subsidies -- take for instance, food or defense industries, or anything that's produced and consumed domestically is up to individual country to decide. Then, there are illegal subsidies: "export subsidies" or "import substitution." China, as a member of WTO, is prohibited from giving any subsidy contingent on export performance, or on the use of domestic over imported goods. So for instance, China's subsidies were only given to EVs with domestic batteries made by domestic companies over foreign companies -- even if they were made in China, since 2015. China forced out foreign competitors, eg LG Chem which had close to 50% of the Chinese EV battery market share prior to this now down to less 1%, despite being the world's largest EV battery maker outside China, and ensured that only their domestic champions received EV subsidies in a market where subsidies accounted for as much as 40% of new EV cost. This is all ok, so long as China never intends to sell their EVs over the water -- after all, it's their money. China's EV initiative however was geared towards exports and dominating the field. EV subsidies elsewhere are obviously legal b/c, unlike, China's, they don't violate those rules. Because its not just about cars, its everything from mine to the battery. And their policies weren't that anti-competitive, European and US car makers made a lot of money in China for quite a while and they didn't transfer much EV technology. China's EV initiative didn't really start until 2009 when they first announced their EV subsidies. CATL for instance wasn't even founded until 2011; BYD was really nobody back then. The modern lithium ion batteries really became popular after SONY's first commercialization in the early 1990's -- the Japanese and Korean really kept the industry going since. And the leaders in the battery industry for instance were LG, Panasonic, Samsung, BASF, all of whom were asked to give up their IPR in exchange to access China's NEV market. This is detailed in the EU's WTO dispute against China's forced tech transfer - WT/DS549. While China has long dominated the metal refining/processing industry largely due to developed countries' aversion to pollution, China's EV resource acquistion/spree likewise didn't really start until 2010's.

AbrahamParangi 3y ago

All’s fair in economic war, it’s not like the Chinese market is remotely open to foreign competition.

holoduke 3y ago
No market is open. Every country more or less handles the same principle. If there is a local threat things will get stricter for the foreigner.
- fomine3 3y ago
  China has been far close than others. WTO approve was mistake.
- a_random_canuck 3y ago
  Yeah, in principle no market is open, but in the other hand the “openness” of the European vs Chinese markets is not even comparable. China’s market is notoriously difficult for foreign companies to enter and to operate in. For starters, Europe doesn’t have the Communist Party dictatorship that can arbitrarily fuck your business over on a whim with no possibility for recourse because the Party is judge, jury and executioner. China is a scary place to do business if you’re not a huge multinational with leverage. Do you owe debts for a business deal/partnership gone wrong? Congrats your creditors can have you banned from leaving the country until they are paid. Oops you weren’t even notified there would be a court hearing against you, so you’re not aware of the debt until you tried to board a flight. I hope you didn’t think you had any chance to appeal that bad decision because the courts will side with the local Chinese over the foreigner. Oh and let’s not forget the Canadian Michaels’ ordeal. 欢迎来中国.

mattgrice 3y ago

I don't believe anyone with a brain ever thought hydrogen was going to be practical for cars. Governments (thankfully not the US much) pushed hydrogen as a stalling tactic knowing it would never be viable or reduce demand for fossil fuels.

_hypx 3y ago
You are just being brainwashed by BEV propaganda. Not only do people with a brain still believe in hydrogen for cars, that includes the majority of automotive engineers. BEVs are the weird, government mandated BS cars that few people want. If the car industry was given a democratic choice, it will pivot to hydrogen as the future.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  > that includes the majority of automotive engineers That is hilariously untrue. Even compared to your usual nonsense. > If the car industry was given a democratic choice, it will pivot to hydrogen as the future. In Germany the govenrment wanted to enact more pro-hydrogen polices and the car makers literally told them not to it was a waste of time. And of course we had many periods, in the US, Europe and Japan where hydrogen was favored and pushed by the govenrment and a grand total of nothing came from it. The German government has spent 100s of millions on hydrogen cars alone, let alone other hydrogen projects. I don't even want to know how much Japan spent. Reality is many of the subsidies world wide are not for BEV specifically but apply to lots of zero emission vehicles. You simply can't deal with the reality that hydrogen vehicles are pointless nonsense that no sane person would ever try push and BEV have trounced them in every way imaginable. So lets see what all the hydrogen subsidies and clean vehicle subsidies have amount to: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E81i9OgWEAAcmSp?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E81i9OgWEAAcmSp?format=jpg&name=... But that was from 2020, so you say that Hydrogen cars must have pickup up since then: https://www.ev-volumes.com/ https://www.ev-volumes.com/ > Sales of Fuel Cell Vehicles (FCEV) in the light vehicle sector have declined by -25 % so far and stay below 20 000 units annually. Current sales are from 5 vehicle models and most sales are in South Korea and USA. We estimate their current population to ca 60 000 units. and > BEVs reaching 10 million units But I'm sure the 10 million vs 20k is totally just government subsidies. It really takes next level delusion to think hydorgen cars are the future. Even pretty much all the former pro hydrogen car makers have given up. Its positively laughable that you keep believing in this.

protastus 3y ago

Traditional automakers largely got trapped in the innovator's dilemma. China had no attachment to ICE technology and skipped straight to BEV. Dieselgate was a blessing to VW because it forced them to discuss BEVs to save face. Europe leads the world in legislation and regulation, both good and bad. Their labor laws are the strongest in the world. Manufacturing in Europe can't compete on price, and the price disparity will be significant, so they will regulate and tax imports.

chii 3y ago
Related is that china's manufacturing is more focused on low cost labour, rather than high skill, intricate (and thus higher cost) work. Surprisingly, an ICE car is more intricate, and has more labour intensive parts that require a high skill labour force. Things like engine block manufacturing (and design), spark plugs, etc. Battery EV are actually low labour - after all, motors are not "intricate", as they don't need to contain explosions! I think that china has, prior to BEV, tried to reach the same level of car manufacturing as europe (ala germany), but has found that no matter what economic policies they put in place, the labour and value chain in china just cannot catch up to the well established ones in europe. It actually makes sense that china abandon the ICE manufacturing sector, because the BEV sector at the time had no competition, and capitalism (and the innovator's dilemma) has prevented ICE car manufacturers from entering until they see the real demand - but by then, china has fully controlled the supply chain of critical components such as the batteries, minerals and capacity. I do not believe that europe (or the US) can really catchup without a major shift in technology of the battery.
_hypx 3y ago
China is imposing a government mandate on its car industry. It is a top-down solution that is reminiscence of the Soviet Union. If you actually looked closely, you'll that there is a mountain of question businesses tried to extract subsidies from the government. In reality, China's BEV strategy is going to be disrupted and will be wiped out. It is pursuing a dead end technology that few people want. It will only take a zero emissions technology that costs a lot less to finish off their BEV strategy.
- 3y ago