who would have thought people would flock to less costly alternatives (I'm brazilian and have tons of friends that have bought BYD models recently)
cheap, fast, good, its a rare moment to pick all three and the market is
most reservations about EVs are based on range anxiety, charging time and cost. only people with a certain level of advantage will pay to experience inconvenience, and that issue disintegrates at a certain threshold for a much broader population
listen to them, solve their frictions related to considering EVs, and more people choose EV
Charging stations typically also have on-site battery storage to have peak charging power that exceeds grid supply (and also because energy arbitrage is profitable).
The letter of the law often says things like that.
These chargers are already deployed and used in China and Norway. There are also tens of thousands of 400kW chargers all over the world, even in the USA. People use them every day. It's not a hypothetical.
For the user the connector is foolproof and even a child can plug it in (the cable isn't energised until the plug is locked, all pins are connected and temperatures are nominal). It's safer than plugging in US 110V household plug.
The above has nothing to do about safety or how practical it is. It is about people who can apply the law to their twisted ends.
There are international standards for 1000 V and 800 V charging, but I have no idea whether they are allowed in NA.
As another poster has already said, like in USB chargers, the charging voltage is negotiated with the car and the old cars are charged slowly, at a low enough voltage for them.
For now, most of these fast chargers have been installed in China, but there are plans to install them also in Europe.
I'm kind of torn myself. Although I'd like more range, 300 does get me where I'm going, and performance vehicles want less weight, not more.
What kind of vehicles are people replacing with BYDs? I always assumed Brazilians drove mostly "legacy" VW or Nissans, but I looked at VW's Brazilian website and you all seem to have most of the same vehicles that are available in Europe and North America, including the ID.4!
I think most of the established brands have stopped doing a lot of that, but it used to be very common. VW would build some models in Germany for several years, mostly for sale to higher priced markets; when it came time for a new model, the old production tooling would go to South Africa, Mexico, or Brazil where it would continue to be built (and refined) for many more years. It's great for parts availability too, and sometimes there's nice improvements available with parts that were designed after the model left my market.
But now it's more common to have completely different models for lower priced markets, or build a global model with different options in different markets. Soemthing, something, model consolidation is expected to reduce costs? But BYD (and others) are making big inroads into low cost markets by building models that are more affordable and using that volume to maybe move into higher priced markets over time.
I'd say around 60% of the Ubers I get are BYDs and I'm glad when it's one because that means it's a newer car and it's very comfortable.
Very well. Not only BYD but also other brands like GWM and Geely.
> What kind of vehicles are people replacing with BYDs?
Combustion cars with the same price, they are not replacing other electrical vehicles because the Chinese brands are way cheaper yet they are good cars.
> I always assumed Brazilians drove mostly "legacy" VW or Nissans
Nowadays we have many models from different brands.
In the past the fleet was basically VW, Ford, Chevrolet and Fiat. In the late 90s and early 2000s the Japanesne (Honda, Toyota and Nissan) and French (Renault, Citroën, Peugeot) became popular, and then Hyundai also became a success here. Recently, the Chinese brands are becoming more popular, especially Chery and the ones that I mentioned before.
> including the ID.4
But I never saw it here, even though VW is a very popular brand here.
Moreover, I always wonder how Americans accuse China of subsidizing its industries, while I never hear about any serious investment done by any big US company that is not conditioned by huge tax reductions.
All the kinds of fiscal facilities that the big US companies receive from the state or federal governments would be strictly forbidden in most places of Europe, as being a form of state help that distorts competition.
Where are you getting that idea?
I am too lazy to search now for quotations, but already the POTUS has referred to this subject so frequently that it should not be difficult to find such examples yourself.
Attempting nonetheless a very short search, one of the first entries is a New York Times article that says:
"The Trump administration has dismantled nearly 100 policies focused on clean air, water, wildlife and toxic chemicals"
The following is not a joke, but it is an official statement published on the White House site:
"The Administration approved 76 coal-related permits to reinvigorate America’s beautiful, clean coal industry."
Also from the White House official site:
"“In this Administration, NEPA’s regulatory reign of terror has ended,” said White House Council on Environmental Quality Chairman Katherine Scarlett. "
Also consider: if California got rid of prop 65 warnings would that be bad? How would that fare on your scorecard?
Nonetheless, it is very likely that in many places they are not enforced, except perhaps when they might be used to punish someone who fell in disgrace for other reasons.
Meanwhile PRC annual renewable production wipes about 100m barrel of oil energy equivalent per day over their life time, i.e. comparable to global oil consumption - they are functionally preventing oil use from doubling. To reiterate: every year, PRC is averting equivalent of 100m barrels of future oil consumption. For mental picture that's carbon sink size of 500,000 sqkm of rainforest, i.e. equal to planting 7% of Amazon per year. Literally the greatest emission aversion machine in human history - PRC functionally preventing so much emissions its net carbon foot print is negative if you use sensible attributions.
> Why not just go all in on that and zero out any country that doesnt extract carbon sources!
We should in fact, totally do that, aka on going GHG Protocol Scope3 Cat11 battleground, among others. Precisely to address statistically context illiterate claims like muh Murican emissions went down and muh trade corrected co2 went down because legacy (itself politicized) accounting standards specifically masks / offloads emissions extracted from US onto their customers. Shifting emissions to extractor responsibility is heavily politicized / lobbied against by US fossil industry to make US #s look better. But that's all it is, fabricated numbers for lame aktually arguments that somehow export oil cleaner than domestic coal... Maybe on a spreadsheet, using biased formulas, for useful idiots to quote. But in reality US extracted stupendous amount of new emissions from the ground vs paper peak.
Like US become the worlds largest fossil exporter, high consumption population grew by 50m, went from dirty coal to even worse leaky NG (more lobby shenanigans) and somehow have the audacity to claim US contribution to emissions is somehow down without realizing the double think involved to reach such conclusion. The US emits more than ever, it's just good at lobbying so spreadsheets say it isn't.
1) China's government does not care, in the slightest, about the environment. Their big worry is energy independence, well lack of energy independence, which due to climate change has some overlap, but enough pictures have leaked about Chinese mines to establish that basic measures to protect the environment are not being taken.
This is also the only reason China has an advantage in rare earths, for example. Luckily now we have South America "promising to respect", and US and EU promising to believe, that they are now friendly to the environment. Of course, the first leaks have already come in, and what do you know? They lied (specifically Brazil under Bolsonaro lied, we'll see if things change now), and the EU is refusing to investigate as per traditional EU commission practice (which is very strict laws, very selective enforcement, especially when it comes to enforcement against governments or government companies)
2) While western countries lie, there's none that lie like China lies. In the sense that any number coming out of PRC is government-approved at the very least. Government-made-up more likely. They lie and lie and lie and lie. E.g. the 2007 housing crash is still happening in China, badly enough to get people constantly complaining about it because it's still stealing their savings. But on the official figures? Everything's fine! There was the incident just last year with Indian workers taking pictures of Beijing's (best city) homeless. An endless street with homeless encampments on both sides, as far as the camera could see (at least 300m). Homelessness, just like gays, don't exist in China. I don't understand why people laugh out loud when an Iranian politician says there are no gays in Iran, but nobody cares if ... And of course it's a lie. According to CCP there is no porn in China. Okay, now go to Youtube red and search ...
This combines to: the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of China's economic activity being horrible beyond belief for the environment, and you're just believing propaganda.
Overwhelmingly.
Google shows said person already left Beijing embassy in 2007, and according to state dept [0] the sensor is a team effort led by Erica Keen Thomas.
> PRC Ministry of Environment had accurate sensors before US embassy stunt, they just used 24 hour average instead of live data.
Could you provide a source for China had been publishing pm2.5/pm10/o3/voc/etc data before 2008? Prior to 2016 the obsolete national air quality standard, GB 3095—1996, does not even include pm2.5, how can they report a nonexistent metric?
At the time the gov only publishes verdicts like good/mid/bad with no raw data. It is the US embassy effort that educated the population about objective standards mentioned above and it often contradicted the official verdict. The gov repeatedly asked the embassy to stop, and forced Chinese weather apps to remove the builtin embassy reading for ppl find it more trustworthy.
> They also built out national sensor network early 2010s
Yep thanks to the new standard GB 3095—2012 in effect only from 2016. 24hr avg probably would be the least nefarious trick the gov employed to fudge the numbers. They actually did,
- build sensors in scenic areas instead of city proper, the equivalent of instead of Manhattan, NYC reads its AQI from some national park only technically within border.
- put sensors in a box so gov can install filter on bad days, or they are conveniently broken or put offline when needed.
- spray water around the sensor, hence even nowadays you can see water sprinkler trucks roaming Chinese cities, despite its utter uselessness in reducing pm2.5 on city scale.
- force B2C sites like Taobao to delist any air quality sensors.
- since objective readings are hard to fudge, the gov chooses to play with the subjective index instead, so the standard of the aggregate index, Air Quality Index, is laxly defined and even more laxly enforced. They forced weather apps to adopt it so at first glance everything looks good just like the old days. Here is yet another hilarious fact, a popular mod [1] that ppl install along with VPN on their iPhones is to mitm the weather app so that the AQI reading follows US standard instead of Chinese, also like the good ol' days.
[0]: https://diplomacy.state.gov/online-exhibits/diplomacy-is-our...
I didn't say official presented PM2.5 prior. I said they had accurate sensors... which they've had for 1996 standard. There's no qualitive difference between old standard telling people living under yellow skies the air quality is bad via good/mid/bad (and it was basically mostly bad) vs US presenting it via AQI#. Hence the stunt, a successful stunt, nvm patchy sensors over a few rooftops is manifestly not accurate way to extrapolate broader AQI. Regardless point is not how successful stunt was, but 2007 and before, PRC had accurate air sensors, PM2.5 is not measure of accuracy just different measure.
> FLG conspiracy rant diversion ... fudge... subjective index... aggregate index
I've seen all these exaggerated bullet points from FLG rag before, yeah a few local govs stuck cotton in filters (and got punished), b2b recall of defective sensors when there's already 10s of millions of residential air purifies with AQI meters around. There's 100-1000s of sensors in broad urban/regional coverage for a reason. Instead US embassy/consulate readings that only provided patchy coverage, central gov gets to process 100s of data points (which btw mitigates local gov tomfoolery)... aka a statistically better method. Of course some iphone owning PRC baizuo shitlibs who always thinks US standards better with eat muh embassy AQI slop, but that has no baring on claim that US embassy AQI being more accurate because it technically couldn't due to lack of coverage. Even if PRC fudged their numbers - US embassy setup itself inherently cannot provide more accuracy outside a few kms, ever, hence stunt. Also c'mon "popular" weatherkit modding is so hilariously niche on PRC scale it statistically doesn't exist.
Which is reflection of your susceptibility to LIO propaganda.
1.
I did not claim PRC cares about environment. Well except they do, like when they shut down / relocate factories because people complaining. But that's response to populous sentiment.
What I assert, correctly (elsewhere in this chain), is that the downstream outcome of both energy / industrial policy on emissions. That US becoming fossil exporter has, in reality increased it's net emissions. That PRC becoming renewable juggernaut has in reality generated massive carbon sink and averted massive future emissions.
2.
What gov approved numbers did I use. Like number of renewable installation is trivially checked, cross border renewable trade as well. This all outdoor infra one can monitor on geospatial. The issue isn't countries propagandaize, it's LIOtards are so brainwashed and innumerate that they think somehow they less retarded useful idiots because they have access to muh free press even though their worldview shaped by captured fabricated press - just utter NPC tier smooth brain media literacy, at least those who grew up under PRC media tend to know know how to be universally skeptical.
Like your entire point 2) is symptomatic of this retardation. Official econ news talk about housing drag from 3RL all the time. There's barely any, not no homeless in most PRC cities, and basically no chronic, i.e. homeless gets shoved somewhere. Gays are everywhere, just not promoted (no approval, no disapproval, no promotion). Porn is banned but trivially accessible via vpn, or back in the good old days go through hutongs to find bootleg. Like basically all your points can simply be summarized by you acknowledging "I don't understand", which in some self awareness you have have acknowledged twice.
3.
lol no, PRC official propaganda trash, like their old uncles aren't brazen enough to outright claim downstream effect of PRC renewable push overwhelmingly makes PRC responsible for creating the largest manufactured carbon sink in anthropocentric history. That's what makes it most hilarious, PRC optimizing selfishly for domestic energy security made it global renewable savior as happenstance. They're doing more for the environment than the west granola eaters, and they don't, actually fucking care, it's just on net balance they are now the greatest emission aversion force on earth. PRC is the ideal emission aversion engine, you may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like.