Honestly, I wonder if Tesla will be similar. They just won the charging standard war. Watching the battery presentation a while back, they're chipping away at battery technology, and every % adds up.
The ICE car companies have "embraced" EVs, but are losing money on every car right now. Will tesla start making their cars cheaper and cheaper while the other companies eventually try to buy their way out via tesla batteries?
On the other hand, the Biden administration has done a lot to throw wrenches into Tesla's gears.
[1] https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/tesla-inc
If Tesla has received "billions", the only reason other carmakers haven't received the same amount is because their cars aren't as popular.
That's just the way China operates when it's about anything it considers strategic.
We probably won't ever know the whole extent this is happening.
Here's one study that claims BYD has received 3.4B: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-10/byd-got-3...
That's just the way the US operates when it's about anything it considers strategic.
from an economics professor who examines the evidence about what is causing the trade war between china and the west.
The main thesis is that car manufacturing (and associated manufacturing such as batteries, electronics etc) is "strategic" enough that the west doesn't want to build a dependence on china for it.
In the event of a war, china can cripple the west by cutting off the exports, and/or potentially install backdoors into the devices and shut them down to disrupt etc.
Not to mention that by allowing china to own the manufacturing, they will have built up the massive industrial capacity for which it is easy to convert to a war time factory. The west's dwindling manufacturing capacity would mean that china will out-produce and win - lessons that is learnt from WW2.
Isn't that a good thing? This makes the all-out war between China and the US much less likely.
As for the Pacific ocean, it's not an American gulf, it's literally half a planet. Nobody can control it, even the US with all their military bases on Pacific islands.
The war that russia is waging against ukraine is clear evidence used to support this point - that being dependent on russian gas/oil was a mistake and europe is paying dearly for it.
You mean like in the Middle East during the Arab spring?
>The west's citizens would not want to make sacrifices
That's how democracy works, right?
>europe is paying dearly for it
Some would say that Europe is paying for American "Fuck the EU"[0] policy.
Like, mandate any radio receiver in a car is air gaped from the cars operation (and easely removable).
These connected cars are really bad from a safety perspective.
And soon they will have brake and steer by wire to cut costs too ...
Tesla was not invited to the administration's August 2021 EV vehicle summit. <https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/business/tesla-snub-white-hou...> The government excluded the nation and the world's EV leader from participating.
If the administration could have figured out a way of excluding Tesla from the EV tax credit system, it would have.
Oh, but they actually really tried at first. Like for example by considering Tesla Model Y as a sedan, thus not qualifying for a higher tax credit ceiling.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/4/23586035/tesla-model-y-pri...
https://dialogue.earth/en/business/life-after-subsidies-for-...
I’ve done a little bit of reading around and the term subsidy is often used without further clarification. For example, is it direct payments, or business tax breaks, or tax breaks on sales of EVs, or something else?
BYD is really selling heaps of cars
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/02/chinas-b...
ETA: If believing that this is “winning” causes Tesla folks to encourage further positive-sum behavior, ignore everything I said: Tesla kicked everyone’s ass. Rah.
Another thing: Not the whole world adopted the Tesla connector, only North America (that's why it is called NACS). Europe uses CCS-2, including for Tesla cars. CCS-2 is better than CCS, and arguably better than NACS in Europe as it supports 3-phase AC.
AC chargers here (Belgium) are usually 11kW or 22kW capable (at least nominally). This is 16 or 32A. A normal household socket ciruict is 20A here, so this is not very abnormal wiring wise. Most homes are actually hooked up to three phase power, but just have a single phase meter, so an upgrade is usually affordable.
If you want to offer 11kW or 22kW single phase, you'd need 47A or 95A service, with massive cables etc. Hence why most single phase chargers are 7.4kW limited here (32A). Also: Almost no cars would even take that in on 1 phase as far as I know.
Higher amperage is what costs more in terms of losses and cables, so less amps is good.
3x230V also exists, but at least here, is being phased out.
No on the distribution network (aka up to the transformer in the street usually, but for sure not on the xxx kV lines) because there the lines are balanced.
In your house, you do, because the voltage between 2 phases is 400V, but the voltage between 1 phase and N is 230V. So you have "low" voltage for "normal" appliances, but high-voltage (and thus high-power) available for high power applications. For example: EV charging, induction cooking, home heating / AC etc.
For an EV usually the N wouldn't be needed, if you always charged at a balanced power on all phases. But from my experience, the full 3 phase power is only used when the battery is empty. At some point the charger switches back to single phase to better modulate the current I guess.
Sidenote:
On a 3x230V net, you don't have an N, but that means you also don't have a non-power conducting wire either! Meaning: double pole switches and breakers are required to prevent shocks. This is why these are generally required in Belgium btw.
See also Y vs Δ distrubution nets: https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-curren...
Thanks for the explanation!
The neutrals in either of these situations are used when you want to use some partial multiple of the power, instead of a full multiple for some or all of the load. For example, most US electric clothes dryers will use the full split phase 240V for the heating element, but 120V for the light and sometimes the motor. Same with US electric stoves. So they need a neutral to be able to do so.
If they don’t need that 120V (half the voltage), they can just use straight 240V, and no neutral.
Same with 3 phase - if connected in a delta configuration, you have three distinct loads, each connected phase to phase.
Same as in split phase, if you have two 120V phases, each connected to one half of the split.
When designing AC->DC rectifiers a key concern is ripple (aka how consistent the DC output voltage is per unit time). 120V half phase AC is particularly terrible for this, but a single phase of a 3 phase system will also be not great. You spend a lot of the cycle with no meaningful power available, and need to smooth out that very spikey output with capacitors or the like.
The ripple on three phase (if using all three phases) is going to be a lot lower, and power flow will be much more consistent, as you’ll have 3 waveform ‘peaks’ per cycle, unlike split phase which has 1, or tapping a single phase of 3 phase which has one. (Depending on your definition of peak - some would double the count as the negative voltage side of the waveform technically counts too!). That means with only minimal additional component count, you have a nearly perfect continuous flow of power.
See some graphs [https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/671693/how-a...]
At the type of power levels we’re talking about, the capacitors for smoothing out the ripple (assuming it’s needed when charging the batteries - I would assume so, but I’m no EE), will be enormous and expensive if using single phase.
I know for industrial motors, the smoother/more continuous waveforms are a huge help in making smoother and more powerful (for their size/weight) motors. Almost all industrial motors run on 3 phase AC, and it’s common for even small hobby machine shops to either get 3 phase pulled in, or use phase converters.
It's better in general because it can deliver continuous power rather than power at twice the line frequency. If you're going to convert AC->DC and want a constant current to the battery, there will need to be a rather large capacitor to smooth the 100Hz or 120Hz power coming in.
Important change is that NACS is the Tesla connector with the open CCS protocol. That means can use dumb adapters for CCS-1. And chargers can change to better connector without changing electronics.
Every other company on Earth had a chance to make a superior system and failed. Tesla said fine use this based on ours, and they rightly recognized it was superior. Win for Tesla, win for consumers.
Nobody really lost there, either, which maybe why it doesn't feel like a typical win.
If your argument is that they were afraid of a competitor, that may be valid, but doesn't make their actions any less voluntary.
Whereas in other markets, the business case for converging on CCS2 was more compelling. Europe chose to compel CCS2 as their standard, but in Australia, Tesla pivoted to CCS2 without any government pressure.
But yes, it was all done through encouragement and coordinated coercion. Nobody showed up at Tesla's HQ with guns and forced this to happen.
It's a win for Tesla insofar as they won't have to bear the burden of transitioning to a different plug standard, and their customers won't bear the burden of consumer confusion and frustration which come with transition.
> Nobody really lost there, either
One might argue that the main losers are the charging networks which invested in CCS1 infrastructure. They'll have to work even harder to remain relevant, all while gaining Tesla as a direct competitor and having to deploy NACS across the country.
The infrastructure is the same. North America has picked CCS as its charging standard. All that's changing is the plug on the end.
Here's a practical example:
It's also not true that all other manufacturers are losing money on EVs. BMW and VW notably have been profitable on theirs.
Lastly stop giving so much credence to what Tesla claims in presentation and start paying attention to what they actually sell. So far they have sold 4680 cells in two cars and both have had disappointing charging curves. Not impressive at the moment especially compared to what Chinese companies are offering.
Musk also fired the Raptor team at least once.
And the market price of launching the 6528 satellites that they launched is around 11.3 billion dollars (67 million dollars per Falcon 9 launch, 169 launches). Assuming this is more or less the density of satellites they will maintain, that amounts to 3.7 billion per year just in constellation maintenance costs (to which we should add peering costs, personnel, ground station costs, etc). It's really not an easy business to maintain, unless it really does grow massively, and in a distributed manner (since lots of people in a small area will compete for bandwidth).
By that definition it was impossible for anybody to "win", which means it was never a war in the first place.
Odd.
Tesla gets most of their battery technology from either Panasonic [1] or CATL.[2] This allows those companies to operate in the US to avoid tariffs.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2022/07/13/teslas-l...
[2] https://www.electrive.com/2024/03/25/catl-and-tesla-launch-c...
Not just money, but data also
The idea that a marketplace could turn around and sell their own products that directly compete with third party sellers is insane. Come to think of it, I assume Walmart would fall into this problem as well.
Amazon is more similar to a flea market organizer that sets up their own massive both. They can put their items in front of customers first and decide what to sell based upon what they see people carry away.
You'd think the government would be the Goliath in this battle, but it's the other way around. FTC is more of a nuicanse than an actual problem, and it's gonna remain that way for as long as FTC keeps operating on a shoestring budget.
Don't conflate AWS with the Amazon Sellers program.
"...so they're better than you?"
"Their service is so much better than us, that if you keep using them we'll go out of business and you'll have to use them, and they're a direct competitor to you." That's enough to make a business think about their strategic interest, not just about the current expense.