New Energy Vehicles (NEVs) in China

S

supersnoop

Major
Registered Member
tphuang said:
The problem for them is that battery chemistry depends on the entire supply chain. You can buy battery cells and try to replicate it but where do you get anode, electrolyte and such?
Click to expand...
Well, for Sodium Ion batteries, at least they have domestic reserves for the electrolyte (even if they don't yet have the manufacturing capacity). This is the thinking anyway.

Lethe said:
Lots of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that Leopard 5 will eventually make its way to Australia as Denza B5, though I think it is a mistake to dilute brand recognition by putting anything other than a BYD badge on it, particularly given that Shark is going under the BYD umbrella.
Click to expand...
Disagree, western markets love prestige badging. Learning from Hyundai's mistake, they thought they could push luxury cars using the Hyundai nameplate (OG Hyundai Genesis, Hyundai Equus). It didn't work and they had to go back to the drawing board and are building out new showrooms almost a decade late.

Wrought said:
Not really a fair comparison; Noah Smith has a reasonably good understanding of American socioeconomics, and articulates it reasonably well. His flaw (a very common flaw among US academia) is that he tries to apply the same models way outside their proper context, in this case Chinese socioeconomics.

A lot of his stuff makes sense in theory, which is great when theory is close to reality and terrible when it's not.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately he spends a lot of his time writing about China. I already wrote how most of his ideas on EV and “China cycle” are complete garbage down to nickel extraction, battery chemistry, and ICE vs. EV architectural differences.

The way he complains is also too sour grapes. If a Chinese technology licenses a nascent technology from a western company and gets it working, he complains like it’s somehow wrong for a Chinese company to profit off this, just stupid. Getting technology to scale is an innovation in itself. This is not "China cycle", it is just called "doing business".

Look at how he is complaining about GM, despite GM making a lot of profits over the years. It is a joke. His criticism does not stand up to even the slightest of scrutiny. It's not like SAIC (GM's primary partner) has taken all of GM's business, they are not doing all that great themselves. Neither is SAIC's other big partner, VW. So what is his argument really? That Chinese people or companies have had the gall to "learn"? Because they learned some practices and technology from Western partners, everything that is ever produced by China should rightfully belong to the West? Toyota also first learned from GM and Ford, shouldn't he write about "Japan Cycle"? Like I said, face-kickingly stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top