The problem for the US is that it keeps on giving up its technology and advantages to China, because local corporations and government are still too short term in their thinking.
Please, explain to me why Chinese EVs are so much cheaper then US EVs?
Low worker wages? Cheaper batteries? Lower safety requirements?
Which of those "long-term" things would help turn around the US auto industry?
because Ethiopia had to import the fuel.
It wasn't expensive because Ethiopia had to import it (the cost of importation is covered by the purchaser), it was expensive because the government subsidized it:
For years, subsidizing gasoline for consumers has been a major drag on Ethiopia's budget, costing the state billions of dollars over the past decade.
So over the last two years, when all you could buy was an EV, EV market share increased by 5 percentage points, from 1% to 6% of the total market.
If we assume a static car population in Ethiopia, we would expect to see about 2.5% of the cars on the road be replaced if ICE vehicles had a 40 year useful life (they don't, but let's just say those Ethiopians can really make a car last!).
We don't see Ethiopians embracing EVs, we see them being the only choice as ICE cars age off the road - that's it.
What makes this fascinating is that despite the availability of cheap Chinese EVs and the cessation of subsidized gasoline prices, EV ownership only grew by 5 percentage points... Despite gasoline prices going up significantly, car owners in Ethiopia are sticking with gasoline-powered vehicles, I suspect for the simple reason they can't afford to replace an ICE vehicle.
Boom simply means that a product/category is seeing more popularity, no matter the reason.
Only being able to buy EVs these past couple years kinda had an outsized influence on the market.
p>The number of EVs went up by over five-fold, that is a boom. You may not *like* why it happened, but it happened.
This quote stands out to me:
The Ethiopia story is fascinating," said Colin McKerracher, head of clean transport at BloombergNEF. "What you're seeing in places that don't make a lot of vehicles of any type, they're saying: 'Well, look, if I'm going to import the cars anyway, then I'd rather import less oil. We may as well import the one that cleans up local air quality and is cheaper to buy.'"
Saying "We may as well import the (cars) that cleans up local air..." ignores the fact that it is illegal to import non-EVs, there's no choice.
The actual increase in EV cars on the road is easily attributable to consumers simply replacing older cars as they wear out EV market share went up 5% over two years, that's 2.5% a year - if a car lasts 40 years, you'd expect to turn over about 2.5% of the nations fleet each year.
Further given the context, I don't think it's like the people are going to call 'bullshit' or anything, the entire nation has fewer cars than you'll find in medium sized US cities. Looks like you might be over a hundred miles from the nearest gas station for most of the country. Looks like there's no such thing as convenient long-haul refueling for gas either.
They went from tariffs on ICE cars to banning them, from subsidized gasoline to EV, this is a crazy market.
You can not say that the people chose or embraced EVs in any meaningful way - Al, you can say is when all they could buy were EVs, people bought EVs at about the same rate they previously bought ICE vehicles.
How is this different from Outlook previewing the first few lines of an email?
Does outlook send emails off to a remote server to generate the summary or is it locally generated?
Can anyone other than the intended recipient of the email see the AI-generated summary of confidential emails?
IF, as I suspect but don't know, the local PC generated summaries are only viewable by the proper, logged in recipient of the confidential email, what's the problem?
Now, if confidential emails are flying out to off-site MS AI datacenters to have summaries generated, I see the issue, but is that really how it works?
From the linked-to article: (spoiler alert, they were bought under Biden admin, not "China-hating Trump")
From 2020-2024, the [Federal Transit Administrationâ(TM)s] priority for grants had been low or no emission vehicles, with grant requests for diesel buses often not awarded,â Clark said.
âoeThis was part of a concerted effort of the previous administration to accelerate public transitsâ(TM) migration to replace diesel buses,â Clark said.
âoeTo be competitive for a grant, GMTâ¦saw electric battery buses as the pathway to get the most new buses,â Clark said. âoeGreen Mountain Transitâ(TM)s priority is new buses, regardless of the type.â
Clark informed The Center Square that GMTâ(TM)s âoeelectric battery buses are 90% paid for by federal and Volkswagen settlement funds.â
The TDS is strong with this one.
The money that bought the buses (under the Biden admin, I suspect), required the buses to be made in the U.S. why does this have anything to do with Trump? Did Trump approve the federal money, the busses were ordered, built, delivered to VT all in 2025?
No, read the summary again.
The issue is they store the EV buses outside because they might burst into flames.
Charging batteries below 41 degrees destroys the battery.
EV owners in VT likely keep their EV in a garage, keep the batteries above 41 degrees when charging, and DON'T consider their EV a fire hazard.
So it isn't cold in Vermont?
The batteries can be charged below 41degrees?
The buses aren't considered a safety hazard?
The people that funded the study don't change the above three facts.
Norway subsidized EV purchases and taxes ICE vehicles, EVs are exempt from those taxes.
Are batteries different in Norway? This smells like typical corruption and incompetence.
The answer was in the summary - the buses in Vermont are considered a fire hazard, so they can't be charged indoors... wanna bet the Norwegian buses are kept in a facility that keeps them warm (well, warm enough) to charge indoors?
The difference is the Norwegian busses are incendiary devices...
Really?
You were considering a Framework laptop, whose fundamental feature is the ability to replace/upgrade almost every component to an Apple MacBook with absolutely NO upgradeable parts, and you were surprised the sealed-up, non-upgradeable version was cheaper?
?
Because WD is the only mfg of HDD, you can't use an SSD, and you won't buy a computer from one of the seven customers that have locked up WD's production of HDDs?
You do know there are alternatives for HDDs, right?
What does WD having sold the next three years of production have to do with getting PC buyers to adopt/embrace ECC?
At a minimum ECC makes memory 12.5% more expensive (the cost of the 9th bit), and with RAM prices going thru the roof, I doubt folks will be lining up to pay 12.5% more for the same usable RAM capacity in their desktop.
My god! $330 for 5+ year-old hard drives?
It's later than you think, the joint Russian-American space mission has already begun.
