Retreating From EVs Could Be Hazardous For Western Carmakers - Slashdot

Retreating From EVs Could Be Hazardous For Western Carmakers - Slashdot
Close
binspam
dupe
notthebest
offtopic
slownewsday
stale
stupid
fresh
funny
insightful
interesting
maybe
offtopic
flamebait
troll
redundant
overrated
insightful
interesting
informative
funny
underrated
descriptive
typo
dupe
error
180459597
story
Western carmakers retreating from electric vehicles amid softening government mandates
could find themselves in a precarious position
as Chinese rivals continue gaining ground in the EV market they're choosing to de-prioritize. The EU on December 16th dropped its earlier plan to ban petrol car sales outright from 2035, instead requiring carmakers to cut emissions from new vehicles by 90% from 2021 levels. The day before, Ford announced a $19.5 billion asset writedown as it rethinks its EV strategy and ends sales of the all-electric F-150 pickup.
In the U.S., the Trump administration has rolled back incentives and other measures that supported EVs. But Chinese brands controlled 10.7% of the all-electric car market in western Europe in the first ten months of 2025, up a percentage point from a year earlier, despite EU tariffs on Chinese EVs imposed in October 2024. Sales of Chinese hybrids, which aren't subject to those tariffs, have surged. EVs will eventually become the cheaper option as production expands and costs fall, meaning Western carmakers that slow down now risk giving competitors an unassailable lead.
You may like to read:
AI's Hunger For Memory Chips Could Shrink Smartphone and PC Sales in 2026, IDC Says
Does a Gas-Guzzler Revival Risk Dead-End Futures for US Automakers?
Americans' Junk-Filled Garages Are Hurting EV Adoption, Study Says
Americans are Buying Twice as Many Hybrids as Fully Electric Vehicles. Is The Next Step Synthetic Fuels?
EV Sales Keep Growing In the US, Represent 20% of Global Car Sales and Half in China
China Is Mass-Producing Hypersonic Missiles For $99,000
The Economic Divide Between Big and Small Companies Is Growing
This discussion has been archived.

No new comments can be posted.
Retreating From EVs Could Be Hazardous For Western Carmakers
More
Retreating From EVs Could Be Hazardous For Western Carmakers
Comments Filter:
All
Insightful
Informative
Interesting
Funny
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Subsidies
Score:
, Informative)
by
ArchieBunker
( 132337 )
writes:
on Friday December 26, 2025 @11:17AM (
#65882751
Are we going to complain about China and their EV market subsidies?
[goodjobsfirst.org]
Share
Re:Subsidies
Score:
, Informative)
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
on Friday December 26, 2025 @11:21AM (
#65882757
The US subsides all kinds of things, esp. corn an beef which by itself probably contributes to negative environmental and health consequences that surpass even wide-spread use of ICE vehicles.
Parent
Share
Re:Subsidies
Score:
, Informative)
by
PleaseThink
( 8207110 )
writes:
on Saturday December 27, 2025 @04:26AM (
#65884093
Wow. Just wow. You believe a fully constructed vehicle made out of parts that need to be mined and melted into metal and which burns fuel that is being introduced into the active environment after being kept out of it for millions of years (also mined from all over the planet and shipped everywhere) contributes less than raising and killing animals that are mainly using resources already active in the current environment and which get recycled over and over again?
Transportation is 28% of USA's climate impact (excludes vehicle production). Food production is 25% (includes related transportation). Nearly all the gas each vehicle burns is new damage being introduced into the environment. A lot of our food production recycles what's already active in the ecosystem. Further, you can reduce the transportation impact far more than you can reduce the food impact. Everyone needs to eat. No one needs to fly to the latest board member meeting at a vacation resort.
Parent
Share
Re: Subsidies
Score:
by
kenh
( 9056 )
writes:
Every car Tesla sells is an EV, they are not retreating from EVs.
Re:Subsidies
Score:
, Informative)
by
Fuzi719
( 1107665 )
writes:
on Friday December 26, 2025 @11:33AM (
#65882769
Are we going to complain about US subsidies of the oil industry?

In 2025, U.S. federal subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, which primarily benefit oil and gas, are estimated to be at least $34.8 billion annually in direct support. This figure rose significantly in 2025 following the passage of new legislation, such as the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which added approximately $4 billion per year in new handouts.
Estimates of the total value of these subsidies vary widely depending on whether only direct financial support is counted or if "implicit" costs are included.
Direct vs. Implicit Subsidies
Direct Subsidies (~$35 Billion): These consist of immediate tax breaks, direct spending, and cheap access to drilling on public lands.
Implicit Subsidies (~$750+ Billion): These represent societal costs not paid by the industry, such as health impacts from air pollution, climate change damages (externalities), and military expenditures to protect global supply lines (estimated at $81 billion alone). The IMF estimated total U.S. fossil fuel subsidies at $757 billion in 2022 when including these costs.
Key Oil Industry Tax Breaks
Most direct federal support occurs through the tax code:
Intangible Drilling Costs (IDCs): Allows companies to deduct most of the costs of drilling new wells in the year they are incurred rather than over time. This is expected to save the industry $1.7 billion in 2025.
Percentage Depletion Allowance: A centuries-old tax break that allows independent producers to deduct 15% of their gross income from taxable income to account for declining reserves.
Carbon Capture Credits (45Q): Expanded in 2025, this provides significant credits for capturing CO. Critically, new rules allow the same credit for carbon used in "enhanced oil recovery" (using CO to pump more oil) as for permanent underground storage.
2025 Legislative Changes
The 2025 "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" introduced several industry-specific benefits:
Reduced Royalties: Lowered the fees companies pay for extracting oil and gas from federal lands to levels on par with the 1920s.
Minimum Tax Exemptions: Allows oil and gas companies to deduct drilling costs from the 15% corporate alternative minimum tax, effectively wiping out the tax for many large firms.
Methane Fee Deferral: Delayed the implementation of fees on methane emissions, previously set by the Inflation Reduction Act, until 2034.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
, Offtopic)
by
swillden
( 191260 )
writes:
Good post. In the future, please add some paragraph breaks to make it more readable.
Re:
Score:
by
shilly
( 142940 )
writes:
There's loads of unique direct subsidies. Here's but one example:
[investopedia.com]
Re:
Score:
by
shilly
( 142940 )
writes:
You’ve completely missed the point.
The mistake you’re making is confusing the mere fact that business costs are deductible with how and when costs are deductible. Ordinary businesses are indeed taxed on profit, but cannot immediately deduct large up-front investment costs for long-lived assets. Instead, they must capitalise those costs and write them off slowly over many years. Oil and gas companies, however, get to treat intangible drilling costs as investment costs and expense them immediately
Re:Subsidies
Score:
, Interesting)
by
Zocalo
( 252965 )
writes:
on Friday December 26, 2025 @11:45AM (
#65882793
Homepage
What's to complain about? They're no secret, nor is their purpose. A government subsides a developing technology to offset the initial investment required for companies to undertake development, drive market adoption once they have a product, and establish a high market share and, ideally, market dominance for your preferred - e.g. domestic - manufacturers. Once that happens, a government will generally try to recoup those subsidies through taxation of sales revenue, and - in some cases - on domestic users of the product (e.g. the UK's plans for a per-mile tax on EVs). The size of the subsidy generally reflects their confidence in the size/importance of the potential market, and therefore their ability to recoup their investment. EVs are not the first market this game has been played with, and it surely won't be the last.
A government pulling those subsidies, while their competitors maintain theirs, is simply them saying they don't feel this market is going to yield a return on their investment because reasons, or that they feel the money is better invested in other markets with a larger potential for return. The governments that maintain their subsidies are simply placing a contrary bet. No, it's not a "free market" move. There never has been a "free market", so stop kidding yourself about it - capitalism and free markets have always been about protectionalism of corparate and national interests first and foremost, and always will be.
The real question here is which technology you feel will be the long term winner, ICE, EV, or maybe even something else entirely? Given that, which goverments are playing their hand correctly should be QED.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
ukoda
( 537183 )
writes:
I think what ArchieBunker was trying to preempt was the usual bullshit about BEVs being subsided when that already happens at scale with the ICEV and fossil fuel industries. He probably should have been a wee bit more verbose about the purpose of his post and the link as not everyone will follow it.
The link he provided shows mature companies that don't really need "A government subsides a developing technology" support.
The real question here is which technology you feel will be the long term winner, ICE, EV, or maybe even something else entirely? Given that, which governments are playing their hand correctly should be QED.
From a commercial POV I think BEVs will be the long term winner as they are the chea
Re:
Score:
by
Sique
( 173459 )
writes:
Not exactly. If you put traffic on EVs, you don't need to subsidize fossil fuels, because there would be enough for all the other uses.
Re:
Score:
by
fluffernutter
( 1411889 )
writes:
So far most Canadian cities that have tried EV buses have been met with failure after failure. Hauling semi-trucks take even more abuse than that. The technology has to work right and be economical for it to be used for the economy.
Re: Subsidies
Score:
by
Malc
( 1751 )
writes:
Why are Canadian cities having such a hard time with EV buses? London has about 2,000 of them and is continuing to increase the number.
[wikipedia.org]
[tfl.gov.uk]
Re:
Score:
by
dunkelfalke
( 91624 )
writes:
Moscow used to have trolleybuses everywhere due to the USSR being a trolleybus country for some reason. However the current mayor of Moscow didn't like the overhead lines and hence replaced all the trolleybuses with battery electric buses. So yes, this number is one of the few from Russia you can more or less trust.
Re: Subsidies
Score:
by
kenh
( 9056 )
writes:
So let me get this straight - we need to subsidize EVs because if everyone buys an EV, there won't be a need to subsidize Oil? Really? You think that's a winning argument?
Why do we have to subsidize EV battery factories, EV manufacturers, and EV buyers both at purchase and per mile driven on the roads (being exempt from gas taxes that fund roads)?
Re:Subsidies
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Local ID10T
( 790134 )
writes:
ID10T.L.USER@gmail.com
on Friday December 26, 2025 @04:08PM (
#65883245
Homepage
Are we going to complain about China and their EV market subsidies?
Sure. OK.
Subsidies distort a market. They boost research and development of emerging industries, giving a first-mover advantage to those that take advantage of them. They can create unassailable monopolies.
We can respond to these subsidies by bitching about them
-which will accomplish nothing but giving politicians platforms to run for office on.
We can respond to these subsidies by applying tariffs
-which will hold back their sales in our nation and incentivize our companies to produce inferior products.
We can respond to these subsidies by subsidizing our industries and advancing the state-of-the-art ourselves
-which will give everyone the best goods and services available at the best prices possible.
Parent
Share
Re: Subsidies
Score:
by
Lothsahn
( 221388 )
writes:
So platforms and tariffs it is!
Re: Subsidies
Score:
by
kenh
( 9056 )
writes:
For example, the tesla subsidies, which created an unassailable monopoly because of the first-mover advantage. Right?
Without the "Tesla Subsidy" would Ford, GM, etc have embraced EV production? Probably not...
Re:Subsidies
Score:
, Insightful)
by
haruchai
( 17472 )
writes:
on Friday December 26, 2025 @08:33PM (
#65883635
Are we going to complain about China and their EV market subsidies?
[goodjobsfirst.org]
Not one dollar of Chinese subsidies explains or excuses what a lousy job the Western incumbents have done in their efforts to build EVs.
It's almost as if they were actively trying to screw it up.
And considering that until the past few years NONE of those Chinese EVs were being sold in any major market & are still mostly low volume where they are available, I don't see how the question of Chinese subsidies is at all relevant.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
phantomfive
( 622387 )
writes:
The subsidies aren't even the problem. China has taken over the lithium mining pipeline in the same way that they've taken over the rare earths pipeline.
Now only luxury SUVs in America can afford batteries.
Import of Chinese EV's will be prohibited
Score:
, Interesting)
by
hwstar
( 35834 )
writes:
on Friday December 26, 2025 @11:48AM (
#65882797
The current regime and the the US car makers will see to it. They won't let these vehicles be imported. This is because of two things: Pride in things made in America by the current regime, and intense lobbying by the US car manufacturers.
The current regime likes ICE cars because consumers have to buy gasoline for them on a recurring basis. My theory is that they hate electric cars because with some solar panels, you can get the energy for them at a cost which the petroleum industry could never match.
The American car manufacturers have so overpriced their offerings that the average consumer making the median wage can't afford the cost of ownership for a new car. Have you seen all those 10 to 20 year cars with peeling top coats of paint being driven around. This tells you a lot about the state of car affordability in America.
When the rug is pulled out from beneath the US consumer (not a question of IF but WHEN) , there will be few customers who can afford American-built cars. At this point either consumers will retrench using pedal-assisted electric bicycles, or electric scooters, or they will allow Chinese EV's to be imported.
Share
Re:Import of Chinese EV's will be prohibited
Score:
, Interesting)
by
ceoyoyo
( 59147 )
writes:
on Friday December 26, 2025 @12:37PM (
#65882867
One of he big attractions in Cuba is all the old cars from the 60s. Tourists find it delightfully quaint.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
dunkelfalke
( 91624 )
writes:
Except this government also hates tourists.
Re:
Score:
by
lucifuge31337
( 529072 )
writes:
Yeah, that's not how that works. Those are antiques today even in Cuba and for tourist stuff.
Re: Import of Chinese EV's will be prohibited
Score:
by
RealMelancon
( 4422677 )
writes:
So eventually it will be the same for North America. While the rest of the world will be running on EV , the US in particular, will still be making ICE cars and trucks.
Re: Import of Chinese EV's will be prohibited
Score:
by
kenh
( 9056 )
writes:
The reason Cuba keeps old cars on the road is because Cuba has ZERO money. Cuban healthcare suffers because Cuba has to trade doctors for oil. Tourists don't go to Cuba to see old cars held together with duct tape and baling wire - they go because it's cheap.
Cuba can buy all the Chinese EVs they can afford, trouble is, they can't afford any.
Re:
Score:
by
bjoast
( 1310293 )
writes:
My theory is that they hate electric cars because with some solar panels, you can get the energy for them at a cost which the petroleum industry could never match.
I have always viewed their hate for electric cars as just a knee-jerk reaction to their political opponents supporting them.
Re:Import of Chinese EV's will be prohibited
Score:
, Insightful)
by
karmawarrior
( 311177 )
writes:
on Friday December 26, 2025 @02:30PM (
#65883085
Journal
Combination of things, all really bad:
- Culture war shit as you suggested
- Concerns about global warming - Right wing wants to pretend it doesn't exist and pushes against any attempts to fix it. Oil - and oddly tobacco - companies only too happy to push narrative there.
- Concerns about pollution in general - Left wing generally anti-pollution so right wing "rolls coal" and other shit to piss off left. (As an aside, I'd like to see any of these assholes taken back to the 1970s and forced to breath the air and eat off the surfaces that were usual then.)
- Obsession with being "rugged" and "dirty" and "tough" as if that's more masculine, and thusly anti-electric because it's clean and perceived to be weaker despite the exact opposite being true.
They're all really stupid reasons, and getting stupider by the minute. I was never happy about Musk's relationship to Trump and at least hoped it might make him drop his dumbass anti-EV stance, but it never seemed to make a difference. Hopefully Rivian and whoever is making that $25K pick-up can save the industry.
Parent
Share
Re: Import of Chinese EV's will be prohibited
Score:
by
kenh
( 9056 )
writes:
I have always viewed their hate for electric cars as just a knee-jerk reaction to their political opponents supporting them.
Wait, I'm confused - who hates EVs more, the conservatives that just won't buy one or the liberal that set them on fire?
Re:
Score:
by
sinij
( 911942 )
writes:
The American car manufacturers have so overpriced their offerings that the average consumer making the median wage can't afford the cost of ownership for a new car.
You came so close to getting it. The American cars are so expensive... but not because car manufacturers have an ability to dictate the car prices, they simply don't (COVID was exception due to supply issues). Cars are so expensive because of all the government requirements they have to meet. All of the cheap cars available elsewhere in the world would be illegal to sell in US. More so, iconic historic cars, like VW Beetle, would likewise be illegal to sell as new. Some of it due to emission standards, some
Re:Import of Chinese EV's will be prohibited
Score:
, Interesting)
by
Voyager529
( 1363959 )
writes:
voyager529@@@yahoo...com
on Friday December 26, 2025 @02:15PM (
#65883067
One of the key issues with EVs is that they are not affordable.
THIS is the problem. This right here.
Deregulation is how you solve this
This is half-true.
My mom bought a 2018 Nissan Versa in 2019. It was the definition of "no frills" - manual locks, hand-crank windows, and a radio that would have been right at home in a car a decade earlier...but she spent $9,800 on it.
Which regulations have come into existence in the past eight years that make it impossible for there to be a sub-$15,000 vehicle? The answer is 'very few' - there were still plenty of emissions standards in 2018, still plenty of safety standards in 2018, and still plenty of paperwork in 2018. And yet, somehow, that car was still able to be made and sold.
No, what happened is that auto manufacturers kept focusing on the higher end segment, and increasing margin, while gutting the used market.
The good news is that this is fixable by a very trivial regulation change: New auto loans from dealerships have a 5-year maximum; banks can refinance up to an eight year maximum. Car manufacturers will figure out how to make cars affordable again by the end of the model year, because their options are to either figure out how to make a car that the average person can afford in sixty installments, or lose out on that sweet, sweet interest revenue from savvy buyers who get a car at their current pricing, but then the dealership loses out on the margin from the interest.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
, Insightful)
by
sinij
( 911942 )
writes:
Which regulations have come into existence in the past eight years that make it impossible for there to be a sub-$15,000 vehicle?
Going from memory - backup camera, offset crash minimum performance, front collision detection/warning. I don't remember specific dates for each one of these, you can always dig into FMVSS for details. Also, pedestrian automatic emergency braking is soon to become mandatory. What does it mean for an economy car price? It means manufacturers have to include entire category of safety systems, such as front-facing pedestrian detection camera and hardware supporting it, to every car. THAT is what makes economy
Re:
Score:
by
AmiMoJo
( 196126 )
writes:
Are those things expensive? Backup camera kits don't cost much, for example.
The safety stuff is as much to protect other people, so it's more like not being able to externalise a cost.
Re:
Score:
by
PleaseThink
( 8207110 )
writes:
That link says Versa was discounted due to Trump's tariffs. It makes no mention of safety systems...
As for all the smart systems, I'm not buying it that they're making cars excessively expensive. Most of those systems are software features that only need to be developed once then tweaked for each model. There's FOSS solutions which get you much of the way there using common cameras that work fine in a car's environment. It's also something they already have in their higher-end models. It stays in thei
Re:
Score:
by
AleRunner
( 4556245 )
writes:
Chinese made cars in Europe already do all those things.
This is true, but Chinese cars sold in Europe are not nearly as cheap as Chinese cars sold in China. Still, they are often decisively cheap.
Re:
Score:
by
thegreatemu
( 1457577 )
writes:
Ah yes, that good ol' American company Nissan...
Re:
Score:
by
phantomfive
( 622387 )
writes:
Which regulations have come into existence in the past eight years that make it impossible for there to be a sub-$15,000 vehicle? The answer is 'very few'
The CCP has taken control of the lithium market. You can't get batteries for a sub-$15,000 vehicle outside of China anymore.
Re:
Score:
by
Fly Swatter
( 30498 )
writes:
What exactly do you want to deregulate? Safety? Warranty? You can't deregulate to make a cheaper EV, they cost more simply because the battery tech is not to the point yet of being ridiculously cheap.
Deregulating the dealership model won't really save consumers much, if at all. Might save us some purchase anxiety regarding price shenanigans though.
Re:
Score:
by
ukoda
( 537183 )
writes:
One of the key issues with EVs is that they are not affordable. Deregulation is how you solve this, not subsidies that are just transfer of wealth from everyone to well-off people that can afford to buy a new EV
While subsidies did make BEV artificially affordable that is generally no longer true. Here (New Zealand), where there are no subsidies, the Toyota Corolla and a similar BYD BEV are already the same price. As the trend of dropping battery prices continues BEVs will increasingly become the cheaper unsubsidised option in more countries and market segment.
Re:
Score:
by
AmiMoJo
( 196126 )
writes:
EU regulations are pretty strict, and somehow the Chinese manufacturers meet them at a very affordable price.
MG long range EVs are cheaper than similar spec fossil cars from other manufacturers, and they are better quality. It's not magic, it's not subsidies, they just got better at making cars than everyone else.
Re:
Score:
by
Kernel Kurtz
( 182424 )
writes:
And we have large cars because all the other cars on the road are large. And Americans won't buy small because in their eyes small is unsafe.
Or maybe space is an actually desirable value. I don't think it is really a case of people deep down wishing they could drive a small car if only everyone else did.
Re: Import of Chinese EV's will be prohibited
Score:
by
reanjr
( 588767 )
writes:
I love driving a small car. I don't see any reason to have some oversized monstrosity to transport my body, which could just as easily be transported even more quickly by a motorcycle.
Re:
Score:
by
Kernel Kurtz
( 182424 )
writes:
I love my M240i but I've driven many trucks and SUVs and the comfort and utility is undeniable. It does not bother me at all if other people like different things from what I like.
Re:
Score:
by
Sique
( 173459 )
writes:
I've driven some SUVs and trucks, and their comfort is miserable, they are a beast to get parked, they are not exactly cornering well, and don't get me started on the car body moving! No wonder U.S. roads have to be so wide and so straight, because otherwise, trucks would so unwieldy only people urgently need their specific properties would drive them.
Re:
Score:
by
Kernel Kurtz
( 182424 )
writes:
I'm Canadian but most vehicles are trucks and SUVs here too. With a handful of exceptions they are made for luxury, not handling. Most drivers don't appreciate handling anyways, so they are not missing anything.
Re:
Score:
by
shilly
( 142940 )
writes:
You are focused on the space inside the car, but anyone who's driven a small car and enjoyed it will tell you that the space it gives you *outside* the car is fantastically useful -- the ability to move in and out of urban traffic and to park easily.
Besides, the interior space of these big cars is often pretty compromised. For example, I just came back from a holiday in Mexico. We had three long journeys in what, to us, were giant Chevy: three rows plus a big rear overhang at the back. In every one, the thi
Re:Import of Chinese EV's will be prohibited
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Jason Earl
( 1894 )
writes:
on Friday December 26, 2025 @02:13PM (
#65883061
Homepage
Journal
This is it, precisely. If I could buy a new EV for $12K I would absolutely do that. If buying a new EV means that I have to spend $60K then I am not remotely interested. EV vehicles have some problems that make them impractical as the only vehicle for most families. Those problems disappear completely if the vehicle is inexpensive enough so that it doesn't have to be your only vehicle.
China is currently giving EVs away, we are stupid for not taking them up on the offer. Eventually the U.S. auto market would adapt. I am quite sure that they could also make low margin EVs if they had the right incentive. Let's be honest, the American public would probably be willing to subsidize them as they made the change. However, instead we have rigged the entire system so that U.S. manufacturers are incentivized to only compete in the largest, most expensive, and least environmentally friendly auto markets available. It's no wonder that the rest of the world isn't interested in our cars.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
swillden
( 191260 )
writes:
This is it, precisely. If I could buy a new EV for $12K I would absolutely do that. If buying a new EV means that I have to spend $60K then I am not remotely interested.
Is it only sticker price that matters, or do you also consider fuel and maintenance costs? How much does electricity cost where you live, and do you have a driveway or garage that would allow you to charge at home?
I think for most people with average electricity prices ($0.12/kWh in the US), and the ability to charge at home, a new $40k EV (Tesla Model 3) is still a little more expensive than a $20k ICEV (a Nissan Versa; that's the cheapest new ICEV available and it's well above $12k), but not as much m
Re:
Score:
by
Cyberax
( 705495 )
writes:
The current regime and the the US car makers will see to it. They won't let these vehicles be imported
Sure. And it's going to work for the next 5 years or so. Until Chinese-made cars become so good that President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will be pressured to allow the imports in exchange for licensing the technology.
To give you perspective, the most popular EV in China is Wuling MiniEV. It has the range of 100 miles and seats 2 people. The second most popular is Geely Xingyuan, it's a normal-sized 4-door car with 200 miles of range.
Pretty shitty stats, right? Well, the Wuling costs $4500 and Geely costs
Re:
Score:
by
ukoda
( 537183 )
writes:
When the rug is pulled out from beneath the US consumer (not a question of IF but WHEN) , there will be few customers who can afford American-built cars. At this point either consumers will retrench using pedal-assisted electric bicycles, or electric scooters, or they will allow Chinese EV's to be imported.
Most of your post is on point but you will not see "consumers retrench to using pedal-assisted electric bicycles, or electric scooters...". They will simply hold on to old cars longer and get deeper in debt. Remember US consumers are already used to in getting debt, this will simply make life more miserable for them. Given how few US consumers ever leave the USA they will not even be aware that the rest of the world has better options, they will continue their blind belief that they are #1.
Suicide
Score:
, Insightful)
by
methano
( 519830 )
writes:
on Friday December 26, 2025 @12:16PM (
#65882823
Retreating from electric cars will ultimately be suicide for US car makers. Electric cars are better in almost every way. In ten years, most people will come to understand this. Unfortunately, this understanding will come from people dying and not people changing their minds.
Share
Re:
Score:
by
PPH
( 736903 )
writes:
this understanding will come from people dying and not people changing their minds.
Except that dead people are not a great market demographic for car sales. The best vehicle for the "non dead" happens to be something like a raised F350. Sorry about your Prius.
Re:
Score:
by
ukoda
( 537183 )
writes:
I did a Google search on the F350. That thing is huge, I doubt it would fit in many garages here or street side car parks. It has a 181L tank that would cost $300 to fill. I can see why no one would waste their time importing one, who would buy it?
Prius? The 2000's called, they want your dis back. Who would buy that obsolete mild hybrid these days?
Re:
Score:
by
PPH
( 736903 )
writes:
I can see why no one would waste their time importing one,
An F350 is a Ford. So why would you be importing one unless you live outside the United States (or Canada). And can easily buy a Unimog.
Re:
Score:
by
magzteel
( 5013587 )
writes:
Retreating from electric cars will ultimately be suicide for US car makers. Electric cars are better in almost every way. In ten years, most people will come to understand this. Unfortunately, this understanding will come from people dying and not people changing their minds.
Toyoda said BEV could satisfy the needs of maybe 30% of drivers. The rest are satisfied by hybrids and ICE. Toyota was criticized but they have been selling hybrids as fast as they can make them and their ICE sales are just fine. People buy vehicles that meet their needs best at a price they can afford.
Toyota was wrong or out of context
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Firethorn
( 177587 )
writes:
on Friday December 26, 2025 @01:18PM (
#65882965
Homepage
Journal
I see that as a '640k should be enough for anyone' type statement, and it was made by somebody in charge of Toyota, one of the biggest hydrogen car proponents and developers.
Advances in battery tech approaching that of transistors back in the day while hydrogen tech has relatively languished, has pushed hydrogen into being even less realistic, while rewriting the economics of EVs completely.
Now, that 100% hybrids rather that 90% ICE and 10% EV would save more gasoline on less battery is true.
We could go for having basically 90% of or vehicles being hybrid before reaching 20% EV. Have the idea be that people buy a hybrid today, replace it with a PHEV, then go EV.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
magzteel
( 5013587 )
writes:
I see that as a '640k should be enough for anyone' type statement, and it was made by somebody in charge of Toyota, one of the biggest hydrogen car proponents and developers.
Advances in battery tech approaching that of transistors back in the day while hydrogen tech has relatively languished, has pushed hydrogen into being even less realistic, while rewriting the economics of EVs completely.
Now, that 100% hybrids rather that 90% ICE and 10% EV would save more gasoline on less battery is true.
We could go for having basically 90% of or vehicles being hybrid before reaching 20% EV. Have the idea be that people buy a hybrid today, replace it with a PHEV, then go EV.
It's more like if he said "640K should be enough for 30% of users", and in that time it was true. People have different needs and many can be served by a cheaper, less capable device. Buying a gaming PC to web surf is a waste.
Re:
Score:
by
Firethorn
( 177587 )
writes:
You do realize that a simile only needs to be similar, right? Gates eventually mentioned that the 640k was only intended for that specific market at that specific time.
But that only makes the comparison more apt. As technologies change, as the economy develops, things change.
Today, I'd estimate that 60% of people could go EV without problem. 80% if we only consider whether a given car could be replaced with an EV without extensive issue.
Note: I don't consider installing a level 2 charger in a house an ex
Re:
Score:
by
Barsteward
( 969998 )
writes:
Toyoda is an asshole
Re:
Score:
by
ukoda
( 537183 )
writes:
Toyoda is an asshole
Funny you say that. Someone asked on Quora why Japan is so far behind on BEVs. I replied with just one word "Toyoda" linked to his Wikipedia page. Quora pulled my answer, I appealed and they still pulled it. Maybe they thought I was swearing, but I never wasted time answering another question there again.
Wrong
Score:
by
Viol8
( 599362 )
writes:
If you think Gen-Z are big into EVs think again. They're quite happy with 2nd and 3rd hand ICE vehicles. If only 20-30% of the new car buying market wants EVs then someone has to supply the 70-80% ICE powered ones and it won't be the chinese.
Re:
Score:
by
sinij
( 911942 )
writes:
Gen Z have catastrophic issues with unemployment, earnings, and student loans. They are not into EVs the same way they are not into private jets - they can't afford them and can't afford to live where one could charge one.
Re:
Score:
by
unixisc
( 2429386 )
writes:
Unless some major revolutionary change comes to how cars are powered, that does not depend on rare-earths, US car makers are doing the right thing by stepping back from EVs. Yeah, the self-navigation and other features are great, but most people can't pay thousands of $$$ for new batteries. There are also other things like the weight of these batteries, the increased wear and tear of public roads (which already are starved for maintenance funding), so this is certainly not the commercially viable answer t
Re:
Score:
by
jacks smirking reven
( 909048 )
writes:
All of those are quite reasonably solvable though and the only one that really matters it the cost of new batteries which is continuing to drop YoY and forecasted to get to
$60k/wh by 2030
[goldmansachs.com] which is getting us to to where replacing your battery pack is on par with replacing your engine or transmission.
Re:
Score:
by
bn-7bc
( 909819 )
writes:
60K/Wh, I hope that was a typo, or you are off by a factor of 1000. Did you mean 60K/KWh or 6K/KWh perhaps
Re:
Score:
by
jacks smirking reven
( 909048 )
writes:
The chart on the link is (US$/kWh)
Re:
Score:
by
ukoda
( 537183 )
writes:
I was looking at a replacement battery for a first gen Nissan Leaf. You can now get a new pack from China with CATL cells with about twice the range of the original pack. Currently it is about half the price of a new BEV and probably not a lot more than the cost a typical modern ICE and transmission. That is just one example, as more companies start offering packs for popular BEV models and the $/wh goes down you can expect the option of replacing batteries to look more attractive.
Re:
Score:
by
Barsteward
( 969998 )
writes:
Rare earths are not in batteries, they are generally in the motors. Don't forget rare earths are the unsung heroes in the catalytic converters and valuable one hence the growth in stealing them. Weight of EVs won't make any difference on the road surfaces, the roads are generally built for the weight of the largest vehicles. The myth that every EV owner is going to have to buy a new battery belongs in the last decade.
Re:
Score:
by
ukoda
( 537183 )
writes:
Actually, once people get over their obsession with range commuter vehicles will probably be offered with variants with more modest pack sizes. Combine that with the improving energy density and I think a lot of future BEVs on the road may well be lighter that the current typical commuter car.
Re:
Score:
by
shilly
( 142940 )
writes:
The weight of the average vehicle isn't going to increase by 1000 pounds. That's absurdly high. Like for like differences (ie similar models) are more like 300 pounds. And no, that won't make any difference. Semis and other very large vehicles do essentially all the damage.
Re:
Score:
by
PPH
( 736903 )
writes:
Yeah, the self-navigation and other features are great,
Entirely possible with electronic control transmissions and ICE engines.
Re:
Score:
by
ukoda
( 537183 )
writes:
Retreating from electric cars will ultimately be suicide for US car makers. Electric cars are better in almost every way. In ten years, most people will come to understand this. Unfortunately, this understanding will come from people dying and not people changing their minds.
The FUD is less effective that it was but does still work. I was speaking with old guy the other day and he was telling me about how he heard hydrogen was future. I had to point out there are no hydrogen cars in our country and never will be because they have no advantages over the BEVs already on sale here.
Re: Suicide
Score:
by
peterww
( 6558522 )
writes:
That's what people said 120 years ago when electric cars were the most popular car. Turns out that "almost" every way has a pretty big caveat. Petrol was more convenient back then, it's more convenient now.
Retreating from BEVs. But what about HEVs & PH
Score:
by
LDA6502
( 7474138 )
writes:
on Friday December 26, 2025 @12:42PM (
#65882877
In the US, year over year sales of hybrid EVs (HEVs) are up 44%, sales of plug-in hybrid EVs (PHEVs) are up 16.5%, and battery EVs (BEVs) are up 15.4%. While the expectation from industry analysts is that BEV sales will rise at a much slower pace in 2026 and '27, HEV and PHEV sales are expected to keep accelerating. So it isn't as if electrification is in complete retreat in the US.
Also, some advances with BEVs are trickling down to new HEVs and PHEVs, especially with Korean, Japanese, and European brands. And while the Ford F150 Lightning in BEV form is out, it is being replaced with a series PHEV (aka: BEVx/EREV/REEV) that is supposed to compete with upcoming the Dodge Ram REV.
So... is that all going to be enough to keep US automakers in the game? And that's on top of announcements about joint battery production ventures pivoting to the battery storage market given the rise in both grid-scale and small-scale battery storage needs. Or the shift to more advanced gigacasting and lights-out manufacturing. Maybe it won't be the slaughter we all suspect it might be.
Share
The greatest rap channel in history, Patrick Boyle
Score:
by
rsilvergun
( 571051 )
writes:
Covered this recently.
Americans want big honking cars and big honking trucks. That is not compatible with affordable electric cars.
The Chinese vehicles are doing that by skimping on safety requirements necessary if you're going to have those kind of enormous vehicles on the road with each other.
That may actually be fine for European roads because the Europeans tend to drive slower than Americans outside of a few well-known highway examples. Europe has smaller roads and when roads are narrower pe
Re:
Score:
by
gurps_npc
( 621217 )
writes:
European cars are safer than American cars. Your premise that Chinese cars are both unsafe and will be 'fine' for Europe demonstrates tremendous ignorance.
As you idea that 'magic technology' is not on the horizon is again foolish. AI cars are on the horizon and they would be viewed as magic when I learned to drive. They are definitely safer than large cars.
There are lots of Americans willing to buy small cars. You may not know them, but they do exist. Many are poor and would rather save money than pay t
On the flip side...
Score:
by
unixisc
( 2429386 )
writes:
...there would be an easing up of demand on rare-earths, which send battery prices sky-high. So people who want affordable cars can continue to buy either full ICE cars or hybrids, while the plutocrats can buy those EVs, either Teslas or Chinese ones
If they get into our market..
Score:
by
Shmoe
( 17051 )
writes:
If they (BYD, Nio, etc.) get into our market -- which they're currently artificially limited from competing in (because, you know, free markets!), they're going eat our lunch.
And we will deserve it. Soundly.
I am ashamed of where we are headed on so many fronts.
EV mandates didnâ(TM)t go awayâ¦
Score:
by
rwrife
( 712064 )
writes:
Several states and countries still have EV mandates, some kick in as early as 2030, these car manufacturers are giving up long viability for a short term gain.
Re:Phasing out the wrong thing
Score:
, Insightful)
by
jacks smirking reven
( 909048 )
writes:
on Friday December 26, 2025 @12:21PM (
#65882841
Spending government time, effort and money on improving the synthesis of fuel from CO2 and water would help all of them.
There's a reason this has never been demonstrated at scale though and at the end of the day the process is known but it requires gobs and gobs of energy input, like absurd amounts as you scale up. Maybe we're getting there with renewables but right now a portion of that power would have to come from burning more NG. It's not a chemistry problem as much as a physics one. My feeling is Co2 synthesis is in fact another play by oil companies now that hydrogen has fallen on it's face. Remember all the oil companies saying they were gonna be hydrogen companies? What happened there?
Synthesis processes are one of the reasons I have always supported nuclear power expansion since that's the type of thing you can do by having a grid filled with a glut of power on it, you can start pushing it towards lossy processes like fuel synthesis and desalination. Since there's no real movement on that front as of yet I don't think it'll be something we can rely on short term, long term it's got prospects
Those same chemical engineers can also work on battery problems and they have by the huge gains we've been making in battery tech in just the last decade. 10 years ago everyone was wringing their hands about Lithium-Ion and today we are looking at Li-ion being the outdated tech, it's already being supplanted and even those replacement will be supplanted in another 10 years.
Literally the only major issue holding EVs back right now is price and that's a factor of how many batteries we can produce which is why there are still dozens of battery factories under construction, we're in the transition still and looking at it like it's already over when it's still just beginning. .
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
Kernel Kurtz
( 182424 )
writes:
There's a reason this has never been demonstrated at scale though and at the end of the day the process is known but it requires gobs and gobs of energy input, like absurd amounts as you scale up.
Yes, I've heard the efuels are too expensive/inefficient argument. Always left unsaid is the cost of replacing every ICE on the road, building out new generation and charging infrastructure, retooling all the automotive production lines, building new mines and processing for rare earths and new supply chains and battery factories.

This is going to cost many, many
trillions
of dollars. Expensive should be considered in this context.

OTOH efuels have some advantages as well - they work for existing vehicl
Re:
Score:
by
short
( 66530 )
writes:
EVs TCO is cheaper than ICEVs TCO but the purchase price of EVs is still a bit higher. I see rather the primary problem in missing infrastructure - there should be overnight AC chargers everywhere which would be a major advantage over ICEs.
Re:
Score:
by
swillden
( 191260 )
writes:
I see rather the primary problem in missing infrastructure - there should be overnight AC chargers everywhere which would be a major advantage over ICEs.
Part of that "problem" is that people consistently overestimate what is required for overnight charging, thinking that you need L2. In fact, a large majority of people would be just fine with L1 charging, i.e. a regular old 120V wall outlet. Obviously, even that isn't currently easy to come by in a lot of apartment complex parking lots, or on the street, but pretty much any suburban single-family house can trivially arrange it. An L1 charger will add about 60 miles of range in 12 hours of charging, that'
Re:
Score:
by
jacks smirking reven
( 909048 )
writes:
Sure I am not saying advances haven't happened and that it's not viable, it's very exciting technology but what really puts my hackles up is when it feels like it's being pushed as an alternative or better option to EVs, like we should shift focus and to me that's so wrong as to probably be malicious from some people, thus the hydrogen example. IMO these are parallel paths, all part of the big soup of energy mix we need.
I suspect that what happened is that people found hydrogen difficult to store, move and handle and it didn't fit will with the huge installed base of infrastructure, so the market rejected it.
Here's the thing, everybody knew those problems existed and oil companies and other gri
Re:
Score:
by
jacks smirking reven
( 909048 )
writes:
We don't have to focus on 2.5 billion though, just focus on the market for 1 billion for now and then see whose left, those are easy gets and for that we just need more and cheaper EV's. Basically if it runs on petrol then it can probably be replaced with an EV. Passenger vehicles basically.
Where I think fuel synthesis could really shine is as a diesel replacement. Big rigs, towing, heavy equipment, generators, stuff out in the boonies. If we're worried about time to impact though synthesis is far more ou
Re:
Score:
by
Barsteward
( 969998 )
writes:
When the tipping point for EVs is finally reached, less and less gasoline will be made making it more and more expensive to produce and lots of small filling stations will close.
Re:
Score:
by
ukoda
( 537183 )
writes:
That tipping point has already past in some countries, notably China. You see it first in countries where cost of vehicles and actually suitability for the task they are need for is more important that the ego driven status symbol choices and fictional or infrequent use cases.
Re:
Score:
by
phantomfive
( 622387 )
writes:
Your idea is that Chinese people don't choose their car based on ego?
Re:
Score:
by
Charlotte
( 16886 )
writes:
There is also the issue of EVs in difficult-to-reach places. Oil based products also have a very high amount of stored energy per kg so transporting them is economically feasible. So your point about banning the wrong thing makes sense to me.
The real issue to me is that EU car companies only lobbied for the end of the fuel ban because they want to make short/medium term profits for shareholders. Long term the companies will have to change tack anyway, just at a larger cost and behind all the rest. I think e
Re:Phasing out the wrong thing
Score:
, Insightful)
by
jacks smirking reven
( 909048 )
writes:
on Friday December 26, 2025 @12:46PM (
#65882887
Remote places is a straw-man argument nobody is really making though, it's a rhetorical distraction that going to EVs has to be all-the-things-all-the-time-all-at-once, we're at like not even 10% of global vehicles yet? There's massive markets that would be greatly served by EVs before you have to worry about the remote places since 90% of the worlds population lives in like the same 10% of the Earth, they can keep gas for awhile because they are a vast minority.
We all know you make your big easy gains first.
Parent
Share
Not this again
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Viol8
( 599362 )
writes:
"demanding that cars use air-to-liquid synthesised fuels instead. "
I suggest you go take a look at the energy required. There's a reason nothing has yet supplanted fossil fuels - its because they're so energy dense. Unless you can magic up a 3-4x increase in grid power while will be entirely used up generating this stuff then its for the birds.
In a similar vein see: green hydrogen production.
Re:Phasing out the wrong thing
Score:
, Interesting)
by
Smidge204
( 605297 )
writes:
on Friday December 26, 2025 @12:53PM (
#65882919
Journal
>We should phasing out the use of extracted oil for powering internal combustion engines and demanding that cars use air-to-liquid synthesised fuels instead.
It is absolutely not feasible, technologically or economically, to produce enough synthetic fuel to meet current demand.
Even if the processes actually worked at industrial scales and could be rolled out quickly and widely enough to even make a dent in fossil fuel usage, you would need to to also build out the zero-carbon energy sources to run those processes. This means building roughly
double
the zero-carbon energy capacity that you'd need if you just went straight to battery electric, and meeting all of the cost and logistical challenges that brings.
Synthetic fuels have a place, perhaps. I'm a big believer in having multiple tools available so there are options to meet any challenge. But it is insane to talk about any one tool as "the" solution including synfuels. It is the opposite of productive.
Electrification of everything we possibly can is the only way forward. Not just passenger and commercial vehicles but also homes and industry. Every unit of energy we manage to convert to pure electric is two or three units of energy we won't have to waste trying to use some other renewable path such as synfuels or hydrogen or whatever.
> Banning the sale of new ICEs won't do anything for these nearly quarter billion existing vehicles
Nobody is claiming it would. The whole point is to force a transition over the next 20-ish years or so, which is still going to be a faster transition than attempting to replace gasoline and diesel with synfuels... because, again, it is simply just not feasible to do that.
=Smidge=
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
Kernel Kurtz
( 182424 )
writes:
I always thought that the EU's goal of phasing out all new internal combustion engines was attacking the wrong problem. The problems of climate change have not come from burning hydrocarbons per se, they have come from taking carbon-based fuels from the ground. We should phasing out the use of extracted oil for powering internal combustion engines and demanding that cars use air-to-liquid synthesised fuels instead.
I plan to be driving gasoline powered cars for the rest of my life. I'm willing to pay more for zero-emission efuels to do my social responsibility part, but since that's not an option I'll just stick with traditional dino juice. Perhaps it will be an option in the future, but as I get older I also care less and less.
Re:
Score:
by
Kernel Kurtz
( 182424 )
writes:
Making the perfect the enemy of the good is why your are failing.
Re: Phasing out the wrong thing
Score:
by
crackerjack155
( 1328815 )
writes:
Presumably, they mean zero net emissions, which is possible. You completely combust all of the fuel in the car, a plant somewhere removes the combustion byproducts from the air and puts it back together as fuel, and the car burns that fuel. They would also need to break down the NOx to N2 or convert it to something long term stable.
It's essentially using the fuel as a battery. For hard to electrify things like planes and rockets. You built enough renewable energy and normal storage to get your grid through
Re:
Score:
by
rossdee
( 243626 )
writes:
H2 doesn't pollute, but its hard to store.
Re:
Score:
, Insightful)
by
brunes69
( 86786 )
writes:
EV sales is already over 25% of the market in Europe. It is certainly going to be over 50% by 2030.
ICE is obsolete and as the boomers in love with it continue to die off EV adoption is going to go through the stratosphere.
ICE is doomed. You can't fight progress.
Re: Phasing out the wrong thing
Score:
by
brunes69
( 86786 )
writes:
Unless you are dying in the next 10 years, youre wrong.
Re:
Score:
by
Kernel Kurtz
( 182424 )
writes:
If my country plans to phase out new sales of ICE cars in 2035 then I'll be buying my last new car in 2034 and driving it till I die. But it looks like the 2035 phase out is going to die first, imminently in fact. I really don't care what other people drive, but I'm still happy to see it failing as a social engineering program as a matter of principle. See my signature for more details.
Re:
Score:
by
whitroth
( 9367 )
writes:
No, the answer is to break them up. They should never have been allowed to become monopolies in the first place.
Related Links
Top of the:
day
week
month
384
comments
Does a Gas-Guzzler Revival Risk Dead-End Futures for US Automakers?
377
comments
Americans' Junk-Filled Garages Are Hurting EV Adoption, Study Says
363
comments
Americans are Buying Twice as Many Hybrids as Fully Electric Vehicles. Is The Next Step Synthetic Fuels?
323
comments
EV Sales Keep Growing In the US, Represent 20% of Global Car Sales and Half in China
314
comments
China Is Mass-Producing Hypersonic Missiles For $99,000
next
The Economic Divide Between Big and Small Companies Is Growing
42
comments
previous
AI's Hunger For Memory Chips Could Shrink Smartphone and PC Sales in 2026, IDC Says
27
comments
Slashdot Top Deals
If God is perfect, why did He create discontinuous functions?
Close
Working...