A subsidy-fueled boom helped build China into an electric-car giant but left weed-infested lots across the nation brimming with unwanted battery-powered vehicles.

109 points

TLDR: A bunch of ride sharing companies sprouted up in the 2010s built around no frills EVs they leased to employees and then most of them consolidated or went out of business a few years later, leaving parking lots of used vehicles. Expect them to be auctioned off to either be recycled or hopefully sold on to lower wage nations.

permalink
report
reply
22 points
*

Let’s hope they’re auctioned and sold quickly and don’t end-up in tangled in the legal system for too long. Hopefully this is handled well enough so cars get into the used car market. Selling these for scrap or for recycling is another option but would be more wasteful.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

Unfortunately most of those cars will have to be scrapped. Either they’ve been abandoned for too long or they weren’t usable in the first place. Best we can hope for is that the damn things will be responsibly recycled.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Why would three to four years be to long for a car to sit around without being scraped? Short of the batteries self discharging brlow limits, which admittedly might happen with the cheap ac-dc converters and other electronics you might find in a low budget EV, i can’t imagine there would be much more than a tire change.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

“No frills” might be a bit gentle.

Judging by other companies with similar outcomes, these are likely products made to meet the minimum legal definition of “vehicle,” and usually nonfunctional or minimally functional. The companies that built the “vehicles” often sell them to themselves (or rideshare subsidiaries), cashed in the Chinese tax credit, and immediately discard them. For an example of this in action, see the SEC filings and investigative articles around Kandi’s fake sales figures. Also see Out of Spec’s Kandi K27 review for what I mean when I say “nonfunctional.”

The silver lining is that since the discarded EVs are basically made of tin foil with tiny batteries, it’s not as bad of a waste of natural resources as you might expect.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

The cars the article is talking about were clearly used in service at some point, as it would seem a bit strange to put up makeshift covid mask warnings in the windows of cars that weren’t functional and at least in so far as our primary source identified them tended to have a minimum range of 100km.

Manufacturers identified included Chongqing Changan and Nessan’s Chinese subsidiary, I didn’t see any mention of Kandi.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Correct, Kandi wasn’t involved in this article, it’s just another documented example of this kind of behavior.

permalink
report
parent
reply
60 points

They’ve been abandoned not because obsolete but because the unlimited unrestricted capitalism ordered to build a service that nobody wanted to use because “we must grow and be the first to hit the market whatever it takes”

permalink
report
reply
32 points

Subsidies - Unrestricted Capitalism

Choose one.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points
*

Capitalism dictates maximizing profit by any means, including taking free money from the government.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

A government giving out targeted free money, is not an “unrestricted capitalism” government.

China, is an aggressively capitalist society, colliding with a strongly communist facade. Or a disaster in slow motion.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Subsidies are by definition not a restriction on bad behavior but an incentive. There is no reason a company can’t ignore a subsidy if it doesn’t want to.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

Subsidies skew the market toward specific sectors, technologies, or actors. A company that do not benefit from subsidies is at a competitive disadvantage vs a company that do get subsidies.

A totally free market wouldn’t have any subsidies. But markets aren’t totally free in practice.

Subsidies are typically a good thing when it benefits cleaner tech or improving energy efficiency. It’s the fossil fuel subsidies that do the most harm.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

China is not a country that gives subsidies but a corporation that invests in branches it wants to grow

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

I recall watching this video sometime back covering this from the subsidy angle with new cars being made and then dumped just for the subsidy.

https://youtu.be/1SEfwoqKRU8?si=C56eFgNl5sB8zuC6

permalink
report
reply
2 points

Yup, and I remember clearly a whole army of plausibly state sponsored shills downplaying/voting the story

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points
*

First bicycles, then electric scooters/mopeds, now EVs.

permalink
report
reply
16 points

Capitalism is all about waste.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Only if it earns a profit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I thought china used communism

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

China’s system is technically communism in the same way the Bud Light is technically beer.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Then you are many decades out of date.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Mountains of perfectly cromulent bicycles…

It should not even be a crime to “claim” one at this point.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I don’t understand why they wouldn’t introduce a trade scheme for petrol car owners: swap your petrol pollution machine for a free EV!

Also, why not sell these cars to be retrofitted with better batteries? Wouldn’t it be cheaper that building a whole new car? How is there no industry around this?

permalink
report
reply
3 points

A guess is that those cars are so bad that nobody wants them even for free.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Becuse that requires the government own them, which requires that they finish working their way though bankruptcy court. Some already have, and the rest should follow sooner or later.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Why would the government have to own them? Plus, it’s China. The government can persuade pretty much any national company to do their bidding. Sometimes they even persuade foreign companies to do their bidding *cough* Google Apple *cough*

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Because it’s kind of hard to eminent domain the subject of an ongoing legal battle?

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@beehaw.org

Create post

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

Community stats

  • 2.7K

    Monthly active users

  • 2.9K

    Posts

  • 53K

    Comments