• 37


Governments here in the U.S. have been kind enough to offer some significant incentives for purchasing green vehicles. Buyers can get up to $7,500 off an electric vehicle, thousands off on hybrids, and there are some deeper discounts for buyers in some states that have decided to offer additional rebates. Though incentives here are strong, China has taken this rebate thing to the next level.

According to the Shanghai Securities News, the Chinese government has finalized a plan to offer incentives to buyers of green vehicles. The government will offer maximum subsidies of $7,300 (U.S., at today's exchange rates) for plug-in hybrids and an amazing $8,800 for fully-electric vehicles. Full details will be released by the Chinese government within the next few days, but the numbers are enough to make us jealous already. Surprisingly, the rebate for a standard hybrid vehicle in China comes in at a measly $440 – kind of odd if you ask us. Perhaps the government thinks that standard hybrids are already yesterday's technology, whereas plug-in hybrids and electrics are the future. Hat tip to Larz!

[Source: Reuters]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 37 Comments
      • 4 Years Ago
      95% of world's supply of a key ingredient in lithium batteries comes from China. Stimulating sales of battery cars is a sure way of selling China's "modern oil". What they give in rebate comes back in sales of natural resources. Battery electric vehicles are expensive and hard to sell in quantities at current price level. Hybrids are way cheaper and to say they pollute while electric are clean is the biggest lie in modern time. To get the batteries charged you need electricity, and unless you have hydro electric power plants you are going to pollute quite a lot to produce it. Big fossil fuel machinery dig and move coal from the pit and then diesel locomotives haul it to power plants. Modern cars, and hybrids with AT- PZEV engines are so clean that they clean the air in some bigger cities.
      Today's CO2 craze is getting out of balance, maybe one day killing of humans will be promoted as a way of reducing CO2, or we will have to breath through a device to reduce the Co2. Plant more trees everywhere and stop clear cutting. Volcanoes spew out more pollutants than man ever did, and who can tame them? Co2 is more a political issue and a way to get more taxes. Why the widespread use of diesel in Europe, they are far worse and pollute more trash than a gas engine. Why not natural gas cars, they have so much of it that they burn it. You could fill at home as millions of homes in USA and Europe got natural gas, If you ever run out , you can make your own from animal manure. Oil companies make tons of money, and now electric/ battery people want their share of it. So many people have been brainwashed to believe that breathing (CO2) tax is OK. Stop the CO2 pollution - stop breathing! Stalin, Hitler and others killed millions of born people. Now we just kill millions of unborn, and put tax on CO2, is that what you call degeneration? Stop the insanity. Co2 is part of creation, not a taxable commodity.
        • 4 Years Ago
        (There's a bloody [Enter] key towards the left side of your keyboard, learn to use it.)

        "95% of world's supply of a key ingredient in lithium batteries comes from China"
        There are multiple lithium chemistries.
        Besides (pulling my own numbers out of my ass), since 80% of the lithium comes from salt flats and brine pools in Bolivia and Argentina, what's so special about China?

        "Volcanoes spew out more pollutants than man ever did"
        Complete and utter lie.

        "Co2 is part of creation"
        So what, so are fossil fuels, we tax and regulate them.
        • 4 Years Ago
        skierpage

        You compare fossil fuel to CO2 as part of creation, however CO2 is the part of creation that is necessary for plants to live, fossil fuel will kill. Ever wondered why plants grow so good in greenhouses? When we breath we breath out CO2, and plants use that to live. So to tax something that is a key ingredient to sustain life on this planet is ridiculous. Fossil fuel is not necessary to sustain life.
        • 4 Years Ago
        LOL.. either someone isn't taking their meds... or is really misinformed.. or just trying to troll for fun.

        Please let us know which
      • 4 Years Ago
      Actually the smog clouds in China are not entirely to do with the density, I have spent a lot of time in various parts of China and the smog clouds are present even in the smaller and less dense cities, to my understanding they are due to innefficient burning of coal.

      Also on the note of chinese people living green lives, it is true that your average chinese person pollutes less then your average western person but that is not by choice, if you look at chinese people of similar income to those in the West they pollute a lot more.

      That being said I dont entirely blame the government for such pollution, its a side effect of the rapid economic growth and I hope for their own sake that they work hard to clean up the mess they have created.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Ahhh.. looks like our favorite ABG troll woke up for some flaming.

      Yes, the Chinese government lies all day. I am sure the USA looks like a bunch of tools to other countries though... as we 'found' weapons of mass destruction.. don't have health care.. didn't sign the kyoto protocol, etc.. And don't even get me started on what the EPA lets our companies get away with.

      Again, not defending China here. Their badness is just easier to spot because it's not ours :p
      • 4 Years Ago
      Just a quick follow up on Pebble Bed Modular Reactors. As many are aware, a nuclear submarine can go about 25 years without refueling. http://www.atomicengines.com/ uses the pebbles in a PBMR to create atomic drives. A scaled down version appears to be capable of powering a vehicle. Might be worth thinking about as lithium supplies are just as finite as oil supplies.
        • 4 Years Ago
        'lithium supplies are just as finite as oil supplies.'

        Not really. The lithium can be recycled, once the oil is burnt it is gone.
        According to Chemetall there is around 150 million tons of lithium carbonate in reserves, so at around 1kg/kwh that is enough for around 150 billion kwh of storage, or enough for 6 billion or so Nissan Leaf cars.

        The South Koreans, however, are not leaving it at that, but are trying to get it from the sea under a Government sponsored program:
        http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/stock-alert/pkx_gov-t-posco-to-invest-30b-won-in-lithium-extracting-plant-751107.html
        Lithium is an abundant element in rocks, and so as they gradually weather into the sea, this effectively gives an infinite supply of lithium for any practical purpose.

        Picking up on the excellent comment about Traveling Wave Reactors, this is the technology favored and backed by Bill Gates, so they won't be short of the odd few billion to get it off the ground.
        Here is Bill talking about it, and solving the energy and carbon dioxide problems:
        http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html

        I must drop him a line, and see if he can spare a billion for my own favorite, the liquid fluoride thorium reactor!
      • 4 Years Ago
      Indentured servitude with an allowance? That describes the last 3 jobs I've had as well!
      • 4 Years Ago
      Actually, China pollutes far less than the USA and Australia per capita.

      Just thought i'd mention that, since it's relevant.
      Otherwise yeah, I don't like their government either. Especially since their labor laws allow for, basically, indentured servitude with an allowance.
      • 4 Years Ago
      You down wit' B.Y.D?
      • 4 Years Ago
      Well, in that case they are lying to the united nations about their CO2.
      Which would be odd, because they are working *far* harder to switch to 100% renewable energy than any other country out there. And that's not just a PR move; they are actually doing it ( and businesses are complaining about the increased cost ).

      Despite all the factories and such, their people live very simple, 'green' lives.. most people get around by means of electric transport or bicycles, for example. They also do not process or mine for their own oil. There are other examples i could drag up... but all of this this works to offset the factories.

      China's smog-cloud areas are mostly due to their extremely high urban density, which is about 4-8 times higher than the Los Angeles area, for example.

      http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html
      • 4 Years Ago
      I'm sure most of China bashing is basically a racist thing.

      BTW, whoever said something about China trying hard with renewables should note one thing. They open one coal power plant every week. Yes, every week.

      As to "Government A makes sensible rules and enforces the laws of that country." - I'd definitely like to live in such an utopia ;-)
      • 4 Years Ago
      Sorry for the error, Bolivia is were the lithium are. China have most of worlds resources of lanthanides for NiMH batteries.
        • 4 Years Ago
        You must distinguish between resources, where there are lots all over the place, and production, which is heavily concentrated in China:
        'That’s a big problem as rare earth metals, known scientifically as lanthanides are almost exclusively controlled by China. Could this stranglehold slow progress of these new vehicles and hasten China’s ascent to the world’s most dominant economy? These are concerns that Bryce has been voicing.

        Bryce describes,“95% and 100% of the world’s supply of this entire row of the periodic table [is controlled by China].”

        The biggest uses of lanthanides are in the battery pack and electric motor of hybrids and EVs. Bryce believes that lanthanide demand will outpace supply as early as 2013, slowing the industry’s growth and allowing China to raise its resource prices. He states, “There are no significant supplies (of lanthanides) that can come on stream in anything close to the time span the market need.”

        Currently, 100,000 tons (90,718 t) per year of lanthanides are manufactured and utilized. That figure is expected to soon rise. Bryce says, “Estimates are that within two-three years the market demand will be 120,000-130,000 tons (108,862-117,932 t) per year.”

        Worldwide there’s 99 million tons (89.8 million t) of rare earth metals, but it’s expensive and tricky to tap these reserves. It also takes time - up to 15 years. The U.S. currently has no working lanthanide mines, though it does have lanthanide resources. '

        http://insidetech.monster.com/news/articles/8355-chinas-stranglehold-on-rare-earth-metals-could-choke-ev-hybrids
      • 4 Years Ago
      @P54 Do you any anything to backup your "95% of world's supply of a key ingredient in lithium batteries comes from China" BS ?

        • 4 Years Ago
        He is confusing rare earths, things like neodymium, where the statement is true for production although not for resources, where there are plenty elsewhere, with lithium , where resources are concentrated in South America, although there are also reserves in, for instance, Burma, and China is offering to build out their share of a pan-Asian high speed rail network in return for supplies.
        Details of this staggering plan here:
        http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/03/china-considers-high-speed-rail-line.html

        Another point I would like to clarify is that there is no plan by China to go to 100% renewables.
        They are indeed planning so large an expansion wind that it calls into question the ability to fulfill the plans elsewhere in Europe and the US, as the rare earths used for the permanent magnets usually employed in turbines use around 0.7-1 ton of rare earths per MW of wind turbine, and present Chinese plans would use almost all of their production, which is currently around 95% of world production.
        Building new mines takes time.
        Other than residential solar thermal, where China leads the world, solar is a tiny part of planned output, and likely to stay that way as the Chinese have taken a look at costs and didn't like what they saw, so in particular solar pv is being cut back, although there are fairly large plans for solar thermal - but not large in the context of China.

        In fact, as usual the nominal build of wind is being confused by the media and greenloons with the actual average output, and the biggest non-fossil fuel contribution due to come on stream is nuclear.

        One of the reactors due to come on stream is the Pebble Bed Reactor, due in 2013, which is interesting in several ways.
        You don't need the huge containment vessel of a conventional reactor and they can be built in a modular way, with the parts deliverable by truck to the construction site or floated on barges.
        Present reactors only burn around 1% of the uranium - the PBR can use 19% according to work done at Argonne, and the theoretical limit is 65%:
        http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/11/idaho-national-lab-achieves-19-burn-for.html

        The other really nice thing about the PBR is that it is high temperature.
        This means that units could be slotted into existing coal plants, and use the present turbines and cooling system.
        This replaces carbon and pollution emitting coal at a very good price with clean, safe nuclear.

        Present Chinese coal production is around THREE times that of the US, using a far smaller resource base.
        Present rates of economic growth mean that China will have to at least double that, and perhaps triple it, by 2020.
        So it will be producing SIX to NINE times as much coal as the US, and burning through 5-7.5% of it's reserves every year to do so.
        Importing coal across the oceans on the scale needed to be much help is simply impractical.
        In my view then China will both have the means and the necessity to switch their coal plants to nuclear.
        In addition to this, they should be able in the decade 2020-30 to perform a truly gigantic build out of conventional nuclear power - but this post is already quite long enough!
        • 4 Years Ago
        daaaaaaamnn...
      • 4 Years Ago
      Oh and you complain about the Chinese being dishonest and not forthcoming? Yeah well....the Gulf Coast oil spill debacle is definitely shining light on the government and corporations here now isn't it.

      So honest they are.
    • Load More Comments