this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2026
712 points (97.0% liked)

Technology

79580 readers
3687 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Chinese technology companies are paving the way for a world that will be powered by electric motors rather than gas-guzzling engines. It is a decisively 21st-century approach not just to solve its own energy problems, but also to sell batteries and other electric products to everyone else. Canada is its newest buyer of EVs; in a rebuke of Mr. Trump, its prime minister, Mark Carney, lowered tariffs on the cars as part of a new trade deal.

Though Americans have been slow to embrace electric vehicles, Chinese households have learned to love them. In 2025, 54 percent of new cars sold in China were either battery-powered or plug-in hybrids. That is a big reason that the country’s oil consumption is on track to peak in 2027, according to forecasts from the International Energy Agency. And Chinese E.V makers are setting records — whether it’s BYD’s sales (besting Tesla by battery-powered vehicles sold for the first time last year) or Xiaomi’s speed (its cars are setting records at major racetracks like Nürburgring in Germany).

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 139 points 1 week ago (4 children)

It's like he wakes up every morning and asks himself "What can I do to make sure China owns the 21st century?"

[–] Mantzy81@aussie.zone 84 points 1 week ago (14 children)

Thats because he's stuck in the 80s. It's common for people with dementia to fall back to a time they thought was good and for him, it was the 80s when oil was king.

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Frankly you're giving him too much credit. If oil is really still king it won't need his help. He might be able to claim he was just being fair if he had only removed subsidies, but he was and still is actively sabotaging adoption of electric vehicles, like by terminating the USPS contract to buy all those electric mail trucks or removing already installed EV chargers at federal sites.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 13 points 1 week ago

This is one of those situations where the venn diagram of Trump's handlers becomes a circle.

You have the billionaire Oil executives that want to continue using all their existing infrastructure and wasy access to continue printing money like they do now. Meanwhile, those companies all see the writing on the wall and know it's running out so they're investing in or buying technologies and companies working on alternatives. They're playing both sides because they're not idiots.

And then you have the manipulators like Putin (who we know Trump idolizes) with their goals of destroying American power across the board. Having America not only abandon new technologies but even propping up the old ones past when they should be phased out to focus on century-old priorities while the rest of the world continues to move on, helps that overall goal.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 88 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Coal Brittain -> Petro Murica -> Electro China.

It's funny how China said years ago that was the plan and they're doing it while nobody stopped them because of short term greed.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago (2 children)

nobody stopped them

What would "stopping them" have even looked like?

[–] Tikiporch@lemmy.world 69 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Competing. No one really even tried.

[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 18 points 1 week ago

Yeah, it means giving up the current cash cow and they'll only do that when it's visibly dying. And then the competition has too much of a headed start so it's already to late.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Europe just did a 180 on the commitment for no ICE cars to be sold from 2035 onwards under pressure of just a handful of big automakers.

And when I say Europe, I actually mean crooked European politicians rather than the public in general.

I mean, even if one puts the aside the whole strategical point of Europe delaying even more commiting to the first big tech revolution of the 21st century so that a handful of large automakers make a little bit more profit, there are actually lives as stake: fumes for diesel cars are estimated to kill more than 10,000 people a year in Europe.

Corruption in politics is both killing people and fucking up our future prosperity.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Facing reality and evaluating technologies through the crucial era of the 2010s with an eye on efficiency and pollutant reduction in the overall energy sector. From there, having the empirical justifications to your nation that focusing on energy storage and further electrification would be more beneficial than fossil fuels.

Rather than doubling down on the existing status quo due to lobbying and sunk cost beliefs from prior consumption rates.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] melfie@lemy.lol 87 points 1 week ago (19 children)

I’d sooner buy a Chinese EV than a Tesla, but the orange gameshow host running my country says I can’t.

[–] 3abas@lemmy.world 46 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Because Biden said you could? He's the one that doubled tariffs on Chinese EVs from 50% to 100%. Biden also gave the EV tax credit which was essentially a subsidy to Tesla, which Trump ended.

Note that I'm not defending Trump, but simply noting that the US was heading in his direction. He's a symptom of advanced disease, but you don't get to blame him all the shitty things all US presidents ever did. He's a raging tumor, but the cancer was spreading already.

[–] mirshafie@europe.pub 23 points 1 week ago (2 children)

You're absolutely right. Trump is a lightning rod for rage, but most of what the US is doing is bipartisan. It's a huge problem that so many people harbor false hope for the controlled opposition.

[–] 3abas@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (7 children)

People downvoting facts simply because they contradict their own stated position tells so much. They want cheap Chinese EVs but can't accept that what they defended as protecting American companies (Biden's tariffs) and making EVs more affordable for Americans (Biden's EV tax credit) are the reasons they can't have cheap Chinese EVs.

Instead of reflecting on the progranda they've been consuming, they downvote and move on to repeat the same nonsense later. I'm relieved they didn't call me a tankie Russian bot this time for suggesting Biden wasn't an angel.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lobut@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That is a very fair statement.

Agreed. Not sure what those downvotes are for. I saw this coming 20 years ago. Especially with lobbying as out of control as it has been. If Trump dropped dead now, we'd still have a catastrophe.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 week ago

Biden increased tariffs...AND invested heavily in battery plants in the US. Trump killed that. Biden's tariffs were because the Chinese government is dumping in the US to undermine the car industry.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Because Biden said you could? He’s the one that doubled tariffs on Chinese EVs from 50% to 100%. Biden also gave the EV tax credit which was essentially a subsidy to Tesla, which Trump ended.

I don't fault Biden for adding a tariff on Chinese EVs to temporarily protect the American auto manufacturing envornment. We just have too many jobs tied to the domestic production of cars. The immediate loss of those jobs would plunge the USA into deep recession. It looked like this was working too with many American companies adapting and coming out with EVs.

However, most of those American EVs have been scaled back or canceled. Further, with the exception of the Chevy Bolt no domestic maker produced an affordable EV. Since American companies decided they don't want to play in EVs anymore, I fully support removing the tariff and letting Chinese EVs into the USA. It looks like that will be the only thing that will force American car companies to compete. This situation closely mirrors the 1970s where Japan introduced small, reliable, fuel efficent cars, and affordable cars at a time when gasoline was crazy expensive.

It looks like this time around it will be the Chinese that teach the American auto market to adapt instead.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I can hold out on not buying a new car a hell of a lot longer than the American economy can survive under a tariff regime.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mirshafie@europe.pub 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I want a fucking Huawei P70. The 10x camera on that thing can practically take stabilized macro photos from a 5 m distance. But Ursula says Orange Man will spank her if she allows competition to Apple and Google.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 49 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Yes, China has very purposefully put itself at the forefront of the first technological revolution of the 21st century and done this at multiple levels (solar panel production, battery tech, EVs)

Meanwhile the American elites have decided that 19th century technology is were they want to be. Well, that and dead ending killing the country's lead in the Tech revolution by going down a branch with no future in the form of LLMs and making everybody lose trust in keeping their data in anything owned by American companies.

And, of course, the crooked politicians here in Europe are actually following America more than China in this.

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago (6 children)

It is a lot more complex than "Europe is actually following America more than China in this".

Europe have very limited lithium deposits compared to China. Europe is trying to be as self sustaining as possible, especially now that the US have shown themselves to be a highly unreliable partner.

So exchanging one dependency for another is a poor lateral move at best.

You can't just start digging up the entire ground and make car batteries out of all lithium you find.

European universities all over are researching alternative battery technology that doesn't rely as much on lithium.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 22 points 1 week ago (4 children)

None of that is true. There is lithium everywhere, Germany just found 45 million tonnes of it. People have been digging up the entire ground for oil for 200 years.

You can research all you want, but the periodic table is not changing, and Chinese R&D is decades ahead of the West.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 39 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Beyond EVs, the much cheaper sodium-ion battery is entering mass production in China. We can already buy B-grade cells on AliExpress. This will have implications for all sorts of use cases that could use batteries but don't due to cost.

[–] Rekall_Incorporated@piefed.social 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

much cheaper sodium-ion battery

To my understanding, these aren't suitable for many use cases we associate with batteries (smartphones, EVs, laptops), but it has the potential to have a massive impact on utility scale battery systems and industrial use cases.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Yeah, conservatives don't think of the future except through the lens of the present. They can't imagine a world with EVs and batteries because they have oil brains. They are looking for solutions to problems with an oil first mindset. Sunk cost is everything.

[–] traxex@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 week ago

Need to remember where they are getting paid from as well. That’s oil money lining their pockets.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] fennesz12@feddit.dk 30 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Our Danish company Ørsted which produces wind power, has been in a huge legal dispute with the American administration for months over this. He wants oil, even if wind is cheaper:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jan/02/rsted-files-legal-challenge-against-us-government-over-windfarm-lease-freeze

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago (1 children)

He wants oil even if the wind is cheaper, the wind farm is almost finished and already producing power

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah because it's not so much "he wants" as "oil and gas corporations are paying him for".

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rekall_Incorporated@piefed.social 27 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I wonder if the prediction that China will hit peak oil in 2027 will come true. This will have a massive impact on oil markets.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] myfunnyaccountname@lemmy.zip 23 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Oil is the longest word he can spell without spellcheck.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 21 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Oil companies will probably go the way of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, going broke. They’re continuing to invest heavily in oil infrastructure at a time when the market is shifting and even now there is a flattening of demand for oil products where EVs are becoming prevalent. The trend will start to hit profitability and they will most likely double down.

[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

go the way of the Encyclopaedia Britannica,

Still quoted by facists who pretend it's a better source than Wikipedia?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 week ago (13 children)

I don't know if he's obsessed by oil. So far when a president invaded a country because of it's oil, it always went with a cover story to justify it. Now the (cover) story provided by Trump is oil, so it may be possible it was all just to get the Nobel prize. As trinkets are all he cares about. Now it looks like he wants what I want when playing hearts of iron: make all the continent mine.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] lechekaflan@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago
[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 week ago (3 children)

EVs alone have major grid balancing potential. You can get home batteries for under $100/kwh in US right now, and cost of EV batteries have always been lower due to bulk/contract purchases. At $100/kwh, even from grid TOU use power, you can time shift profitably for just 1c/kwh before financing costs, but before resilience/backup benefits from batteries.

Solar is by far the cheapest way to charge those batteries, where home solar without monopoly persecution from utilities, as in Australia, can be extra affordable. But even before abundant solar is permitted in our countries, or even net metering, simply having TOU rates that are cheap at night allows for enough arbitrage for when TOU rates are high. Where some EVs are $300/kwh to $500/kwh for the entire car, TOU rates can allow for arbitrage that pays for whole car.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›