17.5bn for 10 large reactors? Construction for a large US reactor is of the order of $10 to $20bn. Operation is gonna be 100 to 300m a year. Decomissioning is another $2bn.

So this loan will cover the build costs for one or maybe two of these. And will the cost of capital be materially lower than what’s on the markets? If not, why bother? And if so, let’s all bear in mind that’s a straightforward taxpayer subsidy for the industry.

I'd be interested to understand your point, but it was too garbled to follow

"The Right isn't hostile to Democracy"

Hahahaha.

I didn't miss your penultimate sentence. I reject the absurdity of arguing both-sidesism when one side are fascists who are self-evidently doing incomparably worse shit. It's ridiculous and absurd. There is no left-wing cooperative movement that owns a big media house, there are just right-wing billionaires that own TikTok, X, CBS, Fox, etc etc.

Both-sidesism isn't merely an intellectual failure at this point. It's a wilful refusal to acknowledge the disproportionate nature of the threat to the US, and thus my starting point is that it is more likely done out of malice than incompetence.

This is just mad weird bullshit. Here's a list of the production scale advances that BYD alone has brought to market in the past 24 months. Not a single one of these is present in GM's own autos, or originates in GM engineering. If you think that's untrue, be specific and say which does. CTB? Nope, it has Ultium which is not CTB. 12-in-1 integrated electric drive? Nothing even close to it. 30,000 rpm electric motor? You've gotta be kidding me, GM are on 10 to 15k rpm. 1,000V architecture? No, Ultium is this hybrid 400/800V system. Flash charging? Don't be silly, they're at 350kW, not 1000 or 1500. Etc

                May 2023 — Cell-to-Body (CTB) architecture enters wider production rollout.
* 2023–2024 — 8-in-1 integrated electric drive system deployed across more models.
* May 2024 — e-Platform 3.0 Evo launched.
* May 2024 — 12-in-1 integrated electric drive introduced.
* May 2024 — 23,000 rpm mass-production electric motor introduced.
* May 2024 — Enhanced structural Cell-to-Body (CTB) battery architecture.
* May 2024 — Wider rollout of 800 V electrical architecture.
* May 2024 — DM 5.0 plug-in hybrid powertrain launched.
* March 2025 — Super e-Platform unveiled and enters production.
* March 2025 — 1,000 V production electrical architecture introduced.
* March 2025 — Flash Charging Battery (10C, 1,000 A) introduced.
* March 2025 — 30,000 rpm mass-production electric motor introduced.
* March 2025 — New-generation automotive silicon carbide (SiC) power electronics introduced.
* April 2025 — First production vehicles (Han L and Tang L) delivered on the Super e-Platform.

These things I have listed are absolutely rapid tech advancements in new drivetrains etc, which was the point I originally made.

You're the guy harboring delusions here, bucko

Because of the velocity of its innovation engine. It pumps out new gen tech at an insane rate.

Oh c'mon, you know as well as I do that the EVs that BYD builds use its batteries. The R&D BYD does on batteries is obviously relevant to its cars, whether or not the batteries have other revenue streams! Most of BYD's 110k R&D engineers are involved in work that directly benefits its EVs. It's more than just a car company, but it's clearly a car-focused company, and it's not like 50% of those 110k engineers are doing work that has no benefit or relevance to the cars it builds.

It makes as much sense as a way of operating as cutting off body parts and seeing if you can live without them.

Yeah, exactly. Let's see what survives into a Burnham-led administration

You have completely misunderstood. This isn’t about having resident engineers onsite in a narrow sense, it’s about suppliers doing joint subsystem development onsite: dozens of suppliers participating simultaneously; engineering, purchasing and manufacturing making decisions together; design changes agreed in hours or days; suppliers located within the same industrial cluster; manufacturing engineers involved from the earliest design stages. This is nothing like what GM or other US OEMs have ever done.

It’s blindingly obvious that GM has never innovated at the same speed as the Chinese OEMs and still doesn’t today, because it has its tech has patently not advanced at the same speed.

Did you actually understand that the practice I mentioned, of colocating R&D engineers onsite during development, was an innovation practice that Chinese OEMs do and that GM does not do, and has never done? Because it sure reads like you didn’t understand this and thought it was some point about innovation at GM being stifled by being outsourced.

And you made a broad claim, not a narrow claim, about Chinese OEM innovation: “it's [sic] "innovation" is largely based on General Motors and other foreign research they got their hands on through partnerships that required technology transfers.”

Which was a stupid and obviously wrong claim.

Stop digging yourself a bigger hole.

” the range of stakeholders that have informed us they rely on data”

I know they lie a lot, but I know they’re also astonishingly incompetent, and on this one, I think it may actually be them speaking the truth, ie they are so fucking stupid they didn’t consider the possibility that the data was used by lots of people and organisations.

Once again, pricing below cost in your home market is not dumping. Dumping is about international trade, and it is defined as selling exports below the price you charge in your home market. There’s not a market in the world where Chinese OEMs are doing that. No overseas consumer is getting their hands on, say, a BYD Seal for 25k USD, which is what it costs in China. In the UK, it starts at £46k, for example. In Australia you can get it for about 33k USD equivalent, and that’s about as cheap as it comes overseas. This is not dumping.

You know that dumping has a specific economic meaning, correct? And that it doesn’t fit this situation at all?

Dumping is selling the goods for below the price at which they are available in the *exporting* country. Not the *importing* country.
Here’s an example of this being defined in legislation.
https://www.gov.uk/government/...

Here’s how this plays out. Take a car like the Zeekr X. The base model is available in the Netherlands for 34,990 euros. https://shop.zeekr.eu/en-NL/co...

For this to be dumping, the Zeekr X would have to cost less than 35k euros in China. And is that the case? Why no, it is not. The Zeekr X sells starting at 21k USD, ie 18k euros. In case the maths is troubling you, that’s about *half* the price of the overseas price.
https://carnewschina.com/2024/...

So no, Chinese OEMs aren’t engaged in dumping, not even close.

Plus, this article was about the prices *in the Chinese market*!! And here you are talking about export pricing. Sheesh.