Brilliant! This is one of those things that when you see it, it seems so obvious that you wonder how nobody thought of it until now. But it takes someone like Randall to pluck it out of the space of unexplored ideas and present it perfectly.
Not really. Its trees from a time before micro organisms evolved the ability to eat dead trees. These days, the solar energy collected by trees will get used to power the metabolisms of fungi before those trees can get buried and eventually become new coal & petroleum.
I suppose an impact from a sufficiently large asteroid could turn the entire crust of the planet into magma, sterilizing it and therefore opening the possibility that new oil might be created some day.
I think I read somewhere that oil will not be produced anymore because now bacteria can break down that biomass that it previously didn't. Hence, non-renewable even on long timescales.
If you're making your diesel from CO2 pulled from the air, pollution aspects don't really apply (at least, CO2 emission issues don't, there's still NOx, but that's what cat piss is for).
Problem is, converting atmospheric CO2 back into fuel makes the efficiency issue drastically worse. Maybe with enough solar panels and windmills, and use the Fischer–Tropsch process with the excess energy that the grid isn't consuming.
Of course, that would be for mobile fuel, if solar plants were going to do anything like that for later use generating electricity during peaks, making diesel is dumb; you'd want to use hydrogen or ammonia for in-place energy storage.
Ah. I'm generally skeptical of any plant-based 'green fuel' because they generally take up agricultural capacity that would otherwise be producing food
Energy density is a huge advantage which most people find hard to give up especially when the biggest problem that we face is invisible to most people. We can't fix a problem if we ignore the cause.
oops you posted irrelevant pedantics that verge on misinformation 😧
sure it’s distilled solar energy that cannot be renewed. relevant language highligted. no one “forgets,” this. literally no one. it’s just not relevant to a timespan less than millions of years. cheers! ☀️
Biofuels are carbon-neutral. They release CO2 when burned, but it doesn't matter because that same CO2 had recently been sucked out of the atmosphere by the plant they came from.
While U.S. biofuel use rose from 0.37 to 1.34 EJ/yr over this period, additional carbon uptake on cropland was enough to offset only 37 % of the biofuel-related biogenic CO2emissions. This result falsifies the assumption of a full offset made by LCA and other GHG accounting methods that assume biofuel carbon neutrality. Once estimates from the literature for process emissions and displacement effects including land-use change are considered, the conclusion is that U.S. biofuel use to date is associated with a net increase rather than a net decrease in CO2emissions. study
Not passing judgement on anything, just putting the facts out there that I happen to know :) Biofuel may or may not be a good tool to move toward more sustainability, and it’s certainly better than petrol.
My biofuel of choice is biodiesel produced from byproducts of chicken rendering that would otherwise become waste/pollution anyway. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The way I see it, we should electrify all the things that can be (urban driving, both freight and passenger trains, etc.), maximize the use of those things (e.g. by shifting long-haul freight away from trucking and back towards rail, and shifting airline travel to high-speed rail), and then use biofuels for the relatively-niche stuff that's left instead of spending excessive effort trying to get electric to cover 100% of cases.
Um piss off. It is not irrelevant or misinformation. That is exactly what petroleum is.
You clearly can't understand a factual statement from an opinion I never said it was good I never said it was bad I just said it was. If you'd bother to take a moment to think about it. You would realize that I was referring to the fact that petroleum is extremely energy dense. For the very reason I stated. That is fundamentally why petroleum has become a successful energy source and why it's been so difficult to replace.
You're welcome to point out where I said it was renewable. I think you're going to have a difficult time finding that statement.
As for being a pedantic ass that's clearly your territory. A pedantic ass that it likes to put words in other people's mouths.
Your post was bordering on irrelevant to the original comment. In light of that the information you provided can really only be interpreted is as pro-fossil fuel.
Exactly this. Imagine if gas powered motor could recharge in mere 12 hours and run for up to half the distance. Ah, that would be the dream.
And if you and 5 of your neighbors decide to refuel at the same time during peak hours you have a real chance of overloading your neighborhood grid. And your fuel tank is dead in 5 years, replacing which is more than half of your used cars cost.
Everything non-portable uses electric motors from the time the first wire was invented.
I can. Electric car batteries last 10+ years, often longer than the body work of the car. Lookup Lithium Iron Phosphate, this has around 5-10x the cycle life of conventional lithium batteries. Combine this with the complex heating and cooling systems, battery and charging management in modern EVs and you have something that lasts as long or longer than even a diesel engine.
Cell phone batteries die quickly because both their construction and the way they are managed favour capacity, cost, and charging speed over longevity. Car battery design is much more focused on longevity by comparison. They are also cycled more often and more completely than most EVs.
Grid issues are a real problem. Cars can be used to make this worse or better depending on how they are deployed. If they are charged during peak energy production from solar they can actually help rather than hurt the grid.
You can also rapid charge a car in like 30 minutes. You don't need 12 hours.
I suspect people just assumed you were the same person who wrote the sarcastic comment before the one you replied to and that you were just being combative
My up! can get about 260 miles out of its 30ish liter tank. That is about 1/3rd more than a new leaf. Hardly half the distance.
The electric grid will be fine. This is not the first time it's expanded because of new technological demand. And I've never heard of 5 EVs overloading the grid.
And if the person above could read they'd see that all of these are battery problems, something the original comment said we should have put our focus improving on long ago.
Edit: I'll just add that I love my ICE cars as much as the next petrol head, but the future is electric cars for at least daily driving. We've pretty much perfected combustion engines at this point. F1 engines sit around 50% thermal efficiency, and we're not gonna get any meaningful amount above that (but I will be happy if it turns out I'll have to eat my hat in the future). I just hope petrol engines don't become banned in the future for the enthusiasts.
No, you see, that's not how it works. The battery needs to be filled to 100%, just like a gas tank. And you should only ever charge once you're under 10-20%, just like a gas tank (it's silly to top up every day, that's just a waste of time). We must be able to exactly replicate the current paradigm for people to be able to adjust.
I drive about 150 miles a week and get gas every couple of weeks. It takes 5 minutes. If I have to go to a charger I'll be there for hours. It's absurd.
When you look at fueleconomy.gov you will see that the furthest a compact ev can go is 149 miles while the furthest a ice compact car can go is 594 miles
According to motor trend DC charging is the fastest way to charge your EV and it still takes just under two hours
Couldn't find a source that studied how long a ice takes to recharge but considering how ices are currently extremely common you can easily test that yourself and probably already know it's so quick you don't even think about it
According to car and driver those lithium ion batteries you mentioned while yes they can last a decade most cars typically stay on the road for give or take 30-35 years and lithium ion batteries are inherently expensive and prone to thermal cascading ie catching fire also full charge and depletion wears the battery down over time
You have all kinds of nonsense in your post. Like you limit it to just compact cars for no reason. When you don't limit it to just compact cars then you get EVs with 516 mile range
There are use cases for battery trains. In remote, mountainous locations where the cost for electrifying a track is very high it is not uncommon to use electric trains with batteries. Here in Germany we have several regions where diesel trains have been replaced by them.
Not really. Battery tech has always been advancing. Even today electric vehicles have barely come up with anything new, battery wise. Everyone wants something better than lithium base. No one can get anything to market.
It advanced at a glacier pace because there was no massive driving force. It only kicked off a bit with cell phones and then in any substantial way with laptops. (Yes, batteries existed before that for different things, but there was no massive driving force.) Now imagine what would have happened if we funded it starting in the 1970s.
Yes, but no one's even glancing at it for use in vehicles. The one that's finally getting into production is 70wh/Kg. Not nearly energy dense enough yet for ev's. Lithium batteries are closer to 300wh/Kg. In other words, they take up 1/4th the space and weight. EV's are already a thousand pounds heavier than non ev's and that's already causing extra tire pollution issues and having to overbuild suspension parts and bearings. Making them another 3,000 pounds heavier than that is just out of the question. Let alone making the space to fit the battery.
Sodium is going to change the world with its power storage capabilities connected to solar.
Anyone on like 75% of the planet could 100% live off the electric grid problem free with enough solar panels and a big sodium storage battery.
Yep. A size of vehicle wise comparison would be that a tesla model s sedan weighs around 4,600 pounds. A toyota Corolla weighs around 1,600 pounds less at around 3,000 pounds.
Even the newest and most powerful mass produced American made car ever, the "C8 Corvette Z06" with its big V8 gas engine with 670 horsepower weighs in at around 3,650 pounds.
Oil is honestly an amazing product, chemistry wise there is so much we can do with it and energy wise it's a extremely concentrated and easily transported form of energy.
Energy wise one liter of oil is equivalent to 10 person working for a day !
I repeat, using one liter of oil is like having 10 "slaves" working for us for a day.
Its easy to see why oil became the base of our modern civilization, and easy to see why we don't manage to stop using it even though it's destroying us.
pretty sure most trains are powered by either overhead wires or third rails? considering that urban rail systems are always electrified and those have A LOT of trains.
The point is about utilization of electric motors, if it happens anywhere on earth it's possible. You're trying to insinuate that it isn't true. And it is. Being American has nothing to do with you dunce
Uh, maintenance is one thing where ICE wins (until very recently, thanks fucktards in car industry). Cars have been generally very easy to work on, with anyone with a toolbox being able to do most their repairs in a shed
This isn't a function of the engine though right? Electric engines are inherently simpler and should therefore be easier to maintain (putting aside company fuckery)
High voltage is scary as fuck, but also the fact that absolutely everything from doors to gas pedal and chairs are controlled by a computer you need specialized proprietary equipment to investigate.
This is an issue with new ice cars too to be honest
EVs have a High voltage disconnect. I repaired my EV(inverter) with normal hand tools in my garage. I did have to buy a license and tool for flashing the firmware, but this is a problem in nearly every new vehicle, gas or electric.
That's a user-hostile feature, not a property of electric engines. An electric car has far simpler mechanical parts, and the circuitry isn't very complicated either. It could be made incredibly easy to repair, modify, and upgrade, mostly at home even, if they designed them that way
I'm big into motorcycles and all the electric motorcycles are like 100 lbs more and go through tires like twice a year compared to my gas powered motorcycle changing tires once everyother year and can go fraction of the distance. Idk I want to think electric is the future but with these limits I'm still not too interested. If hydrogen ever comes to motorcycles like Kawasaki, Honda, Yamaha and Suzuki want, I'll definitely get one of those but I can't recommend any electric motorcycles right now and before you say anything I would recommend a Surron if you check your welds before you buy those are great commuters but probably not a motorcycle.
Sorry for not being clear, I change tires on my gas powered commuter motorcycle about once every two years. Electric motorcycles seem to go through tires much faster it was explained to me that the bikes are heavier and most tires aren't designed for electric motorcycles.
that just sounds like too much throttle because you're not familiar with the extra torque from take off.
nothing to do with a little extra weight.
my last two bikes were over 1L, with a curb weight of something like 280kg, maybe. 45kg extra in batteries is like a child or a big dog. it's not much.
The torque off the start is so much higher in EVs vs. ICE. I'm not sure from u/blindbunny 's post if they've ridden an EV motorcyle. I'm pretty sure they haven't owned one. They sound like an ICE shill. My bicycle's torque off the start is pretty low, and dependent on this old school "neuro-musculo-skeletal" system. It's kinda jankety, but I'm too cheap to upgrade.
I wish I was a shill I'd probably have more money to buy more motorcycles. I've rode a Surron bee? and a Stark VARG and I kinda like how quite they are especially dual sporting. But it takes almost half a day to charge the Stark VARG and the longest I've rode a Surron was about ~20 miles before it needed to charge.
Many motorcycles (not bicycles, those are irrelevant to the comparison) already have more torque off the line than the available traction can handle, so that benefit from electric motors is less critical. The wear is a concern because motorcycles are already more sensitive to tire wear than cars, and simply switching to a harder compound to account for the extra weight has other ramifications that are far less severe in electric cars.
Fair. I've been comparing ICE vs EV cars wrt tire wear. And some folks, depending on driving style, find that the tires wear faster on EVs. Slow off the line should moderate that.
Yeah, a general "electric vs. gas" comparison which elides the two big disadvantages of electric in familiar applications (which aren't to be found in the motor) seems slightly subpar for xkcd. It's valid from a certain narrow engineering perspective but not too helpful if what you're thinking about is motorcycles.
If fossil fuels were so easy to give up we'd have done it by now.
Mr. Monkey subjectively your finely tuned v8 sounds like a 400lb basement dwelling gorilla someone has fed laxatives and recorded from the bottom of a well used coachella porta potty.
I dunno, I’m “team electric is objectively better in every way” but I gotta agree, a fancy tuned racecar engine sounds like angry beast and that’s pretty sexy.
The jolt of max acceleration of an electric motor in complete silence is also extremely sexy, though.
Think of the nicest sound you know. A well-tuned instrument performing a delicate melody, a passionate singer performing their heart out, a cacophony of songbirds. That's what my good noises sound like when done right.
Obviously nobody wants to hear a fart can Honda Civic at 4am, but a fantastically engineered Italian V10 has its own melody that can't really be replicated otherwise. These examples will be missed, and the survivors will be sought after like a vintage violin.
It's incredible how certain people are conditioned to think the sound of a gas motor and shifting because your puny motor is out of optimal torque and rpm range are manly.
Yeh, but unless I uproot my life and move to a different country, I'm stuck doing it, so I can either bitch and moan about how much I hate it, or have the best time I can doing it 🤷🏾♂️
For sure, I used to drive stick when I drove, but I also argued for town planning that would make driving optional. Personal choices to deal with the reality you're given, public policy activism for the reality you want.
I don't see how making noise is good. I live in a street that doesn't get much traffic, but even one car is loud enough to be bothering.
I don't want to pause my music and conversations just because someone decided that vroom vroom sounds were more important than me hearing literally anything else.
Even more that noise pollution is definitely a thing, and affect both mental health and physical one.
Vehicles making noise actually is good, for pedestrians' sake, but yeah ICE vehicles make far more than they need to. Some (? many? I'm not sure how standard it is) electric vehicles make a sort of beeping sound for that reason.
If you're in an area where pedestrians may be crossing the road, traffic should be slow enough to use permeable brick pavers, which increase road noise, help with rainwater drainage, and add a little green to the road if find right.
I dunno, maybe take their conservative advice and violently overthrow your government?
Real talk, you'll have a hell of a time arguing for the upgrades, but even so, I only suggest switching to bricks when the road needs to be resurfaced anyway. The road works well enough as-is, this is just an improvement.
The majority of sound for cars are not the motor but the wheels compressing air, after I think 50kph, the sound of an ev or a ic is basically the same.
Well, in a neighborhood, cars won't always be driving 50 km/h. And the engine will be especially loud, when they need to accelerate after a turn or whatever.
Either way, I do hear the difference when an electric car goes by.
From personal experience, you also need a garage to keep an electric car in if you're in an extreme cold climate, those batteries can fail if in the deep cold for long enough and those car companies do NOT have the replacement parts in stock to fix it quickly.
I live in an area with the exact opposite issue (my battery MELTED) so I'm probably wrong, but isn't that what the battery blankets they try to sell you on when you buy an EV is for?
I live in Canada and own a Bolt. Its a pretty unremarkable EV from a tech standpoint. It keeps the batteries at the right temp by heating and cooling them. It really doesnt require any extra effort or special equipment.
The one thing stopping me is seeing how they fare long term with the overwhelming amount of electronics added to the cars.
Hopefully car manufacturers goes a different direction as electronic and appliances company went. Everyone I know that are into EVs went through 2 or 3 different one in the time I've owned my ICE car (~10 years). Most because of their lease ending and wanting the absolute newest but others due to battery issues making the car a total loss due to replacement cost.
I’m not optimistic about this. The finance “geniuses” have seen how much money software and electronics companies are making from subscription models and trying to put them into even combustion powered cars. I think it’s BMW that’s already started trying to put heated seats on a subscription model. The equipment’s already in the car but it’s disabled unless you pay them a monthly fee.
I'm hoping that as EVs become more common, conversion kits become a thing. Both straight-electric and PHEV; I would love to pull the oversized engine from my truck (it's a 4.0 in a Ranger, wtf, it doesn't need that kind of power) and replace it with a diesel-electric motor-battery-generator combo. With a half decent battery, I would be running on electric 95% of the time; for the other 5% (which is camping on rough trails, no I'm not renting a truck for it), there'd be the diesel generator backup
While my sentence could be worded more clearly, that's a pretty bad reading of what I said.
My car is valued by KBB at ~6k in it's current state.
That current state includes a battery that was replaced under warranty 6 months ago, and is thus basically a brand-new battery, 9 years left on its warranty and everything.
So if something goes wrong with the battery and it isn't directly your fault: it gets replaced for free. The only 6k being spent is the original 6k on the car as a whole
We have a food delivery company in town, and they use electric cars. I got to talk to the owners a few years back, and they were paying around that price. So I suspect it's getting close to fitting your needs. How far do you drive each day, on average?
It all depends on where you live, of course, and how far you are willing to look for that car. And you might want to poke around on Edmunds.com, if only to satisfy your curiosity. Like others have said, and I would agree, it's getting close to your criteria - 90+ miles, $6K for a used. I suspect that there will be a whole lot more used EVs on the market over the next 5 years. All the 'cool kids' want to buy the latest, bleeding edge tech. And watching and waiting to get that tech seems like a prudent and viable option. The other thing the guy with the delivery biz said was that he was getting his cars from CA, because he could find them used, cheap, relatively good condition. Anyway, best to ya. I'm out.
Electric motors are a lot more efficient, and battery technology is quickly approaching the place where you can get the same range with an electric motor as with an ICE.
As for refuel rate, I spend no time waiting for my car to charge because it charges at home while I'm sleeping, so the refuel rate doesn't matter.
Plus the technology to battery swap is well in use for electric vehicles (see Nio, who have thousands of battery swap stations in China and some in Europe too). 3 mins and you have a full battery.
It matters to people who drive more during the day than their range allows. They don't want to wait 20 minutes for the car to charge every time they venture 300km out and back /s
Quick Google says a great majority of Americans take road trips. Even though it's a tiny fraction of their driving, it's still a deciding factor for many when choosing a car. Not all people have the luxury of affording a second car just for road trips.
Public transportation would be good, but there's less flexibility to it. For example, just yesterday, on a return from a roadtrip, I got stomach sick and had to request frequent stops. That wouldn't fly on a train.
I'd love it if we had affordable and flexible public transport for getting all across the country, though.
Yeah, but road trips can be expensive. Suppose you want to go from Harrisburg PA to Rockford IL with 2 adults and 1 teenager from November 15 to 22.
By car that's about 1500 miles. An average car gets 21 mpg, so that's about 71 gallons. Gas is around $3.5 per gallon, so the trip costs about $250 in gas. You'll need a hotel. I picked a random one in Ohio. $110 for the way up, $185 for the way back. I guess that's a Thanksgiving price hike. $545 total.
By train, let's say Amtrak because that came up first. $438 up, and that includes boarding a train at midnight and sleeping on the train, and then riding a bus from Chicago to Rockford for 2 hours. $483 back down, and this time when you sleep on the train you have to wake up by 5 AM to get off. Also this is coach class, and those seats aren't great for sleeping. At least you don't need a hotel. $921 total.
By plane, it's $650 round trip, simple as, but you have to leave at 6 AM on the way up and 5 AM on the way back. It can cost $200 more to get a more convenient time, but let's assume you're going for economy alone. $650 total.
That's not accounting for food prices along the way. That could bring the car ride up to the same price as the plane if you don't pack food, but if you're spending extra on convenience there, you're probably willing to spend extra for convenience on the plane too.
So it's probably safe to say that, for this group, the car saves about $100 per year, but helping to protect the environment is worth that price. On the other hand, there's something to be said for the flexibility and ease of planning on a car. For a bigger family, cars would be a way better option, and for a family without kids or a lone traveler, planes are the way better option. Trains are right out.
I'd also add time to the comparison. Time isn't free, and if you spend 2 solid days driving, you might reconsider flying and renting a car at the destination even if it's more expensive. If you use an ev and have to take a few stops extra that might tip the scale.
Unless you're taking road trips literally every other week you could just rent a gas vehicle when it's time for a road trip. Rather than make the decision of the car you're going to drive every single day based on something you only do maybe once a year.
It's why I don't own a pickup truck, I actually do haul cars, help people move and all that shit that people say is why they need a pickup truck but I just go to fucking U-Haul and rent either the Sprinter van or the pickup truck for 30 bucks plus mileage when I need one. And I do actually keep track of my financial records with a double Ledger Finance app I just went and looked and I'm still nowhere near the cost of a used pickup truck from all of that renting
The people providing the charging infrastructure here haven't figured out this important point yet. Gas stations are a terrible place to put chargers, no one wants to stop at a gas station for fifteen minutes to an hour at a time. Charging stations need to be in places people will be stopping anyway, or at the very least places that provide something to do while waiting. Restaurants, shopping centres, tourist traps, whatever.
Here it's exacerbated by the fact that the fastest chargers we have only deliver about 60kW. Not even close to the 200+ some EVs need to get the fast charging times they advertise. But that 60kW would be perfectly fine if I could spend the time in a restaurant instead of standing around at a gas bar in the middle of nowhere.
Hell, even cheap (or free) "level 2" chargers outside restaurants and shopping malls would be a huge help.
As it should be, and I agree that those crazy fast 200+ kW chargers are rarely necessary.
It's kind of a weird reaction to consumer hesitation and people complaining that they don't want to wait for charge times as compared to the time it takes to fill a tank. Making charging as fast as possible to address the complaint (while still being one or two orders of magnitude slower at best), because that's easier than getting people to change their driving habits, or making them realise that they're always going to start the day with a full charge at home.
Even if all you have is relatively paltry north american 110V at home you need to drive way more than average per day for that not to keep up.
I’m so glad here in Germany they do that more often now. We have a quite a few large charging parks next to restaurants and bakeries. I just made a 9 hour trip to Denmark and it was a pretty nice experience overall. Only downside is you have to plan ahead if you want this convenience because the majority is still spots with 1-2 occupied chargers at some ugly, smelly Autobahn rest area.
Although own an electric car, I believe range is still an issue. I was specifically addressing fuel density and charging time. EVs have their issues, but I believe they will be solved over time even though they are unlikely to beat an ICE in fuel density or charge rate for a long time. But I don't think those things are actually important, because the problem is solved in a different way.
Because it's currently easier to find a gas station than a charger that will do that performance. Now I'm willing to wait 8 hrs for 10%, but others certainly aren't.
I don't have enough charge for my trip. I'm also thirsty.
I go to a grocery store with a fast charger.
I buy a drink.
I have enough charge.
If it's a long trip where I need more charge, I choose a car snack, and I'll have enough.
If I'm on an actual long car trip and I want to charge all the way from the warning light to 100%, I will need to eat a meal anyway. I just find a McDonald's/cafe,/restaurant/whatever with a fast charger, and it'll be full before I'm done.
But finding a store/eating place with a fast charger is still waaaay less convenient than just finding a place where I can get diesel in seconds, and find a different place to get drinks/food/snacks.
yes, they are. they make difference between actually usable technology and engineer's dream.
Electric motors are a lot more efficient, and battery technology is quickly approaching the place where you can get the same range with an electric motor as with an ICE.
i doubt we even have enough rare metals for 8 or 16 billion batteries. most of them are being mined in politically unstable or to western civilization unfriendly countries, with terrible effect on the environment.
efficiency matters, it is not a question of how good single battery is.
As for refuel rate, I spend no time waiting for my car to charge because it charges at home while I’m sleeping, so the refuel rate doesn’t matter.
oh good. YOU have it solved, so the rest of the world does not matter, i assume...? fuck all these people, right?
Hey mate I'm just here for some friendly discussion, I'm not here to argue until I'm blue in the face.
There is a difference between your above points and the original claim.
Fuel density doesn't matter, what matters is how far you can drive on a charge.
Charge time doesn't matter if you can swap a battery in 3 minutes instead of waiting to charge.
For your new point of rare earth materials, this isn't related to the original energy density or charge time points, but high density batteries that don't use rare earth metals already exist, the problem is cost. That will change over time.
Also you're ignoring that fossil fuels are also dug out of the ground.
Yes, for people who can't charge at home. I'd love to swap to electric, but 1 hour trip to go charge the car at the nearest charging station is not realistic - especially since I'd need to do it twice as often as 10min trip to refuel.
Also there's the EV prices, starting at 2-3 times more than my current whip lol
My point is that we should be focused on the outcomes we want. It isn't really important that fossil fuels are a lot more energy dense if the electric cars can travel twice as far. They can't, but I'd be willing to bet we will get to that point with fossil fuels still being more energy dense.
But also as I mentioned in the comment you relied to, Nio have a vast network of battery swap stations where you can get a full charge in a couple of minutes, the same as filling up at a gas station.
The price of EVs are a problem, and not the only problem, but my point was that the specific things mentioned don't stop us having better EVs than ICEs, because we will get the same outcome in a different way.
I absolutely agree that we should work on improving EVs, charging network and whatever technologies makes it better and more suitable for more people. But every person in need of a car has unique hard requirements for the car that can't be ignored as "inconvenience" - and many of those people have to drive with fossil fuels still.
Also, battery swap stations being available in X location doesn't matter to people living in Y location, nor should people in Y location buy EV in hopes that it will be better in Z years
I agree completely. I am not trying to argue that everyone can or should go out and buy an EV.
I was specifically addressing the points that seemed to be claiming EVs are not the right direction for cars or engines to be advancing towarda, by pointing out that the barriers aren't blocking all paths.
It's exactly this. Convenience. We've become accustomed to how convenient it is and don't want to be put out.
On the other hand, it's super convenient to never go to a gas station again, and to wake up to a full tank. So if you drive less than 60 miles a day, and have acess to another car for long trips, an electric is even more convenient.
It's one of those things where people feel like they're going to take a road trip every weekend, but most people are just using their car to commute to and from work and maybe take one or two longer trips per year. The time saved by not having to stop at a gas station throughout the the year is less than the additional time taken at a fast charging station for the rare road trip.
Unfortunately, people tend to buy vehicles to best accomplish 1% of their driving. I live in the suburbs and almost every house has a giant pickup parked in front. Not because people are in the construction business and need to haul a lot of stuff, but because once a year they might go to Home Depot and it feels good to put their two bags of mulch in the back.
Part of the problem is not having the money or space for an extra vehicle.
I drive an SUV, I don't particularly like driving an SUV, I get a lot of use out of having a larger vehicle, I'm an avid DIYer who makes frequent trips to the hardware store to pick up lumber and such, I have a lot of outdoor hobbies and usually end up being the one who drives so I'm carrying gear for several people, I don't exactly go off roading, but those hobbies sometimes take me on some poorly maintained, deeply rutted, muddy roads and 4wd has gotten me out of some jams, I occasionally drive onto the beach to go fishing, usually find myself towing a small trailer a couple times a year, and I'm an essential employee that lives in an area that gets snow with a weird schedule that usually has me commuting before the snow plows have gotten through everywhere.
But even though I probably get more actual use out of an SUV than most people, most often I'm still only driving about 20 miles or less a day, on paved roads, in weather that doesn't require anything more than working headlights, wipers, and tires that aren't totally bald.
If I had the budget and parking space I'd probably have the cheapest base model EV I could find for most of my commuting and small errands and save the SUV for my days off and when it snows. That's not the case though.
I am so ready to hop on the PHEV or even full electric bandwagon.
I do have 2 major hurdles though.
First is there aren't a lot of vehicles out there, at an affordable price point for me that quite fit my needs. I've pretty much dialed in that a midsized SUV or small pickup truck is just right for me. There's some exciting options coming down the pipeline, but none that are out there have quite hit the sweet spot for me yet. (I am champing at the bit for Ford to release a PHEV AWD maverick with a midgate to make up for that short bed. That's basically my ideal vehicle, I'd also be stoked for Toyota to do a plug in 4runner, my current car is a 4runner and I like it a lot, if either of those happen before I'm ready for my next car theres a good chance that's what I'm getting)
Second is charging, I live in a townhome with no garage or driveway, so if I want to charge at home I'm pretty much stuck running about a 30ft extension cord across my front lawn and sidewalk. That's less than ideal, and my HOA hasn't exactly been friendly to others in my neighborhood who have gone electric who have done that. I can probably work around that though, the way my schedule works, unless I go in for overtime I usually don't work more than 3 days in a row, so if battery-only range gets a little better for PHEVs (which hopefully they will by the time I'm able to budget for a new car in a few years) I can probably do most of my commuting on one charge and find an hour or two on my days off to go somewhere with a fast charger.
In the meantime, I just try to get my wife to do as much of the driving as possible when we're both off since she has a prius, our schedules don't always align, but when they do I only drive if we need my bigger car for something.
It's a long way off, but we also fantasize about the possibilities of self-driving cars someday when all of the problems are worked out. Since we have different schedules (she works a regular 9-5, I work 3pm-3am on a 2-2-3 schedule,) we could have one self driving car for most of our commuting and errands, it could take her to work, come home and take me to work, pick her up and take her home, and pick me up at the end of my shift, and go charge itself in-between.
If they use a camper or heavy trailer even four times per year, fine whatever keep your truck. The other millions of Americans should've just rented a vehicle when they needed it, and it would've been far cheaper and more convenient to have their daily driver as a regular sized sedan.
You don't even need the clothes dryer circuit, the vast majority of people don't drive enough in a day to need anything more than a standard 15a outlet
it’s super convenient to never go to a gas station again, and to wake up to a full tank
But, to make that possible, you basically have to have a "gas station" at home. If you own your own house you can modify it to install a charging spot. If you rent, you might not have that option.
All EVs come with Level 1 chargers that plug in to your standard house outlet.
Sure, but if you use those it takes a very long time to charge. Like, from empty it can take 40+ hours to charge a battery EV from empty to 80%. If you're using your car to commute and your commute is anywhere near the max range of your car, that isn't a viable option.
I wonder if looking at the system as a whole for both systems would reveal a different difference. (infra needed to transport and fill those gas station tanks vs infra needed for level 3 charging stations)
On the one hand the Nokia 3310's battery lasts a week. On the other hand the iPhone 15....
Just plug your car in when you're not using it like you'd charge your phone overnight. It's only a problem if you can't charge at home (due to on street parking and no charging facilities on that street) and you can't charge somewhere you usually take your car (eg a workplace).
If i ride to vacation to a country with no charging infrastucture, if I want to ride to the mountains where it is subzero and my range drops dramatically, if I go to a place where it's 38 deree celsius and I need AC my range is pretty much fucked up... (not to mention that close to remote places like cool beaches there is no charging station)
If I want to have a road trip... i suddenly becomes a planning issue
There are still so many things that are complicated by having a EV, and I don't need the extra complications
And flood loads of valleys to create massive hydro power stations?
Norway's low density gives it plentry of cheap renewable electricity (per person).
In my country we have loads of people living in valleys, so we'd probably not get away with building that much hydro generation capacity.
Although there's a whole area called the "lake district" that is literally asking for it.
Norway is incredibly sparsely populated and has an adoption rate of 80%+. We also have stupid cold winters, loads of fucking mountains and require AC in summer.
I've driven through Europe twice with no more than 2 minutes of planning in an app.
Your comment makes me think you have no experience with EV's at all and are spreding false claims.
There are literally two scenarios where an EV is not better than ICE (if purchased new today).
One is for people frequently traveling far beyond the cars range and the other is for people without access to AC charging at all.
And no, I'm not a EV lover/gasoline hater. I ride a motorcycle powered by dinosaur juice too. I just like having 400+ BHP and 700 Nm of torque in a car priced like a Toyota Avensis, and a full tank every single time I leave my driveway with said full tank costing me <$5.
You should want that too unless you belong to one of the two exeption groups above.
My issue with EVs isn't the EV itself, it's that they're all smart cars. Granted, most new ICE cars are being overladen with bull shit too so I think I'm just stuck with cars from the 2010s.
Both tbh. I also just don't like the usability and looks of everything being a screen. I really hate digital dashboards. The newer cars feel like they were designed to be disposable like a smart phone, where long term use isn't a consideration.
I have seen some services that convert ICE cars to EV, so I may just do that when my engine needs replaced
The reason I single out the 2010s is because that's when I could get a touch screen with car play, but still have HVAC controls as a button and no digital dashboards.
If you don't drive for work--and I mean get paid to drive hundreds of miles every day, not just a long commute--or take a road trip every month, and have a place to charge at night (most people do, at least in North America), then an EV is just better.
Otherwise, a plug-in hybrid or a "gasoline boosted EV" like a Volt is sufficient. ICE cars for regular people shouldn't have even existed once the Volt proof of concept was proven!
xkcd
Oldest