Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

longreads.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 271 posts

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#191

Post by C1sc0cat »

benj111 wrote: post #188
C1sc0cat wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are popular in Asia because relatively speaking Asia is poor. Just like the flying pigeon bike was massively popular in china back in the 70's, I even saw one being ridden at Cranfield university by a Chinese masters/doctoral student in the late 70's early eighties.

They are popular in the Netherlands also. The overall point was that bikes can be made to work, Asia is a large scale example, although as you say, not necessarily by choice. The Netherlands, and increasingly other parts of north west Europe are another example.

I think you mean Bikes (ridden by middle class white people) not Scoters and Mopeds ;-)

In India you can see entire families, Dad, Mum and Baby on Mums back riding a moped.

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#192

Post by benj111 »

TomMarius wrote: post #168
Thlom wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Young kids: Cargo bike. Long trips: Car or public transit is better for most people. Older people: Tricycle/electrical assist bike People with injuries: Tricycle, recumbent bike, hand pedals, electric assist etc Rain: rain coat.

You're seriously out of reality. I'm writing this from a subway car where at least 30 people out of the ~50 here would not be able to do anything you suggested since they have trouble with simple slow walking and even stepping into the bus is problem. Rain coat? Some elder people could downright die from a cold. And it's not just rain, it snows here and for several months it's around 0 degrees Celsius and the road is…

I would guess that in a society where everyone cycles, those that would usually be unable to cycle would gain the most from the exercise etc. I believe cycling in your 70s and 80s is relatively common in the Netherlands.

Isn't a wheelchair a weird single purpose vehicle, isn't a bike, or a car? There's nothing inherently wrong with being weird or single purpose, as long as it gets used.

'Around' 0c isn't that cold, gritting the road and putting on a coat would sort that. You're right there is weather that isn't great for cycling, just as there's terrain that isn't great for it either. I'm sure any global scale transportation solution is going to have its problems, no ones suggesting a one size fits all solution.

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#193

Post by hwillis »

chadcmulligan wrote: post #121

Some of the reasons why petrol won: There was no electric grid to speak of - even now there is concern the grid can't support all EV's, once you were outside the cities (and there weren't many back then) the grid was spotty. The miracle of being able to pour some cheap liquid in an engine and drive for miles is a considerable achievement. Lead acid batteries weren't very good and were expensive (and still are) and do…

> There was no electric grid to speak of - even now there is concern the grid can't support all EV's, once you were outside the cities (and there weren't many back then) the grid was spotty. The miracle of being able to pour some cheap liquid in an engine and drive for miles is a considerable achievement.

Not true- Pearl street switched on in 1882, the first overhead wires went up in 1883, and by 1899 there were hundreds of generating stations. Until around 1905-1910 there was no real standardization, leading to a mix of DC, polyphase, and split-phase systems since light bulbs don't care what they run on. Roughly standard split-phase pretty quickly won out and the first electrical washing machine was sold in 1907, before the first model T.

The problem is much more fundamental: you can't charge a battery on AC. Getting DC power at home was NOT easy. You needed a phase converter (an AC motor connected to a DC motor) or a mercury rectifier[1], both FAR from affordable.

> Lead acid batteries weren't very good and were expensive (and still are) and don't last long compared to petrol engines.

That's just goofy. Research doesn't just happen, there has to be real interest and funding. There was no significant interest in batteries for half a century.

> Electric motors were big then - it was only rare earth magnets that made them small enough to consider using in cars at high speed/ranges.

Totally wrong. Electric motors have always and will always be far more compact than combustion motors. In fact induction motors -the kind used in the Tesla Model S- have been essentially unchanged since 1889, when the first squirrel-cage motor was invented.

> Its always been possible to make a small electric commuter car to drive round at 30mph for short distances but even today there are none like this, because people want to take their cars on the road on the weekend without having to worry. In the 1900's it was the call of the open road and cheap travel (petrol was very cheap then) that made petrol win.

No it wasn't. The Model T had a maximum range of 250-300 miles, and as the article says the Detroit Electric could do 240 miles. The Model T did over double the top speed and cost a fourth as much, but the speed wasn't due to technical limitations and the cost was because electric vehicles were a luxury item (the battery was a low-ish premium). Electricity and gas cost roughly the same at the time. It was all about the charging.

Efficient electricity transmission requires high voltage. High voltage requires transformers. Transformers require AC. Batteries require DC. Until it was cheap to convert AC to DC, electric cars had no chance.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q89SV_UwykQ

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#194

Post by Mirioron »

hwillis wrote: post #184
godelski wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another reason: Even today the energy density of batteries is SUBSTANTIALLY smaller than that of fossil fuels. [0] We frequently see this graph [1] showing how far batteries have come (they have! and we need to keep going) but not understanding this is part of the issue too. [0] is why we need to keep researching, but [0] is why electric was never going to win in the beginning. It is taking very advanced materials to…

This is an incredibly myopic take masquerading as "first principles". First, you're flat wrong on the differences between gas and batteries, especially for cars. Second, you need an actual reason energy density is the fundamental metric- cars aren't rockets and weight isn't the end-all. It's impossible to neglect the efficiency here. Car-scale combustion engines have a real world efficiency of around ten percent comp…

Will charging speed really only be of minor importance? How do you charge your vehicle if you live in an apartment building? And if you can't do that and charging at a station takes more than 3-5 minutes then you cut out a huge part of the populace.

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#195

Post by Mirioron »

adrianN wrote: post #164
AstralStorm wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd be surprised how much a simple bicycle or scooter cab can accomplish in solving this objection. These are very popular in Asia. The main limit is carrying capacity - maximum power - and you really do not need that much stuff. This works long range too, and could work even longer range should there be proper cargo trains for bikes. But there aren't. The trip time is typically needed to be less than 10h or you ne…

In many cities bikes are faster than cars. In central London for example average speeds are around eight miles per hour (and falling). During rushhour it's even worse. Rushhour traffic in Berlin averages around five miles per hour. Even untrained cyclists are faster than that.

But would you like to be in rush hour traffic on a bike?

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#196

Post by hwillis »

gameswithgo wrote: post #186
hwillis wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an incredibly myopic take masquerading as "first principles". First, you're flat wrong on the differences between gas and batteries, especially for cars. Second, you need an actual reason energy density is the fundamental metric- cars aren't rockets and weight isn't the end-all. It's impossible to neglect the efficiency here. Car-scale combustion engines have a real world efficiency of around ten percent comp…

adding mass increase the costs of tires (ongoing) wheels, shocks and other suspension bits that have to be stronger and bigger to support the mass, and it increases wear on roads too. so energy density does affect upfront costs and lifetime costs.

Again, an 11% increase. It's tiny. My point is that it's vastly outweighed by other effects, not that it literally does not exist.

I'm making the case that treating the specific energy/energy density of batteries as the end-all, be-all is foolish. I am not arguing that it is nonexistant, just not relevant.

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#197

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

gameswithgo wrote: post #186
hwillis wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an incredibly myopic take masquerading as "first principles". First, you're flat wrong on the differences between gas and batteries, especially for cars. Second, you need an actual reason energy density is the fundamental metric- cars aren't rockets and weight isn't the end-all. It's impossible to neglect the efficiency here. Car-scale combustion engines have a real world efficiency of around ten percent comp…

adding mass increase the costs of tires (ongoing) wheels, shocks and other suspension bits that have to be stronger and bigger to support the mass, and it increases wear on roads too. so energy density does affect upfront costs and lifetime costs.

Sure, but if you're going to go that direction with your argument you need to account for the environmental damage caused by burning fossil fuels inefficiently in motor vehicles.

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#198

Post by benj111 »

C1sc0cat wrote: post #191
benj111 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are popular in the Netherlands also. The overall point was that bikes can be made to work, Asia is a large scale example, although as you say, not necessarily by choice. The Netherlands, and increasingly other parts of north west Europe are another example.

I think you mean Bikes (ridden by middle class white people) not Scoters and Mopeds ;-) In India you can see entire families, Dad, Mum and Baby on Mums back riding a moped.

Flying pigeons are bicycles.

I'm not a biologist but I believe non white, non middle class people are capable of riding bikes... Even women! :P

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#199

Post by hwillis »

Mirioron wrote: post #194
hwillis wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an incredibly myopic take masquerading as "first principles". First, you're flat wrong on the differences between gas and batteries, especially for cars. Second, you need an actual reason energy density is the fundamental metric- cars aren't rockets and weight isn't the end-all. It's impossible to neglect the efficiency here. Car-scale combustion engines have a real world efficiency of around ten percent comp…

Will charging speed really only be of minor importance? How do you charge your vehicle if you live in an apartment building? And if you can't do that and charging at a station takes more than 3-5 minutes then you cut out a huge part of the populace.

> Will charging speed really only be of minor importance? How do you charge your vehicle if you live in an apartment building? And if you can't do that and charging at a station takes more than 3-5 minutes then you cut out a huge part of the populace.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. If you have to leave your home to charge, the time is relatively unimportant. Sub 3-5 minutes is a big deal because you can do it on the way home from work, but you could also accomplish that with a battery swap or even a small top-off block you keep indoors. I could have phrased it better by saying that charge speed is arguably a major issue, but only if there is no way to solve the distribution problem.

Until then it's pretty low value- 10 minutes doesn't have much benefit over 30 minutes since you have to plan around it. If you're stopping for ten minutes, you may as well eat or run errands, and then it might as well be 30 minutes.

If it's 30+ minutes you need to do it while you run errands or something, so it may as well be an hour. You'll only ever notice on the few days you drive for hundreds of miles at once. If it's over an hour, it might as well be 6+ hours, because you'll only ever do it overnight.

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#200

Post by hwillis »

sokoloff wrote: post #190
hwillis wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an incredibly myopic take masquerading as "first principles". First, you're flat wrong on the differences between gas and batteries, especially for cars. Second, you need an actual reason energy density is the fundamental metric- cars aren't rockets and weight isn't the end-all. It's impossible to neglect the efficiency here. Car-scale combustion engines have a real world efficiency of around ten percent comp…

It seems like you responded only to the gravimetric density part of the chart and not the volumetric part of the chart. For performance cars, weight is absolutely a factor. (I'm not aware of any performance cars that weigh twice as much as their competition.) (I do think it is fair to ignore the financial energy density and assume that a century of progress would have addressed substantial fraction of that gap.)

> It seems like you responded only to the gravimetric density part of the chart and not the volumetric part of the chart.

Gravimetric (specific energy, Wh/kg or MJ/kg) energy is generally more relevant than volumetric (energy density, Wh/l or MJ/l), because batteries are about twice the density of gasoline. Weight is also more valuable than volume in most vehicles, and a battery system already takes up hardly any more than a full combustion system. For example most electric vehicles now have a front trunk just to use up the newly available space.

> For performance cars, weight is absolutely a factor. (I'm not aware of any performance cars that weigh twice as much as their competition.)

Sure, but again this is an 11% weight difference, and range matters least on a performance car. A 918 weighs 25% more than an Agera RS. If you want to talk about power density, an electric battery will beat a gas engine to absolute shreds.

Post reply on HN