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

All the arguments against EVs are wrong

noahpinion.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 125 posts

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#61

Post by r00fus »

justinator wrote: post #43
konschubert wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any evidence that this is an actual issue? My understanding was that the particulates from tires are pretty big and don’t really go airborne

When Driving, Tires Emit Pollution. and EVs Make the Problem Worse https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32689058

The article is also using research based on estimations based on weight. No actual data. So another BS argument.

Fact: EVs usually run LRR tires that release less particulate. Also regen braking allows for smoother transitions. EVs because of software controlled acceleration, almost never spin out when starting off the line.

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#62

Post by lukeschlather »

vsskanth wrote: post #10

Yeah, this entire article has a single mention of "charging infrastructure", and even that's a passing reference. This doesn't address all the arguments against an EV. The fact of the matter is, if I don't have a Tesla and rent my apartment, I won't be able to reliably charge this vehicle. Even for someone with a house, long trips face unreliable charging infrastructure. It's gonna take a few more years

Teslas are pretty expensive and charging infrastructure is very cheap. If you can afford a Tesla you can afford to rent a parking space and get it outfitted with a charger. If this sounds impractical to you it's not because the charging infrastructure is too expensive, it's because the parking space is too expensive.

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#63

Post by eulers_secret »

vsskanth wrote: post #10

Yeah, this entire article has a single mention of "charging infrastructure", and even that's a passing reference. This doesn't address all the arguments against an EV. The fact of the matter is, if I don't have a Tesla and rent my apartment, I won't be able to reliably charge this vehicle. Even for someone with a house, long trips face unreliable charging infrastructure. It's gonna take a few more years

I'm a permanent apartment-dweller (houses are far too expensive in my area and I will never need/justify the space and expense), this is exactly it. I might get an EV when I have a personal (guaranteed) at-home charging spot.

Not likely to happen, so I'll probably drive hybrid cars for the rest of my life. That's OK with me, though.

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#64

Post by pfdietz »

VintageCool wrote: post #26
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #6

> Nor are those worries solely the province of cranks and ideologues — Simon Michaux of the Finnish Geological Survey has actually done extensive research On the contrary, Michaux tripped a few of my crank alarms, mention of EROEI being one of them.

Michaux's paper starts with the assumption that it would take about 4 weeks worth of batteries to survive the Finnish winter, and therefore every grid in the world will need 4 weeks worth of batteries. Despite a writing a hundred page paper covering basic details of existing power generation technologies, he devotes only about a paragraph to establishing that assumption. Additionally, there is a section dedicated to…

One of the now classic crank moves in analyzing a renewable grid is assuming batteries are the only storage technology. It's so common I have to feel it's intentional. Using batteries for rare event backups is an incredibly stupid design. E-fuels such as hydrogen are much better. For intermediate term storage (up to, say, a week) there are other options, such as thermal storage.

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#65

Post by TheLoafOfBread »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #32
vsskanth wrote: post #10

Yeah, this entire article has a single mention of "charging infrastructure", and even that's a passing reference. This doesn't address all the arguments against an EV. The fact of the matter is, if I don't have a Tesla and rent my apartment, I won't be able to reliably charge this vehicle. Even for someone with a house, long trips face unreliable charging infrastructure. It's gonna take a few more years

Conversely, if I own my home, with an attached garage, and especially if my spouse has a gasoline vehicle we would use for long trips, then charging infrastructure and range over ~80 miles are largely irrelevant to me. Being a perfect vehicle for 2/3rds of the population is good enough for now.

50% of people in EU are living in apartments. So it is not 66%

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#66

Post by TheLoafOfBread »

lukeschlather wrote: post #62
vsskanth wrote: post #10

Yeah, this entire article has a single mention of "charging infrastructure", and even that's a passing reference. This doesn't address all the arguments against an EV. The fact of the matter is, if I don't have a Tesla and rent my apartment, I won't be able to reliably charge this vehicle. Even for someone with a house, long trips face unreliable charging infrastructure. It's gonna take a few more years

Teslas are pretty expensive and charging infrastructure is very cheap. If you can afford a Tesla you can afford to rent a parking space and get it outfitted with a charger. If this sounds impractical to you it's not because the charging infrastructure is too expensive, it's because the parking space is too expensive.

It does not matter if building cost is cheap, when charging prices are more expensive than taking petrol into ICE. Of course if you can get the charge at the first place, because having car with CCS connector and having charger with CCS connector does not mean they are compatible with each other.

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#68

Post by leetcrew »

oblio wrote: post #44
jmclnx wrote: post #24

For warm climates in urban areas, I can agree, but here are things never fully covered anywhere: 1. Heat in the winter, this will reduce you range, some just a little, but in places like Minnesota in Feb, a lot. 2. Stuck in traffic. If you are stuck in grid lock, that will cut in range, there have been cases were gridlock could last hours. Granted maybe EV stop power usage in this case. But under very hot or cold wea…

> 2. Stuck in traffic. If you are stuck in grid lock, that will cut in range, there have been cases were gridlock could last hours. Granted maybe EV stop power usage in this case. But under very hot or cold weather, you will lose AC and Heat. So if you have health concerns, TFB. EV energy usage is linear with speed. The slower you go, the longer the range. This part doesn't make any sense unless you have something sp…

> EV energy usage is linear with speed.

drag actually scales worse than linearly with speed (which further supports your point), but this is only considering power consumption from the drivetrain in isolation. other systems (most significantly: climate control) have more static power consumption that is not related to speed. so there is a crossover point where the speed vs efficiency relation inverts, because the static draw is not offset by reduction in drag. I don't know what this would be for real world EVs, but I'd guess it's somewhere in the single-digit mph range.

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#69

Post by marsokod »

mattlondon wrote: post #19
Memetoml wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't there just a gas shortage in France and half a year ago in UK? How constant and long lasting are your power outages there? I mean no electricity for a week and all my food in the freezer is gone, no heating in winter due to pumps needing electricity and no water as well. Sounds really bad over there then?

Gas as in gas (that you heat your house with), or gas as in petroleum (that you put in your car)? For both in the UK I don't think there were "shortages" where it wasn't available. Both just shoot up in price (like they always do at the merest hint of supply shortages or whalesale cost increases ..)

Gas as in petroleum. In the UK, this was caused initially by a constraint on having enough drivers for the trucks, which lead into a few local shortages. The fear came into that and people rushed to fill their tank. The system being not sized for this, this ended up creating actual shortage with a positive feedback loop.

Similar issue in France: strikes were happening leading to local constraints, which was then amplified by people rushing to fill their tanks. In both cases, the situation comes back to normal after a few weeks.

This is the toilet paper shortage, or the bank run, all over again.

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#70

Post by justinator »

r00fus wrote: post #61
justinator wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Driving, Tires Emit Pollution. and EVs Make the Problem Worse https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32689058

The article is also using research based on estimations based on weight. No actual data. So another BS argument. Fact: EVs usually run LRR tires that release less particulate. Also regen braking allows for smoother transitions. EVs because of software controlled acceleration, almost never spin out when starting off the line.

If LRR tires are so beneficial, it seems like ALL cars would use them, regardless of power source. But they're not, are they?

Also remember that the most popular US cars sold today are large trucks or SUVs. Would LRR tires make sense to use on those more than just not driving such a big, useless truck everywhere?

Again, perhaps the more useful move is to drive less cars, less (and have those cars BE less), than work on other more marginal points, like power plant.

Post reply on HN