Live data from Hacker News

All the arguments against EVs are wrong

noahpinion.blog

101–110 of 125 posts

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#101
post #100
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is what hydrogen cars offer. An EV with very fast refueling. What people are missing is that there is no reason that all cars must be battery powered. It's a weird myopia that is antithetical to Silicon Valley thinking, despite being widespread in SV.

Because hydrogen cars are less efficient, more expensive, more dangerous, and require more infrastructure than EVs. The speed of refueling isn’t enough of a justification to pursue hydrogen cars. They only really make sense if the raw materials for batteries become too scarce.

You are just repeating the marketing spiel of battery car makers. Of course, it would be very convenient for them if the problems of the competition are insurmountable and the upside totally pointless. There’s enormous incentive for them to convince people of that.

The basic problem here is that fuel cells EVs literally are EVs. They work in incredibly similar ways. Any sort of fundamental analysis would lead you to the conclusion that if BEVs are possible, then so are FCEVs. Any differences are going to be minor, not substantial. Also, a lot of the criticisms are just pure FUD, like claiming hydrogen is more dangerous than lithium (both are very flammable materials). And finally, battery car makers really want you to think that every single car in the future will be a BEV, with not a single exception. That’s a pretty crazy claim, and people should recognize how ridiculous it sounds.

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can pay to install a charger to your own electrical meter, at which point the cost is just the cost of electricity. And with the cost of public chargers, yes, this pays off very quickly.

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#103
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But EVs being worse is handwaved away in the article without any hard data: “ Some are concerned that electric vehicles tend to be heavier, which might increase tyre wear” That’s a fact-free argument.

basic physics intuition suggests that a relatively heavier vehicle with much more torque available from rest would abrade away more tire material in daily use. maybe this could be mitigated with special tires for EVs, but it seems like a pretty reasonable starting assumption. while it would be nice to link an actual study on this, I'm pretty comfortable putting the burden of proof on the position on the opposing posi…

No if you make a claim, you gotta bring facts. If it’s a reasonable one it should be easy.

To this date for this assertion - no one has. Could it because the data doesn’t support it?

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#104
post #100
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is what hydrogen cars offer. An EV with very fast refueling. What people are missing is that there is no reason that all cars must be battery powered. It's a weird myopia that is antithetical to Silicon Valley thinking, despite being widespread in SV.

Because hydrogen cars are less efficient, more expensive, more dangerous, and require more infrastructure than EVs. The speed of refueling isn’t enough of a justification to pursue hydrogen cars. They only really make sense if the raw materials for batteries become too scarce.

What does a battery weigh?

Do you know that conventional gas is delivered to homes around the country, currently, on a semi-annual basis to supply total heating needs, by truck?

The infrastructure is nill for fuel cell vehicles.

Battery vehicles will be wildly burdensome to the electrical infrastructure if widely adopted. Trucking via EV is currently completely unacheivable with the energy capacity available. No discussion of charging capacity. Also, it adds tons (actual tons) of weight to the non-cargo load

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#105

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.

In the states, renting a parking spot outside of where you live just isn’t common. Maybe in LA or NYC, but I haven’t seen it anywhere else.

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#106
post #9

I've been going in range-anxiety circles with my dad for over 10 years. He insists he needs a car that can take him hundreds of miles into the wilderness for camping. I ask whether he's ever done that. He says no, but he intends to. He's 84. EV manufacturers should offer the 500-mile-range vehicle, but as an option. Pay $X for a car with 250 miles range, and an extra $20,000 for another 250 miles range. Most people w…

The extra battery is heavy, you hit diminishing returns quickly, like extra fuel on a plane.

I have an EV and just cross some trips that we might want to do outside of our range. The big one is Seattle to anchorage which while possible using RV parks, isn’t very easy ATM.

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#107
post #101
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because hydrogen cars are less efficient, more expensive, more dangerous, and require more infrastructure than EVs. The speed of refueling isn’t enough of a justification to pursue hydrogen cars. They only really make sense if the raw materials for batteries become too scarce.

You are just repeating the marketing spiel of battery car makers. Of course, it would be very convenient for them if the problems of the competition are insurmountable and the upside totally pointless. There’s enormous incentive for them to convince people of that. The basic problem here is that fuel cells EVs literally are EVs. They work in incredibly similar ways. Any sort of fundamental analysis would lead you to…

A lot of driving is local, BEVs excel at that since people can charge at home. Hydrogen has a chance in long distance trucking and maybe aviation, where the lightweight energy density is a big win, although they’ll need to do something about volume for aviation.

Unless we figure out fusion, producing hydrogen is going to primarily come from hydrocarbons, mainly natural gas. For Europe, that means they need to get it mostly from Russia, and Japan has to boat all their supply of that in.

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#108
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are just repeating the marketing spiel of battery car makers. Of course, it would be very convenient for them if the problems of the competition are insurmountable and the upside totally pointless. There’s enormous incentive for them to convince people of that. The basic problem here is that fuel cells EVs literally are EVs. They work in incredibly similar ways. Any sort of fundamental analysis would lead you to…

A lot of driving is local, BEVs excel at that since people can charge at home. Hydrogen has a chance in long distance trucking and maybe aviation, where the lightweight energy density is a big win, although they’ll need to do something about volume for aviation. Unless we figure out fusion, producing hydrogen is going to primarily come from hydrocarbons, mainly natural gas. For Europe, that means they need to get it…

In recent news (past five years), Australia mining magnates have invested in doubling the current global hydrogen production via green means (no hydro carbons) and have formed partnerships with Germany (part of Europe) to supply hydrogen.

https://germany.embassy.gov.au/beln/hydrogen.html

https://minister.dcceew.gov.au/bowen/media-releases/growing-...

and other links from the Fortescue Metals sibsidiaries and other involved companies abound.

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of driving is local, BEVs excel at that since people can charge at home. Hydrogen has a chance in long distance trucking and maybe aviation, where the lightweight energy density is a big win, although they’ll need to do something about volume for aviation. Unless we figure out fusion, producing hydrogen is going to primarily come from hydrocarbons, mainly natural gas. For Europe, that means they need to get it…

In recent news (past five years), Australia mining magnates have invested in doubling the current global hydrogen production via green means (no hydro carbons) and have formed partnerships with Germany (part of Europe) to supply hydrogen. https://germany.embassy.gov.au/beln/hydrogen.html https://minister.dcceew.gov.au/bowen/media-releases/growing-... and other links from the Fortescue Metals sibsidiaries and other in…

If they can do it, it might be a nice replacement for NG. Transportation of both is about the same (assuming it can only be compressed so much?).

Nuclear power might be ideal for hydrogen production as well (using excess of peak power to make hydrogen to store in huge tanks rather than charging a battery or pumped reservoir?).

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#110
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are just repeating the marketing spiel of battery car makers. Of course, it would be very convenient for them if the problems of the competition are insurmountable and the upside totally pointless. There’s enormous incentive for them to convince people of that. The basic problem here is that fuel cells EVs literally are EVs. They work in incredibly similar ways. Any sort of fundamental analysis would lead you to…

A lot of driving is local, BEVs excel at that since people can charge at home. Hydrogen has a chance in long distance trucking and maybe aviation, where the lightweight energy density is a big win, although they’ll need to do something about volume for aviation. Unless we figure out fusion, producing hydrogen is going to primarily come from hydrocarbons, mainly natural gas. For Europe, that means they need to get it…

People are repeating the same kind of rhetoric that was used against wind or solar. That we will never have cheap green energy and the future will always be fossil fuels. Those claims are now the source of mockery.

Green hydrogen will be one of the cheapest energy sources available in the near future. It will be made from excess wind or solar and will cost nearly nothing to produce. This will be the next big fundamental error by anti-green energy skeptics.

Post reply on HN