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

111–120 of 125 posts

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#111

Post by seanmcdirmid »

TheLoafOfBread wrote: post #65
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%

Much of Europe doesn’t have free street parking like the states does, a lot of those people don’t have cars or are paying extra to have their cars garaged.

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#112

Post by seanmcdirmid »

_hypx wrote: post #110
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #107

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…

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 fundamen…

It primarily comes from natural gas now because it is easy to extract from it. Refining via electricity alone is incredibly expensive (20-30% lost), and that is in top of 10% lost due to compression and 30% lost going back to electricity again (assuming a fuel cell vehicle). If the energy isn’t cheap (coming from natural gas), then how does this make sense economically?

BEV is attractive because electrify goes straight to the battery, energy is only lost once. But hydrogen can make sense for some applications given its weight (but it’s volume is a problem and compression only goes so far).

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#113

Post by defrost »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #109
defrost wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?).

You queried the economics.

Those involved are making bank on some 800 million tonnes of iron ore sales per annum shipped to China and hold leases on significant (as a percentage of global supply) Lithium deposits and Australian land in the millions of acres (a lot of sunlight).

They understand industry at scale, the use of automation to deliver volume, the draw of large economies to sunlight abundant areas for processing and refining, etc.

Transport is planned via Ammonia (hydrogen + nitrogen) - with an excess of sunlight and rapid improvements in domain of electrolysis making seawater as a basis economical, energy losses due to conversion can still be covered to turn a profit delivering bulk ammonia for fertilizer, power generation, and other applications to Europe.

FFI (offshoot of FMI (Fortescue Metals)) has a handwaving set of web pages:

https://ffi.com.au/technology/green-hydrogen/

and have lodged more detailed tech reports for their shareholders via the Sydney, London, and Canadian Exchanges (IIRC).

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#114

Post by defrost »

sowbug wrote: 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…

My father's 87 (88 later this year, he was born in 1935).

He still drives hundreds of miles here in Western Australia to maintain several sections on three different walking tracks (eg, two thirty KM sections on the thousand km long Bibbulmun Track [1]).

Tell your dad to pull his finger out and just do it.

[1] https://www.bibbulmuntrack.org.au/

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#115

Post by oblio »

theshrike79 wrote: post #96
oblio wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's partly balanced out by the greater engine efficiency, 90-95% versus 30-35-40%. Also regenerative braking. Oh, and much better engine efficiency at low speeds.

No gasoline engine has 35% or better efficiency. I think the Toyota Hybrids hover around 30%.

Diesel engines are more efficient.

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#116

Post by _hypx »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #112
_hypx wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fundamen…

It primarily comes from natural gas now because it is easy to extract from it. Refining via electricity alone is incredibly expensive (20-30% lost), and that is in top of 10% lost due to compression and 30% lost going back to electricity again (assuming a fuel cell vehicle). If the energy isn’t cheap (coming from natural gas), then how does this make sense economically? BEV is attractive because electrify goes straig…

Same story as solar still. People accused solar of being too inefficient, but it got extremely cheap anyways. That is the upside of something with almost zero input cost. Hydrogen is the same.

BEVs need huge batteries to function. It is easy to see how that totally undermines the value of BEVs.

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#117

Post by seanmcdirmid »

_hypx wrote: post #116
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It primarily comes from natural gas now because it is easy to extract from it. Refining via electricity alone is incredibly expensive (20-30% lost), and that is in top of 10% lost due to compression and 30% lost going back to electricity again (assuming a fuel cell vehicle). If the energy isn’t cheap (coming from natural gas), then how does this make sense economically? BEV is attractive because electrify goes straig…

Same story as solar still. People accused solar of being too inefficient, but it got extremely cheap anyways. That is the upside of something with almost zero input cost. Hydrogen is the same. BEVs need huge batteries to function. It is easy to see how that totally undermines the value of BEVs.

If you have a cheap source of hydrogen, sure.

BEVs need huge (and more importantly heavy) batteries to function, but those are at least cheaper than the fuel cell and even huger compression tank needed to make a hydrogen car viable. Also, forget about having a frunk.

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#118

Post by _hypx »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #117
_hypx wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same story as solar still. People accused solar of being too inefficient, but it got extremely cheap anyways. That is the upside of something with almost zero input cost. Hydrogen is the same. BEVs need huge batteries to function. It is easy to see how that totally undermines the value of BEVs.

If you have a cheap source of hydrogen, sure. BEVs need huge (and more importantly heavy) batteries to function, but those are at least cheaper than the fuel cell and even huger compression tank needed to make a hydrogen car viable. Also, forget about having a frunk.

> BEVs need huge (and more importantly heavy) batteries to function, but those are at least cheaper than the fuel cell and even huger compression tank needed to make a hydrogen car viable.

Wrong. Fuel cells and tanks will be vastly cheaper than batteries once produced at scale. They have very low resource requirements. They will likely match or beat internal combustion cars at cost. This is an unbeatable advantage compared to BEVs with any sort of range.

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#119

Post by TheLoafOfBread »

lukeschlather wrote: post #102
TheLoafOfBread wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But people does not want to charge their car for 24+ hours from my outlet. They want to charge their car in less than an hour, which is expensive.

Re: All the arguments against EVs are wrong

#120

Post by pfdietz »

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

Particles from tires could indeed be a problem, but it appears this is because of specific chemicals used. The solution would be to identify and replace those chemicals (like that one, 6PPD, that on exposure to ozone became highly toxic to salmon.)

(I'll note that ozone will go down too with widespread adoption of EVs.)

Post reply on HN