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

We're Charging Our Cars Wrong

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 213 posts

Re: We're Charging Our Cars Wrong

#151

Post by Dylan16807 »

stavros wrote: post #132
jmb99 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re not being facetious, a unit of currency, minted out of metals of varying preciousness throughout the ages in the shape of a circle, usually imprinted with the monarch or head of state on one side and a symbol on the other. If you’re being facetious, you’re probably aware that “coin-op” refers to any simply-operated payment terminal, as you’d find in a do-it-yourself car wash or parking meter (that doesn’t r…

I, too, was confused by the "coin operated are more robust than cables". The two seem orthogonal? Would you not still have cables?

> "coin operated are more robust than cables"

You simplified what they said to the wrong word. It's an outlet that is more robust than a cable.

The system still has a cable, but a car cable faces less risk and a cut doesn't affect future users.

Re: We're Charging Our Cars Wrong

#152

Post by stavros »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #151
stavros wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I, too, was confused by the "coin operated are more robust than cables". The two seem orthogonal? Would you not still have cables?

> "coin operated are more robust than cables" You simplified what they said to the wrong word. It's an outlet that is more robust than a cable. The system still has a cable, but a car cable faces less risk and a cut doesn't affect future users.

But cables were never mentioned until that sentence. It was all about coin-operated, and then cables somehow pop up.

Re: We're Charging Our Cars Wrong

#153

Post by Dylan16807 »

lstodd wrote: post #139

BTW everyone is fond of Norway while having zero idea how it's actually over there. Consider this movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Order_of_Disappearance The protagonist plows snow for a living, using 200-300 bhp diesel truck for like half a year each year, day after day. This thing just can not be replaced with an electric no matter what you try. And without it there would be zero traffic, electric or no. It o…

First off, who are you talking to? I didn't see anyone suggest replacing every truck in the world with electric.

Second, that's not a particularly large number for horsepower. Please explain why you think it can't be electric. Note that charging time can be solved by having a bigger fleet, and while that is expensive it's well within the range of "no matter what you try".

Re: We're Charging Our Cars Wrong

#154

Post by Dylan16807 »

stavros wrote: post #152
Dylan16807 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "coin operated are more robust than cables" You simplified what they said to the wrong word. It's an outlet that is more robust than a cable. The system still has a cable, but a car cable faces less risk and a cut doesn't affect future users.

But cables were never mentioned until that sentence. It was all about coin-operated, and then cables somehow pop up.

The first sentence explicitly says 'outlet', which means not a cable even though the post doesn't use the word 'cable' until later.

When you say "all about coin-op" you are still doing an incorrect simplification of "coin-operated 120V outlet".

I know they forgot to repeat the word "outlet" on point 4, but even then they didn't just say coin-op, they said coin-op 120V. It's referring back to the first sentence, and 120V itself has implications of not being one of those beefy EV cables (and the only 120V cable alternative to a grossly underutilized EV cable is like a C13, and a dangling C13 that plugs into your car is a pretty silly interpretation).

Re: We're Charging Our Cars Wrong

#155

Post by Dylan16807 »

LooseMarmoset wrote: post #85
jdminhbg wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Over the course of the Biden-Harris Administration, the number of publicly available EV chargers more than doubled. With approximately 1,000 new public chargers being added each week, there are over 200,000 publicly available charging ports. The trick being played here is counting all charging stations in the US and pretending they're part of the IRA's funding.

Yes, that is a neat trick. > As of July 2024, eight states had opened their first NEVI-funded stations, totaling 61 ports, and powered thousands of charging sessions. As of FY 2024, $2.385 billion had been allocated from the funding. For 61 ports across 4 (four) charging locations. $39M PER PORT. This, per NEVI's own numbers: https://driveelectric.gov/files/nevi-annual-report-2023-2024... I would sure like to see a b…

Has it been spent? Allocation is not spending.

Re: We're Charging Our Cars Wrong

#156

Post by stavros »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #154
stavros wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But cables were never mentioned until that sentence. It was all about coin-operated, and then cables somehow pop up.

The first sentence explicitly says 'outlet', which means not a cable even though the post doesn't use the word 'cable' until later. When you say "all about coin-op" you are still doing an incorrect simplification of "coin-operated 120V outlet". I know they forgot to repeat the word "outlet" on point 4, but even then they didn't just say coin-op, they said coin-op 120V. It's referring back to the first sentence, and 1…

Ahh, I didn't realize "outlet" referred to just the socket, thanks. In that case, isn't the GP describing pretty much a level 2 AC charger? Those don't come with cables (at least here).

Re: We're Charging Our Cars Wrong

#157

Post by Dylan16807 »

stavros wrote: post #156
Dylan16807 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first sentence explicitly says 'outlet', which means not a cable even though the post doesn't use the word 'cable' until later. When you say "all about coin-op" you are still doing an incorrect simplification of "coin-operated 120V outlet". I know they forgot to repeat the word "outlet" on point 4, but even then they didn't just say coin-op, they said coin-op 120V. It's referring back to the first sentence, and 1…

Ahh, I didn't realize "outlet" referred to just the socket, thanks. In that case, isn't the GP describing pretty much a level 2 AC charger? Those don't come with cables (at least here).

Pretty much. They're saying put in really cheap and reliable power sources with a cheap and reliable funding mechanism. And put them everywhere. Only go to level 2 if it's just as easy and reliable as level 1, prioritize ubiquity over speed.

Re: We're Charging Our Cars Wrong

#158

Post by tim333 »

daedrdev wrote: post #101
nextaccountic wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Battery swapping isn't some top-down authoritarian decision made by the CCP and forced into the Chinese society. Nio is just a company that's providing a much needed solution to this problem.

They also have 2% ev marketshare in China, because its still an expensive and complex feature that has downsides that the previous comment mentioned. Like these high energy batteries are dangerous as the can burn quite spectacularly, so I personally would not want to take and remove one from my car every charge hen I can wait a few minutes at a regular charging station that is much more common than a replacing statio…

I think swappable batteries may be a more practical solution for heavy trucks rather than cars. They have the advantage that they are already built to carry heavy things loaded by forklift, unlike cars.

There's an Australian company https://www.januselectric.com.au/ doing them. They do electric conversions on existing trucks.

Re: We're Charging Our Cars Wrong

#160

Post by Peanuts99 »

ggm wrote: post #96
alvah wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla tried battery swapping in 2015 and abandoned it due to a lack of customer interest (and also due to various problems that made the process less straightforward than you'd think). Both the Model S and Model X were designed from the outset to have swappable batteries.

Premature reject. It's working in China, it would work in trucking. "Tesla tried" doesn't mean jack. No car manufacturers want to do this because it means loosing a point of innovation. It has to be regulated to happen at scale. It won't happen but not because it can't work. After all... look at 12v car batteries

Battery swapping for trucks is far different from cars though. Trucks are reasonably standardised, they commonly have predestined routes and purpose built depots to operate from. If you're say Pepsi and you've got a fleet of trucks going between your warehouses you can build the infrastructure around your route.

If you look at old mobile phones with removable batteries, you'll notice that there is usually a lot of space taken up by the plastic around the battery which is designed to allow a user to replace it repeatedly. A car battery that's rapidly replaceable would need a large, strong structure around it to allow it to be replaced but also to hold together in the event of a crash. If batteries had to be swapped out, you would lose more cabin space and structural rigidity. Then you get to standardised connectors and mountings, data protocols, the list goes on. And that's before you think of the automated equipment to actually swap the batteries.

In a world where we can charge a car today from 10-80% in 10 minutes, it doesn't seem like a worthwhile engineering challenge.

Post reply on HN