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

61–70 of 271 posts

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#61

Post by LoSboccacc »

wmf wrote: post #7
Swizec wrote: post #5

We also could have had steam powered cars. Jay Leno once said that he got pulled over on the freeway for breaking the speed limit in his Stanley Steamer from 1906-ish. Darn thing has a top speed of 127mph. My 2018 motorcycle tops out at 110mph, to give you a comparison. Why don't we have steam cars? Because in the early 1900's steam cars they couldn't compete with the elegance of ICE vehicles. The engines were big an…

Isn't the whole point of the article that ICE was not way better and racing is a harmful distraction?

the claim is dubious. article focus on the range, which is ok-ish as long as the claim is "see! only 20 miles less" but it's like two third of ICEs, and ICE at that time had shit fuel economy.

plus we focus on range because recharging is slow, not because range is a core value of the vehicles per se. and that point stands. sure you can commute, once, but then how long is the recharge? having two vehicles because you need to leave one at the office recharging for the next day commute is going to be inefficient.

and then there's all the stuff about battery self discharge, capacity depletion and burning everything down if shaken. it's not like battery tech then was that great.

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#62

Post by pier25 »

standardUser wrote: post #32
jacquesm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You meant 'there is a lot more to the discussion than the density of the energy carrier'. A nuclear vehicle would be impractical due to waste and risk.

It turns out the same was true for internal combustion engines all along.

People usually think cars are the biggest sources of emissions but it's not even close. All transportation (car, planes, trains, etc) represent 14% of global emissions.

Globally the biggest source of emissions is energy production which represents about 35% (25% of direct emissions and 10% of processes like refining fuel).

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...

So, I doubt emissions from ICE cars would be as bad as widespread nuclear residues from nuclear cars.

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#63

Post by Shivetya »

Tade0 wrote: post #52
lgleason wrote: post #2

Battery technology has been, and to a certain degree still is the limiting factor for electric cars...and the fact is that gasoline is still a denser form of energy storage than batteries by volume, weight etc.. I'm saying this as a someone who prefers electrics over ICE...

I think that if, then only in terms of cost. Every quarter or so I do a 1500km(935 mile) trip and back. Nowadays it takes me two days, because I realized that spending around 20h behind the wheel without rest is simply dangerous. My car's highway range is about 440 miles - but I rarely drive that far without refueling because the longest distance between my usual stops is 350 miles. And once stopped I don't just fill…

1600 round mile trip, give or take. Georgia to Western Ohio then across to Eastern Pennsylvania, relatives in Eastern to North Eastern Ohio but that is an EV desert. I did this within weeks of buying a Model 3 LR. Added about ninety minutes to the 600 mile drive. Three stops. I did ignore the Navigation charge time so I could avoid the SC inside of Cincinnati.

If you follow the suggestions of the car and are willing to stop more the charge times are lower. However as I was hoping 190 to 210 at a time and driving the standard speed of I75 at the time I tended to push the charge to 80% or more.

Now the reason there is ninety minutes is you need to factor in charging at your destination. Seeing that my relatives had nothing more than standard 120 I was in effect anchored to my closest SC which was thirty six miles away. So at that point I charged to 95% which took longer. They don't live in a small Ohio town but there were only two good chargers, one at Nissan and one at the Ford dealer. Neither is good for a true long range car.

After that trip I realized there really is no point in carrying the mobile charge cable. I simply found hotels with nearby SC setups. Do not rely on destination charging as you are just as likely to find "guests" who act as if they own it and hotels are not keen on stepping in. There are times I swear fellow EV drivers are the most entitled pricks I have ever met.

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#64

Post by Swizec »

smileysteve wrote: post #50
Swizec wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But you can't actually drive either to its limit for more than a couple minutes? Lame. Notice all of Tesla's marketing is about acceleration, not lap times. They beat any other car hands down on the drag strip. But cornering is just not their forte (too heavy) and driving fast for a long time is hard (too much power draw).

Too heavy? But the skateboard puts all of the weight as low as possible

Weight, even if it’s low, still increases stopping distance and requires more grip to get around corners. You can’t escape kinetic energy.

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#65

Post by Swizec »

loeg wrote: post #28
Swizec wrote: post #5

We also could have had steam powered cars. Jay Leno once said that he got pulled over on the freeway for breaking the speed limit in his Stanley Steamer from 1906-ish. Darn thing has a top speed of 127mph. My 2018 motorcycle tops out at 110mph, to give you a comparison. Why don't we have steam cars? Because in the early 1900's steam cars they couldn't compete with the elegance of ICE vehicles. The engines were big an…

> My 2018 motorcycle tops out at 110mph This is a silly point of fact. Motorcycles have been capable of achieving far greater than 110 mph for a long time; a top speed of 110mph puts your 2018 vehicle on the low end of the speed range for "motorcycle" class vehicles (as opposed to scooters, mopeds, ebikes, etc). My random 1997 low-end 600cc sportbike could exceed 130 mph when it was 15 years old.

Exactly. ICE is/was more size- and weight- efficient than electric. We had motorcycles with the performance of normal person modern motorcycles many decades ago.

Electric power only became practical enough for motorcycles in the last few years.

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#66

Post by anoncake »

standardUser wrote: post #32
jacquesm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You meant 'there is a lot more to the discussion than the density of the energy carrier'. A nuclear vehicle would be impractical due to waste and risk.

It turns out the same was true for internal combustion engines all along.

ICEs don't pose much of a risk. The damage they cause is predictable.

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#67

Post by tathougies »

standardUser wrote: post #32
jacquesm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You meant 'there is a lot more to the discussion than the density of the energy carrier'. A nuclear vehicle would be impractical due to waste and risk.

It turns out the same was true for internal combustion engines all along.

Electricity required combustion to produce at the time, and still does today. Battery waste is also not neglible, and battery mining is as dirty as oil.

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#68

Post by tathougies »

standardUser wrote: post #32
jacquesm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You meant 'there is a lot more to the discussion than the density of the energy carrier'. A nuclear vehicle would be impractical due to waste and risk.

It turns out the same was true for internal combustion engines all along.

Electricity required combustion to produce at the time, and still does today. Battery waste is also not negligible, and battery mining is as dirty as oil.

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#69

Post by 8bitsrule »

Related article (by Alexis Madrigal), "The Electric Taxi Company You Could Have Called in 1900" about an attempt to roll out an electric cab company in NYC and the rest of New England.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/the-e...

Another article which touches on the subject: https://grist.org/article/2011-03-28-alexis-madrigal-crazy-g...

"At a time when many people were stuck inside new urban confines, unable to get outside to private spaces, having a car that could tour, a car with a lot of range, was quite appealing.... And it was just sexy to go fast. People like to go fast."

Re: We Could Have Had Electric Cars from the Beginning

#70

Post by perilunar »

bdamm wrote: post #42
chmielewski wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have seen a significant long-term R&D investment but all the nice rotary engines are in prop planes. Edit: since you mention a ship, some use large opposed-pistol Diesel engines (two oppositely meeting pistons around the combustion chamber per cylinder which also allows the cylinder to be much wider)... don’t see these in either planes or cars... Hydrogen power?—- Hydrogen is difficult to keep contained because it…

A rotary engine is not the same as a radial engine. Radial engines go in airplanes, rotary engines go in Mazdas.

Actually... rotary engines did go in aircraft. [0]

Wankels go in Mazdas.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine

Post reply on HN