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

SUVs are offsetting EV car gains

the-ken.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 99 posts

Re: SUVs are offsetting EV car gains

#71

Post by tashbarg »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #34
WA wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is not even close to "waste", it is saving the planet in maximum comfort. It is 100 % waste and you don't "save" the planet. Saving the planet = no car. Yeah, an EV is less wasteful than an ICE. Just don't think you save the planet .

> Saving the planet = no car. Saving the planet = maximum one kid per couple.

While we are a lot of humans, we are nowadays far away from having too much kids.

Worldwide, we are already close to the replacement rate and projections see us falling below by 2070.

Most of the population growth is actually not "new kids getting born", it's "folks getting older than the generations before".

So, if population growth is your concern, don't tell people to have less kids. Tell them to stop getting so old.

Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-popu...

Re: SUVs are offsetting EV car gains

#72

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

dartharva wrote: post #35
harshitaneja wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SUVs are already mainstream in India. In 2020, SUVs accounted for 29% of all car sales and suffered the least hit from covid sales decline.

That's because most of those sales are from institutional/corporate customers, not households.

Doesn’t this just mean that given the choice most who can afford to buy one prefer SUVs?

Re: SUVs are offsetting EV car gains

#73

Post by llampx »

pjmlp wrote: post #47
coolgoose wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am confused on why some people don't get that SUV's are a preference because they do bring some benefits (namely more space, a bit higher guard (especially useful on shitty roads), and that the alternative aka MCV's / monovolume are just dead and were never a lot more drag efficient. Does it suck to drive a SUV in a city ? Mostly yes, but is it better to tax people based on the car size ? Won't this just make some…

I guess if they can afford an SUV, they can afford two cars.

SUVs are more expensive on average than sedans or hatchbacks, but are not indicative of luxury clientele.

Re: SUVs are offsetting EV car gains

#74

Post by imtringued »

jnsaff2 wrote: post #10
morsch wrote: post #2

Alternatively, the 536 hp, 5018 lbs (2276 kg) BMW i4 ("1,000 lbs (454 kg) more than most other 3 and 4 Series BMWs", not known as lightweight cars in the first place) apparently "is the electric BMW sedan you’ve been waiting for". New ways of wasting energy in maximum comfort, all around. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/10/the-2023-bmw-i4-is-the-...

Also, people in the EV conversion world tended to think that weight was the killer of efficiency. They later found out by experience that weight was much less important than wind resistance with the conclusion that speed is mostly killing your efficiency (along with shape of the car).

That's not very surprising:

kinetic energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity^2

Re: SUVs are offsetting EV car gains

#75

Post by imtringued »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #34
WA wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is not even close to "waste", it is saving the planet in maximum comfort. It is 100 % waste and you don't "save" the planet. Saving the planet = no car. Yeah, an EV is less wasteful than an ICE. Just don't think you save the planet .

> Saving the planet = no car. Saving the planet = maximum one kid per couple.

Saving the planet = every human commits suicide

Do whatever you can. The most effective strategies are often the least interesting.

Re: SUVs are offsetting EV car gains

#76

Post by imtringued »

gitanovic wrote: post #16
trhway wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>New ways of wasting energy in maximum comfort, all around. "Over the course of 267 miles (430 km) and 8 hours, the car used 2.6 miles/kWh (23.7 kWh/100 km), bearing in mind that those miles were all driven in Germany and include running at the car's top speed of 140 mph (225 km) on derestricted autobahns." ie. around 100 mpg. It is not even close to "waste", it is saving the planet in maximum comfort.

As other people have pointed out, the efficiency should be calculated over the car lifetime, and including the average efficiency at which the electricity is produced in the areas where the car test was run... Germany produces a LOT of electricity from COAL, so we are replacing benzin and diesel with coal... not very smart in my eyes.

Germany produces a LOT of electricity from renewables as well.

If you include nuclear then around 60% of the generated electricity was produced with low CO2 emissions.

Re: SUVs are offsetting EV car gains

#77

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

robocat wrote: post #69
eptcyka wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electric cars are heavier, yes. And its easier than ever to get mad power out of electric motors. And it still will be more efficient than literally all ICE powered SUVs. In fact, the power figures are irrelevant IMO, as electric motors scale with demand a lot better. It is incredibly hard to make a reliable ICE that will be incredibly efficient and also capable of big power, but with electric motors, the only downsi…

CO2 output is a fixed manufacturing output (approximately proportional to vehicle cost ignoring taxes/incentives) plus a variable output approximately proportional to distance. If you buy an electric vehicle for short lifetime distance (say, because trip length is limited), you can easily end up producing more CO2 from an electric vehicle than a cheaper ICE vehicle (depending at your location on how a marginal extra…

If I recall correctly, it’s around the 100,000km for a similar sized vehicle EV vs ICE, when the EV is charged from a mixed source electricity supply similar to what most developed nations presently have (mostly coal, some gas and renewables).

Re: SUVs are offsetting EV car gains

#78

Post by tashbarg »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #65
WA wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is not even close to "waste", it is saving the planet in maximum comfort. It is 100 % waste and you don't "save" the planet. Saving the planet = no car. Yeah, an EV is less wasteful than an ICE. Just don't think you save the planet .

Plus the break-even for an EV vs ICE car is around the 100,000k mark, if I recall correctly, due to the energy required to build the battery in the EV. So: it’s complicated. It’d take me over ten years to do 100,000 kilometres, so probably the best car is the one I already have.

This [1] claims 21,725km for the US and only 13,518km for Norways energy mix. The 100,000km number is quite old and was corrected down and down again several times due to more efficient battery production and changing energy mix.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-d...

Re: SUVs are offsetting EV car gains

#79

Post by trhway »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #7
trhway wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>New ways of wasting energy in maximum comfort, all around. "Over the course of 267 miles (430 km) and 8 hours, the car used 2.6 miles/kWh (23.7 kWh/100 km), bearing in mind that those miles were all driven in Germany and include running at the car's top speed of 140 mph (225 km) on derestricted autobahns." ie. around 100 mpg. It is not even close to "waste", it is saving the planet in maximum comfort.

>It is not even close to "waste", it is saving the planet in maximum comfort. It's less wasteful than the ICE equivalent but in no way can it be described as saving the planet. If you are really serious about saving the planet then you buy a bicycle.

>If you are really serious about saving the planet then you buy a bicycle.

bicycle is 100miles/kwh. Human body is 25% efficient, so it is just 25 miles/kwh for the energy coming in the food - so for all the bicycle disadvantages (low speed, open to elements, no meaningful cargo capacity) it is only meager 10x difference with that 2+ tons BMW i4 (and only 7x difference with my Prius Plugin).

The kwh in human food is much dirty than kwh for electric car, especially when electricity comes from renewables. The food requires tremendous expenditure of energy to produce it as well as it causes tremendous impact on the planet ecosystem due to agriculture.

Re: SUVs are offsetting EV car gains

#80

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

tashbarg wrote: post #71
TacticalCoder wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Saving the planet = no car. Saving the planet = maximum one kid per couple.

While we are a lot of humans, we are nowadays far away from having too much kids. Worldwide, we are already close to the replacement rate and projections see us falling below by 2070. Most of the population growth is actually not "new kids getting born", it's "folks getting older than the generations before". So, if population growth is your concern, don't tell people to have less kids. Tell them to stop getting so o…

You might enjoy this book, in which philosopher Ken Wilber humorously suggests we should tax incentives euthanasia for the elderly:

Boomeritis: A Novel That Will Set You Free is a polemical 2002 novel by American philosopher Ken Wilber, principally designed to explain Wilber's integral theory and to explain his concept of "Boomeritis". Wilber characterizes this as the deadly combination of a modern egalitarian worldview with a deep unquestioned narcissism commonly held by Baby Boomers and their children in the green meme of Spiral Dynamics, as opposed to Wilber's universal integralism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomeritis

Post reply on HN