Hacker News Reader

Comment by rawrmaan | Hacker News Reader

It's becoming clearer and clearer that the main things preventing total EV takeover are lack of good products on the market and production capacity. I'm excited to hopefully watch both of these problems erode in the next 5 years.

Really really ready to stop breathing fossil fuels all day every day in the city.

View on HN

Fedex has 14,500 trucks [0]. That will put tesla's at .13% of the fleet which sounds just like they are buying some to test the economic viability of them. I would hardly use this as a sign "that the main things preventing total EV takeover are lack of good products on the market and production capacity".

[0]: https://expandedramblings.com/index.php/fedex-statistics/

Fair point, but you have to take this development in context. EVs technologically outpace ICE vehicles on every axis other than refuel time, upfront cost and range. EVs can improve on all of these metrics, whereas ICE vehicles cannot. Therefore a complete switch is only a matter of time—it remains to be seen how quickly it will happen.

ICE still have a decent amount of efficiency headroom, so range and operational cost will continue to improve if auto and truck makers choose to spend the 80% investment to squeeze the last 20% out. Automakers seem pretty split - some are building initiatives to go full electric while others are focused on the ICE endgame. We'll see what large equipment and truck manufacturers do but I think the time horizon is quite long.

Indeed. For plain-jane passenger vehicles, Toyota is rolling out new engines with a different stroke-to-bore ratio, and a wider angle between the intake and exhaust valves to speed up combustion. With some changes to ancillaries they've increased thermal efficiency from 35% to 40% (41% in hybrid vehicles).

Mazda (of which Toyota has a fair stake) is rolling out their second generation SkyActiv which uses spark controlled compression ignition (SPCCI), in conjunction with a lean supercharger, to switch between spark ignition and compression ignition based on engine load. They've not thrown out a thermal efficiency number, but it's likely in the ballpark of 43-45%. They're targeting 56% thermal efficiency for the third generation of the tech, which is already well into its development, and we'll see sometime after 2021.

The current benchmark is Mercedes' Formula 1 engines, which are 50% thermally efficient, but understandably cost an arm and a leg.

This is excluding other things like Koenigsegg's FreeValve which uses pneumatic-hydraulic-electronic actuators (PHEA) to replace the camshaft. The only licensee so far is the Chinese manufacturer Qoros, which is a shame as Koenigsegg got pretty significant adoption of their FlexFuel tech by GM, Ford and Chrysler in the US (> 17 million vehicles sold).

A concern of EVs is also the weight of the fuel, which is a significant fraction of the overall vehicle weight.

The weight is substantial. The Lithium-ion packs in the Model S, for example, weighs over 500KG. One of the largest engines in a current production car, the Dodge 8.4L V10, is 42% lighter. Smaller turbo petrols weigh just a fraction of that.

(I am comparing just the weights of the power plants, not the power plant + drivetrain which would include gearboxes, differentials and electric motors).

Sure, but you wouldn't expect FedEx to replace their entire fleet this year. A somewhat more meaningful number is how many new FedEx freight trucks will be built by Tesla over the next year.

And UPS has placed an order for 125 of them (https://electrek.co/2018/03/26/tesla-semi-electric-truck-ord...) as well.

You're right that this isn't going to radically transform the country's freight fleet overnight, but I think it's a signal that these companies are willing to switch to EV technology if it works. The next hurdle now seems to be Tesla's ability to execute.

Few things transform overnight, most of them take time.

I am not saying that they are buying them for just that, but the PR value of this operation is probably worth a big percentage of the cost of the trucks.

Probably more a proof of concept than PR function. Stress testing these trucks will lend great insight into their practicality.

Exactly. Like How many mechanical and electrical problems will develop a year from now ? Two years ? It’s very different to carry 80,000 lbs for a few test rides than everyday for years.

> Fedex has 14,500 trucks [0]. That will put tesla's at .13% of the fleet

Do we know what fraction of FedEx’s annual truck purchasing this order represents? Fraction of flow is a leading indicator fraction of stock (which you helpfully provided) [1].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_and_flow

I wouldn't get too carried away with this announcement. For FedEx, this is a minuscule pilot project and (more importantly) a cheap way to generate positive publicity.

The main thing preventing total flying car takeover is the lack of good flying cars on the market and production capacity.

Well, physics, safety, and energy efficiency play a huge role there as well.

*specific energy of batteries and FAA regs

Uh, no. This is one of those really specious arguments that sounds clever until you think about it.

The main thing preventing total flying car takeover is that there is no technology that would make the product viable-- as has been pointed out, it would be EXTREMELY loud, create immense downdrafts, and create massive safety risks far beyond those of terrestrial cars.

Similarly, the main thing preventing robotic takeover of the cleaning industry is that there are not yet any robots capable of generically handling all cleaning tasks like sweeping, dusting furniture, washing windows, organizing a cupboard, mowing the lawn and so on. It's not just that there is no production line-- there isn't even one such robot nor is anyone capable of making one.

Etc.

I dislike this kind of empty reasoning. It derails conversations with baseless non-logic.

I totally agree with you except on one point:

> there is no technology that would make the product viable

Unless it's only a matter of R&D before we have vehicles that can fly without blowing air around. It's plausible that a technology may exist in the future which makes this viable.

Or teleporters. Might as well mention those if you're speculating about unknown future breakthroughs.

Or commercially-viable and massively-produced electric cars, as long as we're talking about unknown future breakthroughs.

I think you wrote this in jest but if there were really good flying cars on or coming onto the market it wouldn't surprise me if it could make a dent or maybe even a total takeover of certain types of industries, depending on what you're targeting. Cars in general? Probably not plus they'd have to fly themselves or people would be dying far more frequently than regular car crashes.

And sound!

artificial sounds (because they are too quiet)

From my understanding, the requirement for artificial sounds when reversing already exists for big trucks and haulers, regardless of the type of engine inside, for the safety of pedestrians. It's the quietness of small electric vehicles, like cars and SUVs, that prompted the requirement in consumer vehicles.

as long as they are not powered by coal power plants... (but I guess that those are typically in poor neighborhoods)

It's still a decent improvement if they are - one big coal plant running at relatively constant speed is much more efficient than an equivalent number of individual petrol engines in cars afaik.

More energy efficient, yes. But resulting more CO2 and SOx and NOx emissions even with scrubbers.

That really isn't true anymore - EVs are still greener than any petrol car for 75% of the US population, and that will go up! https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/new-data-show-electri...

For the current generation mix, which is a lot of natural gas and some renewables, you’re right. And I agree the mix will get greener.

Ah I wasn't aware of that. Emissions are definitely the primary concern, at least for me.

Coal makes up only a third of American electrical generation, and it’s dropping rapidly.

only a third? wow, I thought that it was less then 25%

Only 30% of USA power comes from coal, and it’s much lower on the west coast than elsewhere.

Coal is one thing, the environmental cost of producing batteries is another. You have to drive your 100kWh Tesla for over 8 years to get carbon emissions lower than ICE cars[1].

That number probably got lower thanks to Gigafactory being more efficient. Hopefully.

1) https://www.autovistagroup.com/news-and-insights/swedish-stu...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com