Hacker News Reader

Comment by mangecoeur | Hacker News Reader

History is littered with the corpses of 'better' IC engine designs... the basic problem is you need to retool your entire factory and re-design your vehicles. If you are doing that today, why not just jump straight to electric motors?

View on HN

> why not just jump straight to electric motors

Because they can't satisfy every need just yet. Imagine we still have horses even with engines being around for more than a century. And adapting to a newer IC tech might actually be cheaper and easier than redesigning for EV tech. Manufacturers already have the experience, logistics chains, much of the designs, etc.

Some transitions are never complete because sometimes there's no "one size fits all" option for the manufacturer or the consumer.

Yeah, but in 10 years when this technology is productionised, the use cases for it are going to be increasingly niche. Just like horses.

Perhaps generators or heavy construction equipment would benefit from something like this. Lower pollution, lower costs for the operator, while still offering some flexibility that electric tech may not even in a decade.

There are still hundreds of thousands to millions of work horses around the world. I'm still very much for improving old tech where it's possible and makes sense, even if it's niche.

Definitely agree with you here.

It's not just the tech, it's the lack of infrastructure, especially rural infrastructure. It'll be more than 10 years.

Like the Tesla turbine, an engine with only one moving part.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_turbine

(When I was a kid this thing was mythological and now it has a Wikipedia page. What a world!)

Aviation comes to mind, where the power density of batteries is not yet anywhere near sufficient for long-haul or cargo.

Aviation tends to use turbines. Tiny general aviation aircraft tend to use small volumes of old proven designs.

Because battery efficiency is still only 10% of liquid fuel efficiency, in kwh/kg.

This is correct, but this is density not efficiency.

For transportation that's the pivotal interesting measure. Efficiency is for grids etc. For moving energy around, the weight is critical.

With highly efficient grid you don't need to move around that much weight.

But I really wish the main argument was our survival. We simply won't survive if we continue burning fossil fuels.

I agree the weight is critical but kWh/kg is still not efficiency. Efficiency = "power discharged by"/"power delivered to" battery

Yes thanks everybody knows what efficiency is. It factors into transportation, only in the effect it has on fuel weight. Essentially, on how it effects kWh(delivered)/kg.

Battery efficiency is far, far higher than liquid fuel efficiency. A car wastes 90%+ of the energy in its gasoline.

kwh/kg is a measure of density, not efficiency. Very different concepts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com