Hacker News Reader

Comment by jl6 | Hacker News Reader

Would the perfect car have an electric engine for everyday driving and a hydrogen tank/generator for backup/range driving?

View on HN

You already have that kind of hybrids with ICE engines and they are bad. A lot heavier because of two systems, with a system that is rarely used (unless it's a gaz car with a tiny battery only for the taxes benefits) so it's not very reliable, and more expensive.

I will cite Carlos Tavares (CEO of Stellantis, Abarth, Alfa Romeo, Chrysler, Citroën, Dodge, DS Automobiles, Fiat, Fiat Professional, Jeep, Lancia, Maserati, Opel, Peugeot, Ram Trucks and Vauxhall Motors.) when he was still working for Renault and talking about hybrids to the government. The guy is not a EV fan, far from it.

"Why not opt for the hybrid engine? We think that it can only be a temporary solution because it requires two types of motorisation, thermal and electric, which has an impact on the total cost of the vehicle and ultimately on prices. Two motorisations is one too many."

The same argument works for hydrogen.

Isn't it strictly better on a non cost basis for now though if you need range and want efficiency?

Not really, efficiency of ICE engine or hydrogen are pretty poor. And on long trips you need to take breaks anyway.

Today we already have production electric cars that charge at more than 1000km/h for a while. If this number is increased even a bit more and the charging network continue to be developed there is no good reason to put something else in the car. Not to mention it's difficult to find hydrogen everywhere, while electricity is very well developed.

I wouldn't put much weight on Stellantis' opinion for car tech. They're the furthest behind in both ICE and EV technology and innovations. So of course they're going to resist regulations for better anything.

A lot of people are down on hybrids but they look like a good interim solution to me. We can't make enough batteries to electrify everything right now but we can eliminate a ton of emissions with plugins.

If I look at our usage patterns most of the year we are making short journeys, 20 miles or less. Then occasionally we will take the car on holiday. We could easily eliminate the majority of our car's emissions with a plugin hybrid.

With the price difference between a PHEV and an EV, you could get a nicer short-range EV for everyday and rent a nicer car for holidays.

Not true, due to tax incentives. I just looked up the difference between my PHEV and the equivalent gas-only version [1]. The PHEV starts at 43k€, the gas one (Cooper S) starts at 40k€.

[1] https://www.mini.pt/pt_PT/home/standard-selector/configurado...

Due to tax incentives, the EV Mini is 29k€ where I live, 31k€ in France. Even though it's outdated tech, it's still a nice short-range EV and you save money by not having to buy, maintain, and transport around an ICE.

My brother in law has one, it doesn't have the range to drive to his mum's house and back (58 miles each way).

Not at highway speeds indeed. He should have got another car without outdated technology and a small battery, or he should stop charging for a few minutes. Difficult life.

The PHEV was a better solution for me. The electric range is enough for the daily commute, I can charge at the office. Anything longer, and it is a gasoline car. I have 40 thousand km on it, two thirds of them electric.

We already have those (with a gasoline back-up) - they're called plug-in hybrids.

How about an ordinary electric car with a small trailer carrying a fuel generator?

That would be a surprisingly reasonable solution for scenarios where you couldn't recharge at your destination. A generator always runs at peak efficiency, which is easily twice of the average efficiency of a plain ICE car, so even after the losses at charging the electric car wouldn't be much worse than the ICE car. And you would use it when there are no alternatives.

If you go on a longer camping trip, you should just pack a bunch of solar cells :)

We are at a point where it becomes less and less relevant. There are electric cars with 600 to 800 km range already which recharge very quickly. And the development isn't going to stop any time soon. Why even consider a complex hybrid solution, when you can just get a bigger and faster charging battery?

We are already at a point where you can recharge an electric car faster than the driver needs for finishing food and coffee :)

>There are electric cars with 600 to 800 km range

In the very high price ranges.

A Model 3 can reach the 600km range, and that is certainly cheaper than hydrogen cars. And the price is constantly going down.

Model 3 that can reach 580 km costs about 2.5 Volkswagen Golfs.

Yes, if you look at the very basic Golf. Which is a different car. There is also the ID.3 as an electric counterpart, but that might not get quite 600km of range. But prices are coming down.

So yes, if you really need 600km range and beyond right now and a Model 3 is too expensive for you, electric isn't a solution, get an ICE car. Though you have to watch the running costs so the TCO doesn't exceed the one of an electric car. Certainly they will, if you buy synthetic fuels.

The cheapest ID.3 is about 1.4 Volkswagen Golfs and gets 350 km of range. For 540 km, you need to pay 2.0 Volkswagen Golfs.

Yes, what is your point? There are cheaper ICE cars than electric cars, especially if you get the longer ranges. You still need to watch the TCO and this thread is about expensive synthetic fuels for Porsche cars, which are at the other end of the price range.

That while you can get an EV with a 600-800 km, it's definitely not something that is attainable by the common man. So it's really only "less and less relevant" for the elite few.

I personally wouldn't be able to afford a Tesla with my meager engineering salary, especially one that is actually in that 600-800 km range. The TCO on one of those cars is also most likely higher than what it is on an ICE car.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com