Hacker News Reader

Comment by mattlondon | Hacker News Reader

It is interesting to see sentiment change over the years on hacker news.

First EVs were too expensive. Then they were too slow/couldn't tow. Then the range was too small.

Now people are griping that they can't "refuel" in 5 mins.

I guess we will see what the next excuse becomes for people to continue polluting and why EVs "aren't ready" for their hypothetical/once-a-year/niche needs.

Sigh.

View on HN

Consider living in the early 2000s and replace 'digital camera' vs 'analog camera' with 'dinosaur burning vehicles' vs 'electric vehicles'.

Same discussion, different technology. We all know how it ended ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Ironic that they were "refueling" electric trucks 100 years ago in 5 minutes. They just drove into a service bay and replaced the battery.

We could make new gas stations rent batteries. Pay a subscription fee and you can drive around with a BP battery and exchange it at any BP. 5 minutes work and a tidy sum to avoid long charging times.

Perfect EV (for me) was already made. Citroen Ami. $6000, 75km range.

You tried it yourself ? (just curious)

They don't sell it in my country :(

Traditional car manufacturers simply don't want our money. It needs new companies like Tesla to actually make and sell the damn product.

Those aren't excuses, those are legitimate gripes/complaints. If EVs were that great, they would've beat ICE, especially since they're available at artificially lower prices (subsidies). EV sales are microscopic vs. ICE because EV offerings are inferior.

Both electric and ICE cars are being subsidised:

- direct car purchase subsidies (almost exclusively electric)

- oil production subsidies. You might want to have a look at [0].

- wind and solar electricity production subsidies.

- road infrastructure building and maintenance.

  - Road and fuel taxes do not cover this.

  - Usually higher for the same size electric car because heavier. That could change with battery and charging tech improvements though...

- ...

One could also argue that the following heavyweights should be included:

- oil wars.

- untaxed negative environmental externalities:

  - oil spills

  - CO2 and other harmful gas emissions

  - car tire particles from both  ICE and electric cars ...

[0] http://www.taxpayer.net/wp-content/uploads/ported/images/dow... .

Where I live I'm pretty sure all the electrical power comes from natural gas turbines. So EVs pollute just like regular cars.

There's actual transit and the local government has their act together though so I don't drive at all.

Do they indeed? The turbines usually have much better exhaust filtration and have higher efficiency than oil refinery+ICE.

But all of those are still true. I would argue that public transport should replace cars for commute which is most of the "non-niche" usage.

Public transport can't get you anywhere, on your own terms? Sounds familiar.

They are not simultaneously true. The new Model S Long Range has 412 mi range. All of them can tow, but they are all fairly expensive.

The cheapest Model 3 isn't cheap, but definitely getting there.

It's better but not great. Not everyone can afford tesla. Western goverments and big companies are to blame for lack of incentives and infrastructure. People buy what makes the most sense, and petrol is better for many people. This can be changed.

I think that everyone would instantly switch to EV if it had the same properties but had a battery instead of a tank. They are faster, silent, cleaner, but it's up to leaders to bridge the gap making them economically viable.

I've assumed its just a problem of demand for batteries exceeding supply. If a manufacturer can only make a small number of cars because they are restricted by battery supply then they are going to mark up the price to maximise their profit. As more battery supply becomes available the prices should fall.

> The cheapest Model 3 isn't cheap, but definitely getting there.

Prices are heading in the wrong direction at the moment:

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/tesla-model-s-model-3-mod...

Exhaust pipe should end in the cabin. Then people will stop their excuses.

They are still to expensive for me. Also, I get all my cars used.

Outside of that I'm still concerned about the carge time. If I drive out of town to visit my folks and I'm low on gas I can just fill up mid trip no problem. How does that work if it takes an hour (a generous guess based on my phone) to charge?

That said I think the tech is cool and am looking forward to the price coming down.

for an 8 hour trip you might budget an hour lunchbreak anyways. so an hour full recharge time is manageable. if you are almost there already, you won't need a full charge to make it.

Well I drive a 250 mile round trip every week or every other. Range does matter.

250 miles is within range of a bunch of different cars - and not just Tesla or luxury brands but also Fords, Skodas, Nissan, and Volkswagens too. At UK speed limits that is like 3.5 continuous hours driven at 70mph (in reality you'd not be doing 70 all the time either)... Most people would take a bio break and maybe a coffee in there somewhere and fast charging for 15 mins at 100+kw can give some decent top-up (e.g. ID.3 does over 500miles per hour charging, so just 5mins while you go take a piss is another 40 miles range added)

https://ev-database.uk/#sort:path~type~order=.price~number~a...

The catch is when it's cold out. I'm in a similar situation. ~120 miles one way. My Nissan Leaf gets ~140 miles per charge, and it works fine in the spring/summer/fall.

In the winter I get about 90 miles on full charge, so not only am I stopping to charge, but I have to be at full charge when I leave. Also consider that the only fast charging station on my route is right around 30 miles in, and I'm running "on fumes" every trip.

I know there are cars with bigger batteries that will make it. But I also know they are another ~$10k, which is a significant upcharge.

Yes for me the weather requires AC for most of the year in addition to significant periods of cold weather. There's also the significant lack of charging infrastructure.

The fundamental problem is that EVs might be doomed once fuel cell cars come around. Nearly all of the criticism of this argument are just a mirror of the arguments against EVs (often made by pro-EV people no less).

So the real misunderstanding isn't with anti-EV people, but with pro-EV denying that there's a future beyond EVs.

> The fundamental problem is that EVs might be doomed once fuel cell cars come around.

Fuel cell cars are EVs.

Yes, but people get confused. Hence why EVs should be referred to as BEVs, and fuel cell cars as FCEVs.

I think fuel cells window of opportunity is closing fast and they have no traction despite a lot of investment.

EV's weight penalty is going away as battery energy density relentlessly increases. EV's capital expense penalty is also going away due to mass manufacturing improvements.

Charging infrastructure for EV's is basically a last 50 foot problem. Running 30 amp 240 circuit from a breaker box to an external outlet. Compare with the infrastructure needed for the 'hydrogen economy'. Every bit of it needs to be designed and built from scratch. Countries have built stuff like that but it takes decades. We don't have decades.

You can't build a "lead" as if this was a race. For one thing, there's no finish line. There's nothing stopping fuel cell cars from having their own technology revolution and a S-curve like adoption curve that displaces everything else. This could happen ever after EVs "win" over internal combustion so to speak. It's fully possible that EVs are still on-track to being replaced no matter what happens next.

The other thing is that we still have to pay attention to fundamental limitations. There are hard limits to battery energy density that likely to never be crossed. Extremely fast-charging will probably always be limited by its high power power draw. Meanwhile, fuel cell technology is advancing extremely quickly in its own right. We could be seeing fuel cell cars that cost as much as a Corolla[1], and cost only $1.5/kg[2] to refuel (or about 2-3¢ per mile). In a world were fuel cell cars cost <$20k and are cheaper to run than EVs, while also delivering 400 miles of range and 5-minute refueling times, EVs quickly lose much of their luster.

[1] https://www.thedrive.com/tech/26050/exclusive-toyota-hydroge...

[2] https://renewablesnow.com/news/nel-aiming-at-green-hydrogen-...

There is still a hard limit to hydrogen energy density that is likely to never be crossed. And safe consumer-friendly handling of pure hydrogen is much more expensive than electricity, that also stems from physical limitations. These limitations are being hit now. On the other side, batteries and chargers did not hit their hard physical limitations yet. Supercapacitors exchanging many megawatts of energy over superconductive wires are feasible.

Hydrogen energy density is around 39,000 Wh/kg. That's rarely going to the limiting factor. The physical limitations are nearly the same as natural gas, which is to say they are easily solvable. Superconducting wires will have their own major issues that are a long ways away from being solved.

In reality, we're nearly at the point where hydrogen is a solved problem, but batteries will be a very long ways away from being a car for everyone. In particular, you've ignored the limits on battery energy density which will likely limit battery powered cars to either expensive luxury cars or short-ranged urban cars.

You conveniently omitted the storage vessel factor from the energy density. And it's definitely not comparable to natural gas in other respects too, such as hydrogen is corrosive and needs special alloys or nonmetal materials.

Superconducing wires are already and increasingly used in practice. Even without superconductors we can just keep raising the voltage and use copper, there are new silicon carbide power transistors that make it possible. We aren't near physical limit yet.

Other assertions of yours are likewise unfounded, too.

I can totally see hydrogen airplanes but for cars it's too little too late.

From a theoretical standpoint, you don't need to worry about that. You can conceive of metal hydrides or other forms of dense hydrogen storage. Even as LH₂, you're still looking at around 2700 Wh/L of energy. That's well beyond any known rechargeable battery.

And the "special alloys" really just mean certain types of steel alloy, and "nonmetal materials" really mean certain types of plastics. This is not a big challenge.

You still need very low temperatures and exotic materials for superconducting cables. Not to mention the power generation needed to sustain that level of power draw. This is a long-term problem that we're nowhere near solving.

As I said before, this is not a race and there is no finish line. There's nothing stopping fuel cell cars from displacing EVs at an arbitrary point in the future.

From theoretical standpoint why not jump ahead to antimatter? :)

Electricity is a solved problem, most obstacles to additional power generation and transport are bureaucratic in nature.

As soon as everyone agrees to build more nuclear power... We're not anywhere near ready to use anti-matter, but the next best thing faces extreme opposition for some reason.

Hydrogen is pretty much a solved problem too. Most of the critics are just stuck in 2010 or earlier.

I did not have primarily nuclear in mind, but obstacles to extending long-distance electric grid to support renewables. But hydrogen pipelines are going to have even worse problem with this. And you did not really debunk any of my "stuck in 2010" criticism.

Hydrogen pipelines are a solved problem. We have been doing it for decades[1]. I could have said "stuck in 1930" but that might be overdoing it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_pipeline_transport

> Hydrogen energy density is around 39,000 Wh/kg

Lithium's energy density is 11,600 Wh/kg.

> In reality, we're nearly at the point where hydrogen is a solved problem, but batteries will be a very long ways away from being a car for everyone

I can buy a battery powered vehicle today. Seriously it's 5pm on a Sunday. However the dealer is open till 7pm and they have a couple of dozen Chevy Bolts on the lot.

That's much lower than hydrogen. So what was the argument here?

You can buy a fuel cell car today too. I've notice that many of you guys are stuck in 2010 or so. Fuel cells cars are far beyond your outdated viewpoints.

Fuel-cell proponents keep claiming they're just around the corner but the issues with them are fundamental. ~3x the total energy use because of all the inefficiencies, and needing an all new infrastructure compared to BEVs where the grid is already everywhere. If FCEVs show up and are actually usable that would be fine but I wouldn't bet on it. They're mostly brought out as an argument for staying on ICEs until, real soon now, we'll finally have them. Maybe for long sea shipping hydrogen will work, but even for trucking the 3x energy input needed is hard to justify.

There's nothing stopping FCEVs from being as efficient as BEVs. Even now, huge improvements are being found like 90% efficient electrolysis[1]. Future improvements in hydrogen and fuel cell technology could close the gap entirely.

Like I said, you're repeating many arguments that are a mirror of the arguments made against BEVs. It's pretty ridiculous to just repeat anti-EVs for something else while being pro-EVs.

The other thing is that this viewpoint is increasingly outdated. A lot of these "facts" date to the 2010s or earlier. These are more inline with a person being out of touch than someone that is informed.

[1] https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/03/20210307-topsoe.htm...

90% efficient electrolysis doesn't matter when "getting hydrogen from the pump to your car's fuel tank" has 20+ percent energy losses. And from the tanker trailer to the pump. And...

This comes from the inherent thermodynamic inefficiencies of compressing something, letting it expand, and then compressing it again.

Those losses can be made much less than that. Theoretical minimal losses are on the order of 1-2kWh per kg, and in practice not much more than that[1]. Further efficiency improvements can get reality even closer to theoretical.

Most of these arguments are increasingly outdated, as I mentioned before. We're at the point where hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent on hydrogen right now[2]. So naysayers are more accurately described as being out of touch with latest events and not people with any special knowledge.

[1] https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/9013_energy_requirement...

[2] https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2020/7/8/europe-unveils-pl...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com