The EV Transition Is Harder Than Anyone Thinks | Hacker News Reader

The EV Transition Is Harder Than Anyone Thinks

spectrum.ieee.org

241 pointsjnord936 comments

These articles always miss the most important point. People are buying EVs because they're better. That's the whole point of Tesla making attractive vehicles, aesthetically and functionally. That market pull allows for an S-curve in the technology, since it reduces market risk for investing in each increase in scale.

This is a completely different scenario than what the article suggests, which is that EVs are some kind of medicine for climate change that society is trying to have discipline about. Not so. It's a life or death situation for the auto industry, they don't have a choice. They either join the race or die. This makes most concerns about the transition irrelevant. For example, laws banning gasoline cars by 2035 are as useful as laws banning flip phones by 2015 would have been.

> People are buying EVs because they're better

This is only true for people with a certain amount of spare money to pay the extra, since EVs are more expensive to purchase.

"The new EVs cost an average of $65,041 in November [2022], according to Kelley Blue Book, while gas cars averaged $48,681 that month"[0]

[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/electric-vehicles-prices-exp...

The prices have changed a lot since November 2022; Tesla became eligible for the $7,500 Federal tax credit again, and they dropped their prices significantly to qualify. Right now a base Model 3 is around $36k after tax credit.

> Right now a base Model 3 is around $36k after tax credit

Not wishing to be obtuse, but is that good? There are a lot of people who would never dream of paying that much for a new car.

The average new car price is $49k. I can't find info on the median, and I'm sure that is before tax rebates.

> The average new car price is $49k

Right, meaning there are a lot of car buyers who pay less than that. In many cases a lot less. I'm one of them(!)

The last time I bought a new car I paid $11k, although that was around five years ago. Since then, over many tens of thousands of miles, that vehicle has transported our family from A to B and back again.

I'd love to own an EV, but I can't afford to pay a significant premium for one.

Used car market is for people price sensitive. EVs will trickle down to them eventually as new car buyers upgrade.

If you don't need the extended range of a brand new battery, I think you'll be able to pick up a used one for cheap soon enough.

My parents bought a Tesla a few months ago because their Leaf's battery life fell below the point where they could get to work and back reliably on a single charge and they spent months waiting for a battery replacement (they're still waiting). If their supply problems continue, people are going to start dumping more and more used electrical cars and going back to gas or to companies that can actually keep up battery supply like Tesla.

> If you don't need the extended range of a brand new battery [..]

My OH drove the best part of 200 miles, round trip, on the spur of the moment to pick me up at an airport late in the evening after my flight was badly delayed, she got to the airport just as I came through baggage reclaim so was at the airport less than 10 mins. That was just last week. By sheer coincidence I drove to pick her up at the same airport the week before, although at least I knew that journey was coming ahead of time.

What do used EV owners with smaller and/or degraded batteries say to each other in that scenario? "Sorry, I can't come and pick you up, the car's not charged?"

A car that can't manage to drive to a local airport and back in one go is exhibiting a fairly critical flaw, at least for people like us.

You can go to a supercharger after the first leg and spend 10-15 minutes there. It's really not the issue you'd think it is reading all the concern from people online. And Tesla batteries degrade much slower than you'd think based on experience with consumer electronics.

> It's really not the issue you'd think it is [..]

I appreciate that there are a lot of happy Tesla owners, indeed there are two in the office I'm working in this week, their Model 3s are parked outside. I had a ride in one recently, it was fun. Not something I'd buy, though.

Is it possible that EVs still aren't the good fit you think they are for a substantial proportion of price-sensitive consumers?

Also, the political landscape around EVs may still be evolving. This month the EU's policy to ban the sale of new combustion engine cars in the bloc by 2035 was substantially weakened after pressure from Germany[0], and the UK's policy is as a result - shall we say - "wobbling"?[1]

[0] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/24/cars/eu-combustion-engine...

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/28/net-zero-ban... or https://archive.is/R6zVZ

> Is it possible that EVs still aren't the good fit you think they are for a substantial proportion of price-sensitive consumers?

The reality is flipped around. The vast majority of consumers, even price sensitive ones, would be better served by an EV. The edge cases trotted out in conversations like this are the exception, not the norm.

New bolt is what, 20k after incentive? I would assume in 5 years those will be cheaper used. No one is selling 11k gas cars worth a damn last I checked, either, there just isn't a huge supply of used electrics at the moment.

Not that I'm telling you to buy an EV, but EV's are like 6% of (new)sales this year iirc, I expect next year is 7-8%, then 9-11%? After 10% of sales and all the growth is in EVs I expect the market to change quickly, like gas car sales to just fall off a cliff as legacy automakers really start to scramble. Well, at least in the US, seems China has a much higher EV share.

Anyways, yeah, probably somewhere in the 4-7 year range from now, there will be some good options in cheaper, used EVs for people, and probably more than just the Bolt that has decent range at low end new pricing.

Until their a substantial used inventory and more deliveries, sure, EVs are not attractive to the people you refer to. At least in the US.

>My OH drove the best part of 200 miles, round trip, on the spur of the moment to pick me up at an airport late in the evening after my flight was badly delayed[ ...] > A car that can't manage to drive to a local airport and back in one go is exhibiting a fairly critical flaw, at least for people like us.

Isn't this a standard trade-off? I have a sedan rather than a SUV or a pickup, and last year when I wanted to move some large items I couldn't. That's fine, because the other 99.5% of days I don't need that much capacity. Unless you frequently need to go on 200 mile trips on a whim, it's not as big of a dealbreaker than you think.

It sounds like you do need the extended range of a new battery but aren't willing to pay for it. Too bad, then...?

That's why I added a conditional, because I can't read your mind.

That kind of job is not what you'd get a <100 mile car for. They replace commuters for people who never need their commuter vehicle to do that.

That's definitely not for everyone.

Even the smallest range Tesla, Bolt, ID.4, or many others would be fine.

> What do used EV owners with smaller and/or degraded batteries say to each other in that scenario?

I’ll be a bit longer that usual sorry. I need to fast charge.

Range anxiety is something you have before you get an EV in my extensive survey of 4 people.

Used Teslas are already on the market. Theres a used 2012 and 2014 the next city over from me for $25k and $34k, respectively. Doesn't seem too bad for a car that was over $100k when it was new.

> Doesn't seem too bad for a car that was over $100k when it was new.

This vehicle segment has always been notorious for depreciation, look at all the stories about buying a used S-class "for cheap".

The YT videos of those are usually entertaining.

The biggest risk with those is the battery pack. If they haven't had a pack replacement under warranty since ~2016, they will have a much higher than average failure rate.

Third party repair is ~5-20k + shipment costs. Tesla is ~15-20k.

That still sounds steep to me. 10 years old beta technology in a category where technology has been progressing very fast so that new (<<$100k) models are far superior vehicles, not to mention the "beware the third owner hellkat" issue.

I could get a brand spanking new Prius for that.

Yeah but then have the issue known as "driving a Prius". Might not be a problem if you're in California. Hell that'll get you positive "saving the Earth" smug points. Elsewhere that might be an issue to be avoided at all costs though.

Prius is the most popular car for Uber, I don't think its virtue signaling (quite the opposite, if you happen to drive a Prius, people will just assume you are doing Uber on the side), just these people are trying to make money and a Prius is a good way to make Ubering cost effective.

I'd actually be quite happy to drive a Prius, I was just being hyperbolic. Some people would be afraid of being judged for driving for Uber and would reject a Prius just for that specific reason. But we can't control how everybody feels. Mainly it's just that lets not pretend that an old luxury car, BMW or Mercedes or otherwise, and a new Prius are in the same market segment. They may cost a similar dollar amount, but they're bought by different buyers.

A Prius perhaps wasn't the most relevant comparison. I might have been letting my disdain for for fancy cars influence my argument. Maybe one of those silly sporty looking Camrys would be more appropriate haha.

That said, I wouldn't trade my Prius for a Tesla (well I would, but I'd then trade it for a new Prius). Whatever image they present, they're good cars.

Don't get me wrong, Priuses are good cars, just that they have a stereotype associated with them these days given how successful they are in the ride share and taxi markets. I hope Toyota makes a good economy EV soon, but they've been obsessed with hydrogen for too long.

Tesla's Investor Day was mostly about the ways they're working on reducing costs. They won't get to $11K anytime soon, but they might manage $25K, and that's still in the low end of the market for ICE cars these days.

They could probably get there if they wanted to, but the profitability for them wouldn't make it interesting enough, and the low end, where it really sells (i.e. outside of the USA), is crowded by Chinese car companies.

In one of Sandy Munro's videos, he said he thinks Tesla can manage costs of $19K. The size of the market increases dramatically as you go down the price curve, which makes a $6K profit per car plenty interesting.

That certainly seems to be what Tesla thinks at least, unless they were completely lying to investors about the volume they hoped to achieve.

Why invest 200 million USD to make 1 billion when you can invest the same to make 10 billion? The problem is that expanding isn’t free, you take the most probable business first. The low end is growing rapidly, but the players already there will ensure that Tesla doesn’t make $1k of profit per vehicle. They can’t compete with a Wuling Mini EV for $4k, or whatever BYD has up to the model 3 price point.

I don't see many Wulings for sale in the US, and Tesla is selling plenty of Model 3 in China.

Tesla did take the most profitable business first. Now they're expanding to the mass market. You might disagree that it's the best strategy, but it's the one they're following; if you don't believe me, just watch Investor Day.

There are cheap EVs. The Bolt costs $26,500, and that doesn't seem to include a rebate. The Leaf is $28k before tax credits. Yes, they are nowhere near $11k, but I'm not sure you can buy much of a car at below $20k these days.

Most people looking at EVs though are more interested in the average rather than below average prices, so the EV market tends to gravitate to the $40k-$60k price range to chase that demand.

> Yes, they are nowhere near $11k

Except in Oregon! $7500 federal, $7500 state.

Assuming the US market, what new car did you get 5 years ago for only $11k? That had to be the single cheapest new car in the country.

It is what it is, I'm just pointing out the $65k quoted by parent as of November is not close to the price of entry for a good EV currently.

If I add up all the vehicles I've purchased in my lifetime, still not 36k.

EVs are more expensive for now. Manufacturers are keenly aware that most demand is at lower price points. It's a race to get there.

The Chevy Bolt is pretty cheap, especially with a rebate.

There are a lot of people who just can't afford a new car. That's a legitimate concern. EVs are gradually working their way into the used market.

EV conversion is another option that's currently only for moderately well-off people with a lot of free time, but with the right kits it could be a more routine thing.

> The Chevy Bolt is pretty cheap

$26,500? [0]

How much is a new Mitsubishi Mirage (for instance) where you are?

> There are a lot of people who just can't afford a new car

I'm talking about people who can afford a new ICE vehicle, but won't/can't pay the extra to get an EV.

[0] https://www.chevrolet.com/electric/bolt-ev

> The average transaction price (ATP) of a new vehicle in the U.S. hit a record high in December at $49,507, an increase of 1.9% ($927) from November and up 4.9% ($2,297) from year-earlier levels. New-vehicle inventory levels are increasing from historic lows earlier in 2022, but prices remain elevated, according to data released today by Kelley Blue Book, a Cox Automotive company.

https://www.coxautoinc.com/market-insights/kbb-atp-december-...

It’s the classic capital be operational cost comparison. Lower fuel cost and minimal maintenance makes EVs cheaper in most cases.

But the extra upfront cost makes it unaffordable or presents an opportunity cost.

To anyone who believes this: I strongly urge you to start tracking all your vehicle expenses. I've been doing this for over 15 years, and when I compare my reality with estimates/calculators online, the latter significantly overestimates the cost of repairs/maintenance.

As a concrete example, the last time I used the official government calculator to compare ICE vs a comparable sized EV (e.g. size of Honda Accord), it gave the breakeven point at 7 years, with the following assumptions:

1. Gas at $7/gal (you pick the price and the chart adjusts accordingly - if I picked a more reasonable price the breakeven point was way far out).

2. It estimated repairs/maintenance for ICE at over $2000/year starting from year 1.

Bullet 2 above is ridiculous. I have all my car related transactions. In over 20 years of owning cars, I never came close to $2000/year. Note that:

1. I buy old cars (typically 8 years old when I buy them) - so they need more repairs than the one that's 1-3 years old.

2. I'm not a car person. I do whatever my mechanic recommends. I follow the maintenance schedule in the manual. I'm not cheaping out on repairs.

Similarly, the Edmunds TCO calculator also spits out some insanely high repair numbers.

When you track the expenses like I do, it becomes hard to believe that the up front extra cost for an EV will ever be compensated by gasoline and repair costs.

EVs are, frankly, really expensive right now.

(I will note that when I buy cars, I do thorough research on "reliability", with the aim of minimizing repairs).

Okay, I'll track all my expenses here for you:

My 2012 leaf has never been in a shop other than a tire shop. I haven't even had to change brake pads.

My 2004 Volvo and 2003 ranger were constantly throwing errors I spent thousands chasing, some of which required replacing the same part twice. Oh and don't forget about oil changes.

How much did you spend on those tires?

Also, if you haven't changed brake pads, I wonder how many miles you've driven it. Was this your primary car?

For me a Leaf wasn't an option. I can't go smaller than a Corolla/Civic, and prefer an Accord sized car - that's what I compared prices with EV.

Still, here are my numbers from 2012 onwards:

Repairs + maintenance = $5173.75 (includes tire changes). Gas = $9480.13 (about 110K miles)

Now the Leaf MSRP in 2012 was $36K. The equivalent sized Yaris was $17K. Currently, the used 2012 Yaris is worth $1600 more than a used 2012 Leaf (assuming 110K miles). When you factor in tax benefits, the extra repairs the Yaris would need, and adjust the cost for fuel, it's not obvious that the Leaf was a better buy. Also, the real maintenance/repair costs would be significantly lower than what I quoted above, because those repairs were due to buying fairly old cars.

(And then factor in how much I actually spent on purchasing cars in that time period because I bought used: $12500 and the Leaf looks even less appealing).

Of course, the Yaris is way better if going out of town.

Anecdata, but everyone I know who bought a Leaf till about 2016 said it was not usable as a primary car - too short a range in cold weather. One person said "I can't commute to work and back, and do errands, without recharging."

As for Volvo/Ranger: Do you not take some responsibility for those purchasing decisions? When I was buying my first car, I was told to stay away from BMW, Mercedes, and Volvo. I was a student and was told I'd never be able to afford even minor repairs. In fact, a friend who was an engineer in Austin at the time bought a used Mercedes, and soon after the AC stopped working. He never got it fixed - he would use it only in the winter while he drove his Corolla the rest of the year.

Regarding the Ranger: I'm looking at reliability scores and they're poor, even for brand new ones.

> Also, if you haven't changed brake pads, I wonder how many miles you've driven it. Was this your primary car?

I don't know about Leafs specifically, but brake pads usually last a long time in EVs due to regenerative braking. You might not use brakes at all if you can avoid doing any hard stops.

Individual experiences will vary. I would say that your strategy is generally optimal, all thought harder to execute right now as the market is bonkers.

Buying 8 year old cars is a lower cost strategy ss your filtering out the lemons. You can’t buy the shitty BMW 3 series as it’s been converted to a Coke can by that time. :) Even then you’re lucky as stuff starts breaking due to age and mileage.

I drove a 2003 Pilot until 2019 and it hit a bunch of repairs at 125k and then at 250k major repairs came up just due to age and frame rust. I still miss that car!

> Even then you’re lucky as stuff starts breaking due to age and mileage.

Things definitely do break, hence the repairs I've done. I don't think I got lucky 3 times in a row - I researched and bought known reliable vehicles, and always paid a mechanic to go over the car before I bought it.

I've posted actual repair numbers since 2012 in this comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35359539

> $26,500?

Minus $7500 for the tax credit, minus another $7500 in some states with rebates.

And even if you did pay $26.5K, saving 75% or more on fueling cost also helps a bunch with TCO.

be especially careful of considering tax rebates when talking about products made for the lowest income portion of the economy.

Many of the most poor do not file taxes -- but they may still need personal transportation.

A Bolt is more likely a second car for a family that does pay taxes than a primary purchase for one that doesn’t.

Anyone too poor to file taxes isn’t buying a new car.

I think more relevant is that many of the middle class do pay significant taxes, they just don't have enough federal tax liability to be able to claim the whole credit.

It's a shame the credit isn't refundable. It's weird that you can be too poor to get the whole subsidy.

> How much is a new Mitsubishi Mirage (for instance) where you are?

Looking at a random local Mitsubishi dealer's website, it looks like a 2023 Mirage is around 19-20k. Which is cheaper than a Bolt, but if you qualify for the full federal rebate or have big state rebates it'd come out about the same price.

They do have a 2017 Mirage listed for $9,900, which is a lot less than the Bolt. The site doesn't say it's used.

> I'm talking about people who can afford a new ICE vehicle, but won't/can't pay the extra to get an EV.

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

> EVs are gradually working their way into the used market.

What does a new battery run?

Which end of the segment? Cells don't degrade uniformly, so refurbishing the existing battery is gonna be a couple hundred bucks to tear the car down and expose the battery, and then identity the bad cell and pop in a new one. At the other end of the segment, a battery for a Tesla that has more range than when it was new is gonna run you more than a couple grand. Depending on the heat it was exposed to, and number of cycles and really the age of the vehicle, it change when you'll have to replace the battery. It's worth pointing out that batteries do need to get replaced at some point, but also who knows if the used ICE car you're buying is gonna have problems passing smog, or if the cooling system's gonna crap out on you 3 miles after you drive it off the used car lot.

> Cells don't degrade uniformly, so refurbishing the existing battery is gonna be a couple hundred bucks to tear the car down and expose the battery, and then identity the bad cell and pop in a new one

This sounds great, for which EVs is this available?

"For many electric vehicles, there is no way to repair or assess even slightly damaged battery packs after accidents [..] Battery packs can cost tens of thousands of dollars and represent up to 50% of an EV's price tag, often making it uneconomical to replace them.

While some automakers like Ford Motor Co (F.N) and General Motors Co (GM.N) said they have made battery packs easier to repair, Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) has taken the opposite tack with its Texas-built Model Y, whose new structural battery pack has been described by experts as having 'zero repairability.'"[0]

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/scratc...

That take is ridiculous.

The cost to replace a Model Y battery is around $13K (no where near 50% of the cost of the vehicle). More than that, the battery will probably outlast the lifetime of the vehicle, with a design lifespan of approximately 500K miles.

Yes, eventually when the battery dies it won't be repaired as such - instead it is designed to be nearly 100% recyclable.

Here's the (long) story of a Tesla Model S battery repair job for $5k, far shy of a quoted $22.5k that Tesla wanted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7Q0nNkQTCo

Here's where right to repair is exceedingly important. Obviously if it were up to Tesla, you'd only be allowed to go to them for repairs, at their full markup. But here's the secret - they have a huge markup, but no monopoly on electrical engineering. Like the video shows, 3rd party repair shops can repair these things. It's not rocket science - you're thinking of a Elon Musk's other company, SpaceX.

But $5,000, down from $22,500, is still more than "a couple hundred bucks to hundred bucks to tear the car down and expose the battery, and then identity the bad cell and pop in a new one". Now, in my haste, I wrote "cell" when I mean "module", sorry about that. The car for which I'm referring to that job is at the bottom of the segment - a first generation Nissan Leaf. They first came out in 2010 and here's a 12 year old used one for $6k (https://losangeles.craigslist.org/wst/ctd/d/redondo-beach-20...). It's almost guaranteed to have at least one bad module if you're buying something that particular car (they didn't have battery cooling systems that generation) and that old (simply due to the number of charge cycles).

The procedure for finding the and replacing the bad module is documented at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTiFEapky8s&t=24s

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVaCMbXKrd4&t=423s

For the module itself, you're looking at 3rd party supplier for a refurbished one. Here's one battery module for $90 on Ebay https://www.ebay.com/itm/354422211418?hash=item528535c35a:g:...

or another listing asking $250: https://www.ebay.com/itm/225422969988?hash=item347c418c84:g:...

Or via FB Marketplace for $60: https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/5165480583467846/

If you take your Nissan Leaf to a shop that specializes in them, they'll likely have modules for cheap off salvaged cars, but we don't have access to those prices here. So let's say a refurbished battery module is anywhere from $60-250 and then kick $200 in labor to your cousin who's good with cars to watch those two videos and replace the bad module for you unless you're that cousin, then spend $250 on a battery module and buy yourself a nice voltmeter.

Official battery replacement jobs on a Nissan Leaf are going to run you much more (multiple thousands) but if you have a Nissan Leaf, or any electric car really, you should be aware that that's a total ripoff. Everyone knows you don't go to the dealer for repairs on an ICE unless you want to get ripped off, and the same is true for EVs.

If you actually follow what happened to Hoovie, that $5k job didn't work. He used that vehicle on one of their 'Car Trek' series and it had BMS errors and basically threw a fit because the batteries were unbalanced. Tesla is right to want the entire pack to be replaced, because having cells with two very different aging characteristics is bad for the battery overall.

Obviously there's some batteries that are tolerant of this (Prius' commonly have this repair on their NiMH batteries), but it's not universal.

Here's a factory in the US that refurbs batteries for basically all brands but Tesla:

https://youtu.be/HIurjZsWJoc

Similar to many Apple or Xbox repairs, they swap it for one they've previously refurbed and tested, then add yours to the pile to be refurbed for another customer rather than make you wait for your specific battery to go through the process.

Worth noting that just replacing cells on an old battery pack is kind of iffy. If the new cell has a different capacity and/or internal resistance than the old cells, it might not balance properly. Probably not an issue if it's within the range of what the BMS can deal with, but there is some risk that swapping cells might cause problems.

Having said that, I don't have first-hand experience refurbishing EV battery packs. Someone who does this kind of repair regularly might have a better idea of what you can or can't get away with.

Similar to a new engine, with a similar lifespan expectation.

The engine on my car is 20 years old, and still pretty fine. Will an EV battery last as long (say 160K miles)?

Not trying to be adversarial - genuinely curious. I only buy old cars (median is 8 years old), and I keep them for a while (5-10 years), and I often wonder whether EV cars that old would be a decent buy or not.

As I posted above, batteries typically last 1,000 to 2,000 cycles, which gives most EVs between 200,000 and 600,000 miles of battery life -- and at the end (barring going out with some sort of fault) you can still manage 70-80% of the original charge.

We don't really know for current EVs how calendar aging will affect them, but we can look at older EVs with now-obsolete batteries. Some of them are fine, some of them aren't. Chevy famously did a recall on their Bolt battery packs, and a lot of Nissan Leaves had their batteries go bad. The problem with the Nissan Leaf is they only had passive cooling on the battery. So, lesson learned. Basically everyone does active cooling now.

In theory, lithium iron phosphate batteries should last a very long time. That's what I'd go for if you want the best longevity, but they also have a lower energy density and can be damaged if you charge them in below-freezing temperatures. (Presumably all the cars with LFP have smart charging systems that disable regen and refuse to charge when the battery is too cold, and hopefully most of them have battery heaters.)

With batteries there's this weird dynamic that if it last for a reasonably long time, by the time you need a replacement the new batteries /should/ be much cheaper and more energy dense. Unfortunately, there aren't really any companies making 3rd party aftermarket batteries for old cars. Maybe that will change, and maybe the industry will standardize on some generic battery module design. For now, the replacement battery options seem to be a) buy a replacement from the OEM, b) find a replacement from a low-mileage junkyard vehicle or c) reverse engineer the BMS and install an equivalent custom battery constructed from new or used cells/modules, possibly using some kind of custom-fabricated battery box. It'd be great if you could just walk in to any auto parts store and buy a replacement battery pack, but we're not there yet.

Batteries last anywhere from 1000 to 2000 charge cycles, which for most EVs is 200,000 to 600,000 miles. And at the end of that you might expect the battery to hold 70-80 of its original charge, so even then it's not necessarily a write-off.

At 100% capacity I already have range anxiety, I don't think I'll be happy with 70%.

Couple hundred miles usually

I find it more shocking that the average gas car cost that much. Yeesh.

Toss in EV tax rebates, compare it to the average gasoline SUVs price, and they are the same price. I'm not kidding.

I bought a used 2013 Fiat 500e last year for $8k. It's perfect for my wife's commute (50mi roundtrip; comes home with 20% remaining charge). We plug it into household 120v overnight. It drives like a zippy little gocart.

It wouldn't be ideal for a one-car family, but as a commuter it's better and cheaper.

My own insecurities, but 20% remaining daily would definitely have me on a bit of an edge. Is it a smoothly linear battery consumption, or is it possible to drop from 16% to 4%, seemingly at random?

Using an overly simplistic 80% used for 50 files would imply .63 miles per battery percentage. Meaning she only has slack of 12.5 miles to empty the tank. Which is less concerning when you can rely on ubiquitous gas stations.

You never let your ICE car get below a quarter tank? This is even easier to deal with than the ICE scenario where you find yourself low and still have to get yourself to the gas station. OP finds themselves low as they pull into their driveway/filling station.

A quarter tank of fuel leaves me with >80 miles of range remaining. That enables nearly any impromptu trip I am likely to engage, along with the ability to refill basically anywhere. Rolling the dice with ~13 miles available on a daily basis would make me uneasy. What if there is an accident that re-routes traffic? Some kind of hazard that has me stuck for hours? What if I want to go to the mall after work?

I want EVs to work, and my next car is quite likely to be one, but limited locations for quick re-fueling are a real concern of mine.

We're talking about:

1) A 10-year-old car

2) From a time when batteries were much worse than today

3) With low original range

4) Not including the extra 10-20 miles or so that most car makers add to the "0" point, similar to how a gas tank isn't quite empty when the display says it is.

I'm guessing OP bought it for relatively cheap and is saving $20-$30 a day running it like that. That's worth the taxi / tow / calling your spouse, when you get stuck twice a year.

Exactly. Also, while we've never needed to, you can stop at a charger and top-up. It's a small battery, it doesn't take long.

> you can stop at a charger and top-up. It's a small battery, it doesn't take long

the problem is scaling.

gas takes on average less than a minute per car to top up the tank (gas pump emits ~0.5 liters per second, my car tank capacity is less than 30 liters), if a battery charge requires say 15 minutes (I actually don't know the real number, but I have a feeling that it's usually more than that) that's 15 times longer waiting times and 15 times less capacity per station.

Or more stops.

We don't use the Fiat for road trips, but we often caravan with friends with Teslas. Every couple hours they stop at a supercharger station for 15 minutes. It's really not that bad; we stop as often just to keep our kiddo sane. The stations usually have interesting services next door.

Supercharger stations usually have dozens of spots; gas stations typically have maybe ten? An EV station just needs one parking spot per car, so they are much more space efficient than gas stations. The only real constraint is electrical infrastructure.

BTW it averages much more than 1m per car for fueling. Person gets out of the car, fishes around in their purse for the credit card, fiddles with the cryptic instructions on the pump, walks into store to piss and buy junk food... if you've had to wait at a busy station, you'd be acutely aware of just how long fueling actually takes. Humans are slow.

> Every couple hours they stop at a supercharger station for 15 minutes. It's really not that bad;

It actually is kinda bad, if you ask me.

> An EV station just needs one parking spot per car

Huge gas stations are not that common outside of the US

The average gas stations in my city are like this

https://c7.alamy.com/compit/2ak83cy/gli-operatori-e-auto-a-g...

They don't actually take that much space and serve hundreds of cars per day. They don't need to stay stationary for a long time.

> BTW it averages much more than 1m per car for fueling.

Not really.

On average people refuel, they do not fill up the tank.

BTW it could well be that my POV from a different country is biased.

Most people in cities will be charging at home though, the big supercharging stations will be along the highways where people are driving for hours. And with how simple car chargers are, they can just be a part of supermarket parking lots, etc.

> Most people in cities will be charging at home though

That's exactly where the US and the rest of the World diverge.

In most of the rest of the World people in cities are precisely those who would not be charging at home, because it would be impossible.

Besides, my car is parked 5 minutes walking away from where my house is.

And I've been extremely lucky to find a parking spot so close.

If what you meant is that the cars will be charging at night while they are parked on the streets, think again.

On street chargers here won't be a common thing for the next 20 years, at least.

Not to say that it's impossible, but it's hardly a worthy switch, from the POV of users.

A much better solution would be drastically reducing the dependency from cars, instead of electrifying them and marketing them as the next cool thing, so that a lot more cars will be clogging and occupying a lot of parking space on our perfectly cyclable and perfectly walkable pavements and roads.

I'm not from or live in the US so you don't need to preach to me about the rest of the world.

Lamp-post charging is already being rolled out in parts of Europe https://ubitricity.com/en/driver/charging-network-map/

Once EVs are more common, it will make more sense for parking lot operators to offer charging services for more income.

You say that it will take over 20 years to roll out on-street charging, but somehow reducing the dependency on cars can be done quicker or easier?

I live in Japan, which is often touted as a very public transit-friendly society, but I have 2 kids and could not live without a car. Especially in the summer with 36C+ temperatures, or during typhoon season. Believing that we can have a future with zero cars seems very unrealistic.

> You never let your ICE car get below a quarter tank?

A quarter tank for me is about 160-170kms.

Also consider that the tank in my car is very small, but the car is small too so I make ~70-80kms on reserve alone.

Yep. I had range anxiety far, far more often with my old petrol car than I have with my new electric.

I've set my charge threshold to 70% now - so that's what I start with every single day -representing about 400km.

I'd have over 400km of range only with a relatively freshly filled car before. And from there it's easy enough to put off refiling until you absolutely HAVE to have more fuel.

It's extremely linear, modulo speed. It is possible to project your arrival state of charge within 1-2% even for a destination two hours away across significant topography.

> It's extremely linear, modulo speed.

On flat land. Throw in hills and the number of projected range miles used by every real mile goes up very quickly.

I don't remember the specific numbers anymore, but we had two Fiat 500e cars and commuting over a mountain drained a lot of projected miles even though the climb was just a few miles.

You regain a bunch of miles on the way down though, through gravity and regenerative braking.

Unfortunately, very little.

I went back to look for my notes on this and this is what I experienced: The Fiat would use up about 30-40 miles of indicated range to go uphill less than 10 miles. But it would only regenerate 2-3 miles (of indicated range) on the downhill side.

Not my experience in my Zoe. You get nearly all of it back on the long climb and then descent which I often used to do before I moved.

And weather. My colleague has a Leaf, his range is cut by a 30-40% in winter, and he is saving on the heating too to save range, so it is double uncomfortable.

The Leaf is somewhat famous for having poor battery management; it's one reason we avoided them. I don't think a used Leaf could handle a 50mi roundtrip commute, especially with a 10yo battery.

The Fiat does have a range penalty for cold weather (it occasionally gets below freezing in the part of California I live in) and running the heater (one way; usually it's warm enough by the trip home). My wife still gets home with > 10%.

Keep in mind this is a 10yo car with an 80mi range; newer cars have bigger batteries.

Kudos on making it work for you! It's a great example you don't have to have the latest and greatest to drive electric.

Commutes are extremely predictable, it's the same every day.

> Commutes are extremely predictable, it's the same every day.

Tell that to my colleague, who due to an accident near a major junction, took over an hour to travel a key couple of miles on his commute home from work yesterday.

Some journeys are "predictably unpredictable" during rush hour.

Well, the good news about an EV is that if you're creeping along at barely any speed, the consumption is going to be way lower than a comparable gas car. Basically all you're using is AC/heat. A gas car comparably is much less efficient while idling.

EV batteries are very reliable at showing state of charge. Even if it says it has 1%, you can rely on having that whole 1% left.

In a cellphone you have just one cell, and the phone turned on can be pulling near its maximum power draw, so it's unstable and unpredictable.

In a BEV you have thousands of cells, so differences between individual cells average out, and you don't draw peak power unless you're racing (and the car is smart enough to not let you smoke tires at 1% battery).

The key point is "we plug it into household overnight". So basically impossible for anyone living in the apartments (most of the Europe at minimum). At least in the next decade, looking at electrification rates.

To extrapolate that train of thought - if you live in an apartment in a European-style urban neighborhood, why own a car at all?

No. I own a car and I live in the apartment. Car is parked on the underground parking or can be parked around the building on the street spots. None of those are wired for charging and it would be incredibly expensive to do it now (I've also seen several new building in process of being build, just this winter, and there were no charging stations in the parkings too).

So my closest charging option is a station 25 minutes away from me (on bus). And that station has 10 posts, while in the surrounding area live maybe 50000 people, or so. Not very time friendly. Also because of the charging time it means that there is even no point to leave car at the station and take a bus home, because by the time I will get there I would need to go back immediately (25+25 minutes=50 min, and charging is about an hour or two).

Also price. People charging at home use a cheap electricity, while station charges really high prices. In the EU city I'm right now, the difference is x4.5 times. So while me and a rich guy in a private house are paying the same price for the petrol now, tomorrow when we both have EVs I will be literally subsidizing him indirectly, by forced to use much more expensive public charging.

I really want to own EV since early Tesla years, and often check news about the progress in this industry, but really don't see how can I do it.

I have a 2017 Fiat 500e, and it's fantastic. What a great car!

EVs cost less for maintenance in both time and money.

I've never bought a brand new car (EV or otherwise), and probably never will. The value proposition just isn't there when cars lose double digit percentages of their value the second they're driven off the lot, and drop down to like half their initial cost or more after only a few years.

The depreciation curve is steeper in some manufacturers than others. It's overstating the case to say, e.g., that Toyotas lose half their value in only a few years. I also have only ever bought used vehicles but my most recent Subaru was ~6 years old and still more than 50% of MSRP of the current, newer model year.

> People are buying cars because they're better than horses

This is only true for people with a certain amount of spare money to pay the extra, since cars are more expensive to purchase.

"According to Kelley Blue Book, gas cars averaged $48,681 that month" whereas horses typically cost between $1500-$10,000 https://www.joyfulequestrian.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-bu...

AAA reports that average annual operating costs for a car are ~$8500/year https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/what-does-it-cost-to...

Whereas the average annual cost of a horse is under $4000/year https://cowgirlmagazine.com/cost-owning-horse/

My neighborhood isn’t zoned for horses so I’m going to need a horseless carriage to get me to the horse barn.

Have you considered (checks notes) an electric scooter?

I good example of how having less money makes things more expensive.

I bought my first EV by trading in my Prius and writing a $27 check. Had I paid cash, it would be have been about $7k (for a 2017 Fiat 500e in 2020).

I bought my second EV for $39,995 out the door, and then got a $7500 tax credit, reducing my net cost to $32,495. That one is a 2023 Chevy Bolt EUV.

I'm not sure which is the best car I've ever owned, but they're in positions 1 and 2 in some order.

As someone who doesn’t own an electric car, why are they better for the average driver?

The only thing I know about is their acceleration but that isn’t important to me personally as I prefer to drive slowly.

Reduced maintenance costs, reduced operating costs.

Almost zero maintenance costs (oil changes, less brake usage, etc), cheaper to charge per mile than gasoline in most places. Can charge at home.

They have a lot fewer moving parts… like transmissions, etc.

- An order of magnitude safer in terms of fires per mile

- Much quieter ride

- Much less maintainence, less moving parts, brake pads almost never need to be replaced, no transmission, no oil changes

- Internet-connectivity-related features, generally much nicer user experience

- You can use them as a mobile office, they can be camped in with the heating on overnight, there's no concept of idling and no carbon monoxide issues with sitting in an EV with the car on as long as you want

- If either your home or office has charging, you basically leave full every time

> Internet-connectivity-related features

Potential for remote shutoff is not a feature

Plenty of stupid EV's out there with no internet like mine.

Having a zero pollution power source lets the car do things that would be unsafe in a normal vehicle. Preheating, or precooling is safe in an electric car but can cause dangerous accumulation of carbon monoxide if running a fossil fuel engine.

That’s just a random example.

Generally EVs are cheaper to operate, are quieter, have a lower centre of gravity, and are more spacious.

In theory they could be cheaper and more reliable, but currently Tesla makes mostly luxury models and has poor quality control. That’s just them, and isn’t anything to do with EV technology.

Other manufacturers will eventually make a cheap EV with better reliability than a Toyota.

> Having a zero pollution power source lets the car do things that would be unsafe in a normal vehicle. Preheating, or precooling is safe in an electric car but can cause dangerous accumulation of carbon monoxide if running a fossil fuel engine.

Which is like, relevant inside a building only, at which point preheating and cooling isn't that useful

>> Which is like, relevant inside a building only, at which point preheating and cooling isn't that useful

My garage in the winter would disagree throughly with that statement.

If you're going to preheat your car in the garage in the winter, you're probably better off installing a heat pump to heat the whole garage. Heating the car itself with its resistive heating is going to be very wasteful.

With EVs you need to heat the batteries, not just the cabin, so that's a huge amount of mass that needs to be heated up. If you try to run the batteries cold on an EV it's going to kill the range because current battery chemistry is not optimized for low temperatures.

Plenty of EVs have heat pumps as well.

Which would be great for heating up the cabin but I think too small to heat up the whole mass of the car including the batteries, especially if the temperature is below-freezing!

my model 3 with a heat pump does just fine for both cabin and battery in Canadian winter. My uninsulated, detached garaged built in the 1920s would be astronomically expensive and irresponsible to heat. Instead I spend about 10-20 cents worth of hydro to heat the car before I go somewhere through an app. By the time I get my coat and boots on the car is nice and warm.

There is also more than enough heat to get the battery into the right thermal conditions for optimal DC Fast charging on road trips when it's well below freezing. I have seen exactly the same charge curve in both summer and winter, peaking at 170 kW (max for Model 3 SR+) and slowly tapering.

Dog mode is so great.

I wish my Leaf had it.

Theoretically that is true. In reality, ICE vehicles limit their ability to do this based upon the assumption that they might be in an enclosed space.

Electricity is not a zero pollution power source. You think building a wind turbine is pollution free?

OP was clearly talking about pollution at point of use. But even so, having a choice of your source of energy is important. Creating and maintaining the infrastructure for gas also pollutes, beyond the usage.

As an average car user, we can easily enumerate the somewhat significant trade offs.

Main points of difference:

Filling with gas vs charging.

Oil changes, transmission fluid changes, etc vs replacing battery in ~10(?) years.

That’s about it from what I can tell. No wrong choice. Just trade offs.

All those oil changes PLUS changing the engine and/or transmission in 10 years (for me that’s about 150k miles). I drive a hybrid, which has some of the advantages and some of the disadvantages of both. I need to be able to do cross-country trips, but EV’s appeal to me on their lower long term costs and all the advantages others have mentioned.

I bought a plug-in hybrid several years ago, Prius Prime with 25 mile battery range. It is a good transition, as I wasn't ready go go all electric at the time. My next vehicle will be an EV.

Since we are no longer commuting, we rarely need to buy gas. It is essentially an EV, that has the convenience of gas power when going on long trips.

EVs are quieter due to lack of engine noise. This is especially noticeable when paused at intersections. EVs don't "idle." There's also no engine shake, something which never bothered me in ICE cars until I started going back and forth between an EV and an ICE car. (Most) EVs have a single gear, which means you always have power when you want it, like when you want to overtake someone heading up a hill. You don't have to wait for your car to find a lower gear when you mash the accelerator. EVs don't have exhaust. Mostly not an issue for the driver but still nice. If you have a home charger, EVs start every day with a full "tank." EVs are typically have cheaper maintenance and fuel costs, which, in some cases, offsets the higher upfront cost. There are downsides too, of course, the biggest being charging times (if no home charger or road trips), range (if you travel a lot) and upfront cost, but if you can sort those, they are huge improvement. I'll never own an ICE car again.

Many hybrids are also quiet and fixed gear ratio. I won’t switch back to gasoline-only cars for many of the same reasons of comfort. I’d love an EV but I still have to drive long distances regularly, and hybrid range is often even better than most gasoline cars.

Which specific hybrid vehicles have a fixed gear ratio? The only one I'm aware of is the Koenigsegg Regera.

Most all hybrids that operate in series mode, or primarily in series mode.

The Chevy Volt and all current Honda hybrids work this way. The main motor spins the wheels directly at a fixed ratio. The engine primarily operates as a generator. Then they do have a lock up clutch to connect the engine to the wheels when their speeds align at cruise and there is an efficiency gain to be had from eliminating conversion losses. https://youtu.be/QLUIExAnNcE

Also, technically most Toyota hybrids are also fixed ratio, most of them use planetary gears with two electric motors to simulate gear ratios with respect to the engine. It is somewhat confusingly called an eCVT, although the variable part isn’t the gearing, it’s the speed of the motors connected to the gearing. What changes is the relative speeds of MG1/MG2. It’s like a differential in a car, but backwards.

Parallel hybrids are the ones that drive like regular cars. Like Honda IMA, Hyundai’s hybrids, anything labelled “mild” hybrid —- those all have old school transmissions.

The Prius architecture is always terribly described, but it's effectively a differential. Always in mesh, no gears to shift. The speed of the wheels is varied relative to the speed of the ICE by shifting power between generators and motors.

So, to the driver it feels like a CVT with very fast ratio adaptation, but mechanically there's no ratio being varied. It's all fixed gearing, and the variation is done with motor RPMs and torque.

You’ve missed regenerative braking. It’s great. One pedal driving is divisive but I love it.

Do American power points not charge an EV? It’s come up repeatedly on this thread that you need a home charger.

> Do American power points not charge an EV? It’s come up repeatedly on this thread that you need a home charger.

Standard outlets (like what you plug your phone/computer charger into) in the US are 120V and 5-20A.

US homes sometimes also have outlets that are 240V/20-40A traditionally used for electric clothes dryers, and those are what home Level 2 EVSEs (not technically chargers) are usually plugged into, or sometimes a dedicated 240V/40A RV plug is installed for EV charging.

That said, if you don't need to charge fast, or don't drive more than 30 miles a day, a 120V outlet can more than suffice for daily charging needs.

I'm not a one-pedal driver, but I do love regenerative braking.

danans is right about charging at 120v. It's doable for some, depending on their needs (at a charging speed of 3-5 mph). But I live in a townhouse, and my parking spot is far enough from my electrical panel that I'd have to run a cord past my neighbor's unit. I had to have a trench dug and conduit laid to bring power out to my spot, and at that point it just makes sense to go for a charger with 240v (which charges at 30-50 mph).

100% to the GP on the smoothness/silence, and also regen braking as you said. I just love the torque; you can accelerate hard, an ICEV would be broadcasting the same level of acceleration with at least a 1km radius of noise yet here we are in complete silence.

Please add remote/scheduled control of AC/heater, remote unlock to the list. These are seriously awesome.

On my 244v, the Tesla mobile charger that came with my 3 is plenty good enough. I try to charge from the PV, so an 8A cap from that isn't terrible.

In cities, quiet is dangerous for pedestrians.

That's why they generate a noise over speakers when driving under a certain speed. At least in EU that is mandetory.

But it's a quiet humming. Somewhat pleasant. Or at least not annoying.

I don't know how loud it is on the inside.

>like when you want to overtake someone heading up a hill. You don't have to wait for your car to find a lower gear when you mash the accelerator.

I believe whilst this has shifted over the years manual shifting is still more common than automatic.

>EVs are typically have cheaper maintenance and fuel costs

Depends on where you live. Much of Europe has seen a spike in electricity prices. Bit more bearable when you have solar panels but those don't help in the evenings/night when most of the charging happens.

I used to love driving my wife's sporty little Carolla. Felt kind of like a go-kart compared to my Tacoma. Now I have a Chevy Bolt and I'm so spoiled by the quiet, the lack of engine shake, very smooth acceleration curve, rarely moving my foot onto the break. It handles better, it accelerates faster, it feels better in normal traffic conditions, and it feels MUCH better in heavy traffic because I have so much more control. I like it better in pretty much every way.

I in general don't like driving, and I don't understand how anyone who's ever owned an EV could ever want to go back to an ICE vehicle:

1. As others have pointed out, the maintenance is much less. Not to mention, of course, the electricity costs much less than equivalent gas.

2. The cars are just so much cleaner for an individual. No gas smell, no oil changes, etc.

3. They are much quieter.

4. Even if you drive a lot more slowly, the smooth acceleration is much more pleasurable. Plus, the quick acceleration does come in handy when you want to get out of uncomfortable situations.

I compared costs to drive a Tesla model y for 1000 miles and a Toyota Camry hybrid for 1000 miles when buying a car recently.

With my electrical costs in SF Bay Area, that cost was $94 per 1000 miles on a Tesla and $100 per 1000 miles on a Camry hybrid.

However Tesla was $20,000 more than a Camry and Camry had wider, more comfortable seats.

We went with a Camry and judging by its reliability record I would probably not have to worry about anything other than a fluid change for a decade or two

My Corolla had one service in 10 years. Terrible behaviour from me, but I’m not sure I was wrong as it lasted the distance.

However the benefits of EV are subtle but great. Before buying I worried about range.

That’s not an issue. I never have to go to petrol stations, it’s quick to get to speed, it’s quiet, it’s fun.

100% love it. Would increase that rating if the charging interface allowed ‘charge to 80%’ without nasty hacks, and if it had a dog mode.

It wasn’t the cheaper option, and our fuel costs a lot more than it does in the US.

Yes, California has some of the worst electricity prices in the country, something like 3 times the national average.

OTOH, I pay 4 cents per kWh to charge my EV after 10pm. I pay about as much in electricity costs per year as I was paying for gasoline per month on the last car.

4cents per kWh sounds almost like Solar :)

> With my electrical costs in SF Bay Area, that cost was $94 per 1000 miles on a Tesla

With the EV2-A rate plan [1] (which you should definitely use if you drive an EV any significant amount), the 1000 miles cost much less if you limit charging to the off peak times.

The Model Y gets 3.3-3.8 miles/kWh. Let's say 3.6 miles/kWh average.

1000 miles at 3.6 miles/kWh is 278kWh.

Off-peak EV2-A rate: $0.26/kWh 278 kWh * $0.26/kWh ~= $72

The savings in operational energy cost for the Tesla will never pay for the difference in price, but the Model Y and Camry are fundamentally different cars in performance and functionality, so it's not really an apples to apples comparison.

A more sensible comparison would be between a top-trim Camry XLE ($35000) and an entry-level trim VW ID.4 ($40000 - $7500 tax credit = $32500).

But you have a point that there are very few inexpensive midsize EV sedans on the market right now.

1. https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/rate-plans/rate-plan-o...

EV-A rate is a non-starter because it pushes your electrical costs to between $0.46 and 0.57 per kWh between the hours of 3pm and midnight.

Sure you can try to shift your laundry to the morning, but I suspect there would still be higher overall energy costs with EV-A especially if you have a family.

The only way electric car would make sense with my rates is if I paid few thousands to install a second meter or paid tens of thousands to install solar.

I bought a used low mileage 2020 Camry hybrid LE with 47+ mpg and front hip room(ie seat width) 4 inches wider than that of model y for $26000.

Comparable mileage wise teslas model ys were being sold for about $47000.

I searched through MYLR forums and Facebook groups and landed on reported 0.27-0.265 kWh/mi which is pretty close to your estimate of kWh per 1000mi.

The biggest challenge for me was that I would not be able to arrive at $0.26 per kWh without further investments into my electrical infrastructure which would further reduce the cost savings from going electric.

Tesla MYLR while being better at acceleration is ultimately not a model s - it’s a family car like a Camry. There are some benefits to it being electric or a hatchback but they did not justify an upfront cost and a fairly negligible cost of driving reduction.

Note: this could be a CA issue as I’m aware that our energy costs are easily 3 times of some other states

PS I was specifically seeking out LE trims on Camry because they offer 5mpg advantage over more expensive trims

> Plus, the quick acceleration does come in handy when you want to get out of uncomfortable situations.

What exact uncomfortable situations?

When a 400bhp ICE car rolls up next to you at the lights and you need to prove your superiority to them.

Based on my observations of Tesla owners anyway

18-wheeler not noticing you in an intersection, for instance.

Great acceleration helps make being a terrible driver that doesn't know how to merge less uncomfortable for you at the expense of whoever is behind you.

You can roll through the ramp doing your best impression of a semi truck at 20mph and then when you realize you're about to have 500ft to merge into traffic that's going 60-70mph you can mat it and be going traffic speed in that time.

And the best part is that everyone will think the work van behind you that wanted to carry 40mph through the ramp but couldn't because you were in their way is the one who's doesn't know how to merge when they can barely do 45 by the end of the ramp.

There are a number of advantages:

* they are quieter. * they are smoother. * you may not care about performance but lots of people do like it. * they require less maintenance (which is a cost saving, sure, but also a convenience issue) * if you can charge at home you don’t have to take time to visit the gas station.

Considering my wife got her wallet stolen at a gas station (thief came right in the unlocked passenger door and swiped it from the center compartment), this is a huge perk for us. Gas stations are also all environmental disasters.

I recently bought an electric car and it is an enjoyable experience. It makes no noise, there is loads of space everywhere. I don't visit gas stations anymore, I have less stress in traffic situations; the car handles all the workload of heavy traffic. I rarely use the brakes and mostly drive using one pedal. It is by far the most comfortable car I have ever driven.

The cheery on top is its performance. It feels awesome to have a supercar available at a moments notice if you want too, although it gets normal and boring very fast. Also, it is scary to have loads of torque and you have to respect that.

Overall, electric cars offer a very good bang for the buck.

In the end, mechanically, the cars are very simple and you feel that simplicity. They feel polished and well engineered

>I have less stress in traffic situations; the car handles all the workload of heavy traffic.

That's a vehicle with advanced cruise control thing, not an EV thing.

Try it in very slow and in particular stop-and-go traffic. The acceleration curve is very smooth and predictable and makes these conditions a lot less stressful.

I get a Renault Zoë occasionally through our car sharing. It's my favourite of the cars available for all but very long trips. But I agree that you have to respect the torque, even in a minor car like the Zoë. I find myself sometimes accelerating dangerously just because it's so much fun!

Number one thing I love about mine, when I press the 'go' button, it goes.

They have a lot of power and because you don't have to bring an engine up to RPM and shift, and bring up to RPM, and shift.. and on..

That power is also instantaneous. However far down I push on the pedal, I'm at that speed basically right away.

Another huge thing, is that they are quiet. There is still a bit of road noise from wind and the physical contact of the wheels with the road. But compared with almost any typical car, its basically silent.

Also, they don't stink. You might not notice it, but your car smells. It gets on you and the people around you. My car doesn't smell like gas or exhaust or anything.

Oh and not to mention, basically nothing ever goes wrong. There is so much less to go wrong on an EV. We don't have a bunch of coolant and pumps sloshing around effectively trying to cool a giant, shaking, moving lump of iron. With out all that rattling, things just don't need as much maintenence.

> We don't have a bunch of coolant and pumps sloshing around

I thought all mainstream EVs were liquid-cooled? I'm sure the motor and battery still need cooling, though perhaps less than exploding dino juice engines. If this weren't true, Tesla wouldn't sell branded jugs of coolant ;-)

I suppose you must be right but I've never even touched or had to think about that. My technician hasn't mentioned anything either. I suppose maybe because there isn't a big oily thing the coolant is moving through it isnt a bother?

(2013 leaf, btw. very basic. just kinda works.)

Yeah, it makes sense that the overall design is more resilient and you'd have far less issues with cooling in general.

Leaf is air cooled, so there you go.

This is why I pay for a technician.

What for? Genuine question, did something break?

Because it takes three times for me to try and adjust the headlight fluid before the guy at the auto parts store takes pity on me.

Cooling systems for regular ICE cars need to dissipate around 1/3 of the nominal engine power. So if you have a modest 150hp car (112kW), the cooling system needs to be able to dissipate around 40kW of power. In reality it's even more, because you need to have some safety margin.

The cooling system in an EV are much, much smaller. You're looking at maybe about 20kW for a Tesla Model 3 with 450hp motors, and this includes heat rejection from the air conditioner.

(on the other hand, the air conditioner on EVs is a _critical_ component, because the main battery can't tolerate being heated to more than +90C like regular ICE engines)

Most of the waste heat created by an ICE is dumped out the exhaust, not the radiator.

Yup. The "1/3-rd of mechanical power" is an empirical rule.

However, it seems reasonable once you think about it.

The mechanical power of a car is about 25-30% of the total heat generated. So a 150hp car actually generates about 450hp of heat energy. Most of that power is indeed lost in exhaust. The 1/3 of 150hp is 50hp, around 10% of the total.

Buy a $200 inverter and you can have basic power (lights/router/modem, aquariums) in the case of a power outage. I've had to do this two weeks in a row in our third-world-power Silicon Valley.

FWIW that will void your battery warranty on Tesla

How would they find out?

Good point, but that’s one reason I don’t have a Tesla.

One other thing not mentioned - they brake faster. Like hybrids, EVs have dual brake systems - regenerative + brake pads. On an EV, the regen can be much more powerful than a hybrid since the motor/batter are larger.

I'm not sure this is true. They're a lot heavier and on most cars the brakes should be powerful enough to lock the wheels which is the max braking power you're going to get.

> They're a lot heavier

A bit heavier, but not "a lot." A model 3 is between around 3600 and just over 4000 pounds, depending on trim. Not far off a similar size ICE vehicle.

> A bit heavier, but not "a lot."

To compare a car which is available in both ICE and EV, a 2018 Fiat 500e (electric, with a tiny battery bank good for only ~90 miles) weighs almost 3000 pounds, whereas the same car with ICE is ~2400lb.

25% more weight is a lot on a car.

The 500E is a retrofit of an ICE, not a ground-up EV. All you can derive from that comparison is that retrofitting is inefficient.

> The 500E is a retrofit of an ICE, not a ground-up EV. All you can derive from that comparison is that retrofitting is inefficient.

That's all true, but I'm uncertain how much difference it can make. The bulk of the weight difference comes from the batteries, which will be there whether a retrofit or new design. Everything related to the ICE systems was removed, so it's not like there was any leftover weight from the conversion.

Weight distribution can likely be better in a chassis designed solely for EV, but total weight seems likely to be about the same either way.

One other thing not mentioned - they brake faster.

No, they do not. Any car has brakes that can overcome its tires. All that is added by regenerative braking is the ability to lock the wheels more quickly.

Tires and weight (which EVs have a lot more of) are the larger factors in stopping distance.

> No, they do not. Any car has brakes that can overcome its tires.

Well yeah, that's why we have ABS right?

But there's more to it than that... having a good way to engine brake (and in this case regen) keeps your brakes cool and prevents them from overheating. Regardless of stopping power in ideal conditions, overheated brakes are not safe.

I don’t think overheating brakes is that common of a problem either outside of a sports car on a race track or a truck going down a mountain. The real advantage of regen brakes is way longer between pad changes and less accompanying dust.

… and the battery charge.

Have you ever overheated your brakes? I’ve managed to do it twice. It took a $25 dollar set of brake pads about 8 laps on a race track. It takes multiple repeated hard stops of >~50mph delta to overheat even crappy bargain basement brakes on an economy car.

Brake discs on modern cars are vented and work like a centrifugal fan to cool them actively. They continually shed heat, so even dragging a brake pedal the entire way down a long mountain, as many drivers will do, is well within safety margins. So to overheat them, you have to get the heat in fast. Like 0-100-0-100-0-100-0 fast.

On the road, the only vehicles that experience brake fade are loaded trucks descending a grade, or suspects in a police pursuit.

Yeah i overheated my brakes doing exactly that, coming out of the Rockies

One thing I like about strong regenerative braking is how quickly it responds. If some kid darts out in front of me, there's a fraction of a second while I get my foot onto the brake pedal before the car starts to slow meaningfully. But with regenerative braking, the car is already slowing down significantly just by me lifting my foot. Just a little extra built-in margin, which is nice.

If you have a garage, by far the biggest benefit is charging overnight, starting the day with a full charge, and never having to go to a gas station. If you don't have convenient home charging, I'm not sure I'd recommend an EV just yet.

We got ours in December, and the most unexpected benefit for me is sitting at stop lights, in traffic, or in a drive through. When the car is stopped, it's essentially off. No engine idling vibrations, no noise, no emissions. It's kind of peaceful. I hadn't really realized how much idling in a gas car bothered me before.

If you enjoy having to change your oil every 3-6 months , then EVs might be disappointing because there's no oil to change. There are no transmissions, no gears (for most EVs at least), the cars are mostly silent, can't asphyxiate you in your garage, don't have to be jumped if you left the lights on all night, and you should be able to get many hundreds of thousands of miles where the car will drive mostly the same in ten years as when it was new (save for battery life decrease). Dealing with gas pumps and trying not to get gasoline drips on your shoes is a thing of the past.

> there's no oil to change.

I’ve heard rumours of diff oil.

I'm not aware of any EV that requires/recommends differential oil change schedules. Pretty much all fluids in EVs are 'lifetime' because there's no chance of fouling caused by engine blowby, unlike gas cars.

Even gas cars typically have 'lifetime' differential oil fills these days. With no chance of contamination from blowby, there's not really any other mechanism for degradation besides oil just degrading over time from heating/cooling.

I like it because an EV is a gas vehicle. It's also propane powered vehicle. It's also a diesel. It's also solar powered. It's also natural gas. It's whatever generator you can find to plug it into at that moment in time.

In the event of economic uncertainty, the gas stations are the first to run out and begin rationing resulting in miles long lines. An EV has many, many options to keep you operating in a disaster scenario.

Plus, unlike gas cars, my EV is always fully charged ready to go every morning. How many people have a 1/4 or even an 1/8 of a gas tank sitting in their driveway right now?

They are excellent prep vehicles.

I rented a Tesla 3 the last time we took a trip. It has some fundamental flaws (shitty rear window visibility) that have nothing to do with it being an EV, but it fully convinced me that my next car will be electric.

It's quiet

It's fast -- you say you know, but it's not about the acceleration as much as it is the immediate response: put the pedal down, and you're accelerating. Doesn't matter if you're stopped, going 30, or going 60 -- you have speed on demand, and it changes how you drive.

I guess some people don't like it, but one pedal driving (letting the regen do the braking just by letting off the accelerator) was awesome for me: I used the brake pedal less than ten times over a week, and my gas car seems tedious to pedal now.

Not sure how to describe the rest, but it was just better. I like my gas car much less now.

Some* people are buying EVs because they're "better". Other people, like me, have zero interest in most modern vehicles, whether EV or not. I have zero interest in a vehicle that gets software updates, or that can choose for itself to slam the breaks on, or that has the ability to upload my data for collection, or that can be remotely disabled, or that isn't built to be maintained easily in my garage, or that has giant touchscreen nonsense. I realize I might be in the minority, but that's OK.

I feel that most modern vehicles are designed and built purely to make as much money as possible, rather than to actually a good, reliable, maintainable vehicle. And it works, because the average consume either doesn't care or is easily to manipulate.

If you want to convert more people to EVs, start building some that I'm remotely interested in. That and invest into solid state batteries, I'm mostly waiting for that too. Solid state batteries would solve most of the issues with EV tech.

Monthly subscription for heated seats enters the room..

I raise you "your car repossesses itself to the dealership when you miss a payment" a la Ford.

What if, after hearing about the heated seats subscription, Ford patented the self-repossession so that BMW could never implement such a terrible idea?

What if Ford patented the idea so they could profit at a later date, with the added benefit of depriving competition of a revenue stream?

Agree. I'll be sad if all we do is simply electrify our shitty 5-ton asphalt tanks.

With the price of modern automobiles you would think the industry was absolutely ripe for disruption. If IKEA came out with an electric tuk-tuk for $4K I suspect the Big Three would lose their shit.

Hey, but I'm a dreamer.

> If IKEA came out with an electric tuk-tuk for $4K I suspect the Big Three would lose their shit

Seems like they already exist (not from IKEA of course), but that sort of vehicle isn't allowed on the road in the US so I don't think the Big Three are too concerned.

https://www.aliexpress.com/w/wholesale-electric-passenger-tu...

In the US, a 3 wheeled vehicle can be sold as a motorcycle and then the regulations are quite lax (though I think helmet laws might kick in). Look at a Polaris Slingshot as an example.

Aptera has been threatening to produce one for how long now?

I don't think most people are actually interested in a three wheel officially-a-motorcycle-but-effectively-a-tiny-car.

I had a co-worker who actually put $1000 down on an Elio years ago, but as far as I know, they've never come close to making one. I'd be fine driving something like an Aptera, but I just looked and it's like $33K, so I'm not really seeing the savings. I'm also keenly aware that I'm not most people.

$33K is still cheaper to any comparable Tesla Model 3 at slightly higher expected range (plus the benefits of solar charging).

It's still more than a Chevy Bolt which looks like a regular sedan and not some retro-futurist science experiment to meld an airplane and automobile that you drive down the road.

Aesthetics are always in the eye of the beholder.

Personally, as a 2012 Volt owner I certainly wish the Bolt looked like a regular sedan. It's an ugly modern American "cross-over" (they like the weird ugly "EUV" term in marketing) that isn't a proper sedan in any classic sense but also doesn't commit enough to being a proper hatchback or a light truck enough to make sense for why it is so "cross-over" looking. To me it is a very ugly duckling with no true home in car fashion.

I like the "dolphin tricycle" look of the Aptera. But I suppose I also like retro-futurism and science experiments and in general cars that look like they would take off for the sky if not caged to the ground.

I'd drive an affordable electric car that looks like that, but it's a bit too "look at me" for my taste. A basic box on wheels with doors that moves from A to B is more my thing (I currently drive a Chevy Cruze). See also the Polaris Slingshot; I'm not trying to look like a superhero off on my way to fight crime.

As far as what I'd actually like, a Chinese maker already made it but I don't imagine it coming to the US ever - https://insideevs.com/news/614218/wuling-hong-guang-mini-ev-...

Or something like a Fiat 500 with a Cabrio top (they made a gas one, but not an electric as far as I know). Still a bit odd looking, but more cute than mean or science-experiment.

I've fallen in love with videos of a lot of Chinese sedans. I very seriously think that if import tariffs get worked out and the Chinese EV companies make a serious effort, they have a ripe opportunity to blow up in the US market the way that the Korean sedans did for Gen X and the Japanese sedans did for the Boomers.

(That's such a dumb cycle: Americans forget that they love sedans until an importer starts importing them in bulk. The importer themselves forget Americans love sedans and move on to trucks/SUVs like everyone else. Some new importer needs to come along to disrupt the market again.)

(Related to that, I also fell in love with the Honda e and knew that to be futile love because Honda of America is a truck company.)

Speak for yourself, I've been in line for an Aptera ever since the solar reboot.

I don't drive a ton of miles, but it's over roads where a bike would be literal suicide. A performant runabout with a bit of cargo space is exactly what I want, and if it only needs to be plugged in a few times a year, so much the better.

I'm keeping the A-Team van for when I need to move minicomputers and their peripherals, but an Aptera could do like 95% of my driving.

Give me something more crashworthy like a VW Polo for the US market and I’m there.

Would an Arcimoto FUV work for you? Those are available now. (They don't have solar panels and probably have much worse aerodynamics than Aptera. On the other hand, I think Arcimoto has the right idea with front/rear seating rather than side-by-side.)

.....does it have... doors?

I'm gonna say no. I deal with months of snow and slush and a few miles of "70mph" (really 85+mph) highway.

I think they have half-doors now. It's kind of a weird thing not to have fully figured out at this point, but I give them credit for actually releasing a product and iterating.

For short range urband deliveries in London, in seeing small 4 wheeled electric vehicles that are technically bicycles. This had the advantage that they can use cycle paths, so not need insurance, driving licence, or to any design validation.

The Arcimoto FUV is a 3-wheel electric that's available in some states now. I'm not sure if there are some states where helments are required, but generally they aren't.

https://www.arcimoto.com/fuv

Here’s a (4-wheeled) US legal microcar, max speed 25 mph and allowed on roads with speed limit up to 35

https://electrek.co/2023/03/22/wink-motors-test-drive-electr...

Wow what a great idea! This car kinda looks like they are using a Chinese partner to do design and/or creating the build process. Seems like this segment could really use a Tesla like competitor. There has got to be more they can do in that $9k budget to deliver the very best micro car. They can't possibly be squeezing out the best that the LFP battery can offer. I guess maybe their potential budget or scale is limiting what they can deliver to the market.

Maybe legally permitted but I can't imagine wanting to be in something like that on a major thoroughfare full of Hummers and Rams...

Yeah, I would think of it as closer to riding a bike than driving a car in that respect. People do it all the time but you want to be careful about route selection.

Well I wouldn't ride a bike on the sorts of roads I had in mind either (and I'm generally comfortable riding on busy roads, but only when there's enough dedicated space for bikes.)

That's what I mean by thinking of it more like a bike. Just because a road is legal to ride on doesn't mean I would want to, you have to take the scenic route sometimes. But at least you're not getting rained on, and you can haul a lot more groceries up a hill than I would want to while biking.

The most popular EV car in China is a Hongguan MinI, only $4k or so. Completely road legal in China.

Made EU legal it's €13K (https://nikrob.uk/).

There are 12 year old kids driving "golf carts" all over my neighborhood streets.

If you want the opposite of a shitty 5-ton tank then check out the Aptera. Light, extremely efficient, and still fast.

https://aptera.us/

They're cool but no "workhorse". (I guess I'm channelling my proletariot roots — I want a "people's car".)

That would be a Chevy Bolt. Small but not unusably tiny, hatchback utility, good specs, inexpensive.

For anyone good with a two-seater, it seems like a people's car to me. Plenty of space for groceries, starts at $25K, exceptionally easy and cheap to charge at home, and committed to "right-to-repair," publishing all their manuals and selling the parts to anyone. It could be the modern equivalent of the original VW Bug.

Isn't $25k way too much for it to be a "people's car"?

If they can sell profitably at $25k they're ahead of the rest of the pack, and EV component prices are coming down every year.

Looking at the original prices and adjusting for inflation it looks like the Fiat 500 and the 2CV were about $10000, and the Type 1 Beetle was around $15000. So $25k does seem rather high for a people’s car.

I’m not sure the prices I found (450k lira, 350k francs, and 4000 marks) are all correct though.

Take gasoline savings into account and it gets closer (see my sibling comment to yours).

The cheapest new car in 2023 is the Nissan Versa for $15,730, but most of the ten cheapest cars are around $20K. [1]

The Versa gets 32mpg. The Aptera is the same basic design as their original diesel model which got 300mpg, and it's electric. It'll be way cheaper to run, it won't require as much maintenance, and you'll be able to do your own repairs.

The current US average gasoline price is $3.42/gal. [2] If you drive 32 miles per day, that's $104/month in gasoline with the Versa. Using LendingTree's calculator for a 60-month loan, $104/mo is worth a $5900 difference in purchase price, and that doesn't count maintenance savings. [3]

So yeah, by modern new-car standards I think it's about as close to a people's car as you can get. And batteries keep getting cheaper.

[1] https://www.hotcars.com/cheapest-new-cars-for-2023/#2023-nis...

[2] https://www.finder.com/gas-prices

[3] https://www.lendingtree.com/auto/calculators/payment/

Funny how the people insisting on the "workhorse" thing in practice just take it on a clogged highway to go to work or to some fast-food drive through :)

The canonical example of automotive vaporware. All promises, no deliveries.

I think the transition to EVs has far more upside than downside, but weight (to your comment about "5-ton asphalt tanks") is a real and significant downside. Batteries aren't light!

These exist in Europe, for example the Citroen Ami[0] which is about 8000 euros or Renault Twizy[1] which is 12k euros. There are cheaper vehicles like this but I can't remember them offhand. You see these kind of micro EVs in every town basically, pretty sweet.

[0] https://www.citroen.fr/ami

[1] https://www.renault.fr/vehicules-electriques/twizy.html

Getting a driver’s license in France is significantly more difficult than the US. But there’s a hack in that younger kids can drive these smaller cars with an easier to get license.

Oh, is that why I felt like drivers in France are the best I've encountered? I've driven a couple tens of thousands of km's there in total (both city and country) and been regularly impressed by the responsible and conscientious driving in comparison to anywhere else I've driven (17 countries total now). Maybe a bit too much tailgating though if you're not driving "fast enough" on those single-lane country roads, but otherwise great driving skill IMO.

In most of Europe we require drivers to take both classroom training, practical training and to pass both a classroom test and a practical test before they can get their license. My impression of the US is that in most states you just have to show up and drive around a few cones on a parking lot to get your license.

In New Jersey, there is classroom training as part of school curriculum that is typically done in public school around the end of age 15 going into 16 (since people generally get a license while they are still in school). This training consists of teaching the material issued in this booklet[1] which is the official NJ rules and regulations for driving in the state. At the end of the training, there is an exam (typically computerized these days).

If you are past the age where you'd be in school, you can get the official state issued driving booklet and self study or you can attend a third party school which teaches the booklet. Either way you take the same exam.

Passing that exam entitles students to receive a learners permit that allows limited driving privileges (tags must be placed on the car indicating the driver is on a learners permit, restricted hours driving, must be accompanied by someone with a full license, etc.)

Permit holders must complete at least 6 hours of practice over a 6 month period under supervision.

After a year a driving test is conducted and that determines if you are eligible for a probationary drivers license or if you require more training time.

If you pass, you are upgraded to a probationary license. The probationary allows unsupervised driving but with other restrictions (time curfew) for 1 year. No incidents during that year allow you to graduate to a full unrestricted driving license.

[1]:https://www.state.nj.us/mvc/pdf/license/drivermanual.pdf

[2]:https://www.state.nj.us/mvc/license/youngadult.htm

> Oh, is that why I felt like drivers in France are the best I've encountered?

I want to hug you, how much has the world hurt you for you to think that? French drivers are terrible. Not the worst (they’re not italians, to say nothing of americans, or south-east asians) but they’re still really rather bad.

hahaha! really? It's purely my subjective judgement, but it may also have been pure chance/coincidence that I encountered good driving in FR compared to other countries. I mean in terms of actual driving skill like not doing dangerous/stupid things, driving with precision in difficult/complicated/narrow roads, anticipating risky situations or avoiding collisions, behaving respectfully/responsibly, appearing to be actually aware of what's happening etc.. In some places it felt like most drivers are basically asleep or barely conscious...

problem with these is that they are ugly but give something that look og mini or fiat 500 and can go 125km/h cost something like 8000 euros I would buy it immediately.

Those exist. Neighborhood electric vehicles have been available in the US for years and can legally be driven on many urban streets. The Big Three don't care.

https://ecofriend.com/5-neighborhood-electric-vehicles.html

The extra weight will significantly increase road wear, which is unfair because the road maintenance is paid by a gas tax, which EV drivers are not paying.

The weight of EVs has literally no relevance in the face of trucks, which everyone else subsidises. A loaded semi causes about 3 orders of magnitude the road wear of a large sedan, per unit of distance.

Semi's are doing a job, the same cannot be said of an F150 carrying 1 person to a Costco parking lot.

> Semi's are doing a job

Not in any way relevant either. Semis could “do a job” and be properly accounted for in infrastructure damage still.

Buying enough vehicle that even your exceptional use case for it isn't pushing the limit of what it's capable of is absolutely a hallmark of upper middle class/white collar consumerist culture.

A socially awkward teenager gets more ass than rear seat of your average HNer's 4Runner or Model 3. IDK why the internet always shits on pickup drivers.

Regardless, I don't think you understand how impactful "a couple orders of magnitude" are. Even the heaviest of light vehicles, like a Hummer EV are of negligible effect on a road that has to handle any proportion of medium and heavy truck traffic.

IKEA isn’t cheap any more and has been massively hiking prices like the rest of the world (while throwing in some artificial scarcity). It’d be more like $8k !

>With the price of modern automobiles you would think the industry was absolutely ripe for disruption. If IKEA came out with an electric tuk-tuk for $4K I suspect the Big Three would lose their shit.

Not gonna happen. Regulatory capture. And each line of regulation is backed by an ungodly number of people who will screech to high heaven if you even think about removing it. Like imagine for a second the vapid HN hand wringing and concern peddling that a headline to the tune of "NHTSA comprehending removal of backup camera requirement on some vehicles" would prompt. It's easier for the regulators, the analysts, the automotive companies, everybody, to just keep rolling with the status quo rather than amass the political capital to challenge it.

So long as society is rich enough to afford all the fluff cars will continue to have all the fluff.

> NHTSA comprehending removal of backup camera requirement on some vehicles...

My understanding is that NHTSA has a visibility requirement. You can make a car without a backup camera provided the driver can see behind them. Seems pretty reasonable.

Unfortunately we are in an arms race with the shitty asphalt tanks.

In most of the USA, trying to navigate the world in an electric tuk-tuk surrounded by enormous pickup trucks and SUVs with distracted pilots is basically a death sentence. If an accident doesn't get you, the apathy and road rage toward small vehicles will — they may shove you into a ditch simply for fun.

Yeah, I'm not touching EVs until Mazda makes a dumb and cute one with physical buttons and dials.

Mazda is kind of lagging, but there are relatively cheap EVs with physical buttons now. It's not all Tesla-style luxury stuff.

Example: https://www.miniusa.com/model/electric-hardtop.html

They all do seem to have some sort of screen though, sorry.

I think the screen is more or less mandatory because backup cameras are mandatory.

Yep, and touchscreens are vastly better with Android Auto.

I strongly disagree. My biggest issue with the Polestar was its jank android auto interface.

I think I worded that poorly. I meant that Android Auto with a touch screen is much better than Android Auto with buttons.

Some Android Auto setups are bad either way, though, tbh.

What? Why/where are backup cameras mandatory? If you can't drive/park without assistive cameras you shouldn't have a drivers license, period.

the US? Since like 2017 or earlier. They aren’t for parking, they are so people don’t run over toddlers when backing up

The United States for one (new cars only).

Also: the backup camera is very nice. I can survive without one but it is oh so nice. I can hook up a hitch in one go.

I've heard mandatory backup cameras have to do with the rear end collision safety ratings which seem to only be able to be passed by building up the back end of the car leaving a much bigger blind spot when you are backing up.

Backup cameras were required because of a string of tragic “family member backs over own child in driveway” incidents. If it saves one life… and all that is easier to sell if it’s toddlers.

Well, also they're cheap as hell and there's zero reason they shouldn't be in everything.

Frankly I think all cars should come with those birdseye camera systems - it's 4 cameras and makes parallel parking a breeze.

Chicken or egg

The US and Canada since 2018. The EU since 2022 (for new models: existing models get until 2024)[1].

As for why in the US: literally too many kids being killed by their parents in SUVs and trucks [2].

[1] https://bmdv.bund.de/SharedDocs/EN/Articles/StV/Roadtraffic/...

[2] https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/110th-congress...

The auto industry is pushing ever larger SUVs, which often don't even have the sightlines in front of the vehicle to see a kid standing on the sidewalk in front of it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/americas-cars-trucks-ar...

I feel like the solution to this would be to mandate a certain degree of visibility all around a vehicle. I mean, the backup camera on the vehicle I recently rented became borderline useless after a couple days, because of constant rainy weather ensuring the camera was always completely covered in dirt and mud. The image was like if you took a 160x120 photo and scaled it up and then applied some kind of "splatter dirt" filter on top. I just didn't even use it, because looking out the actual windows (like I always do) was more effective. If a vehicle is designed in such a way to literally not even allow proper visibility, that should exclude its acceptance onto the market.

> If a vehicle is designed in such a way to literally not even allow proper visibility, that should exclude its acceptance onto the market.

I mean, 100% agree on that.

As for the usefulness of backup cameras... I don't have one myself but I've rented a few cars with them and they do give you significantly more visibility when backing up than the rear window can provide, even in a reasonably sized sedan. But sure, rain might interfere. I don't think the fact that it's not perfect means it's not useful.

I have a VW Golf and they solved the rain problem by hiding the camera in the hatchback latch. It pops out when you need it and hides away behind the badge when you don’t.

I haven’t priced out what replacing that little motor will cost someday.

I have a Toyota Verso, and the backup camera is close to the tailgate handle, beside the license plate. No moving parts etc, and rain per se isn't a problem, however it tends to get dirty in foul weather. I have a habit of just wiping the lens with my thumb every now and then, works well enough.

And yes, it definitely makes parking in a tight spot easier.

Nobody is going to disagree that windows should give as much visibility as possible and people should know how to drive with them, but it's not physically possible to see something (or someone) on the ground close behind your car without a camera. I'd recommend testing with a traffic cone or something, I think you might be surprised how far back a little kid has to be before you can see them in the mirror even in a small car.

If you won't use them, you should at least be happy that other people have them so they don't back into you. Cars are dangerous.

https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/03/the-danger-of-bl...

https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/rearview-cameras-reduce-pol...

The problem is crash test requirements require cars be built in a way that limits visibility. Giant pillars in case of a roll over, and lots of air bags stuffed everywhere.

Something had to give, and that thing was visibility.

i almost crashed the other day because a car was "hiding" behind the A(?) pillar. I was driving through the same intersection I do every day, looked both ways and made sure no cars were coming from another close by intersection. It was clear, or so I thought. When I turned left onto the road I suddenly had a car on right. It must have been perfectly behind the A-pillar when I approached the intersection and when I started to turn left. Scary.

The camera on your rent car seems to garbage. My car's camera works on 99% of the time. It's better to design a car with better view, but also rear camera is a huge upgrade for safety.

I imagine the "360 degree view" cameras that are being introduced in luxury cars will make their way down to all cars eventually.

[1]:https://youtu.be/Vs0HCITcP-4?t=936

I have a $14,000 Suzuki kei car from 2016 which came with that 360 parking view, so the technology itself isn't expensive or really that exclusive.

This was my first car after getting my driver's license so I'm afraid I'll never be able to park in a car without it...

They're mandatory in the US, Europe, China and India for starters. At this point it's probably harder to find a country where they aren't.

As for why, the safety data shows that cars with backup cameras are safer for the public than those without, same as seatbelts, airbags, or any number of other safety technologies. You shouldn't need any of them, but they're there to improve the situation when reality inevitably fails to meet our expectations.

That’s just as ridiculous as saying headlights shouldn’t be required because you shouldn’t be driving somewhere where you can’t see the road clearly. The point is that the tech makes driving easier and safer and at some point the tech is stable enough that it makes sense to require it.

"Why do cars have seat belts? People should be able to drive without crashing!"

Is what you just asked. Safety features are just that: they enhance passenger and pedestrian safety because humans make mistakes.

Also mirrors right? If you “can’t” drive without assistive mirrors, you shouldn’t have a driver’s license, period. In fact, anything mandated after the first Model T rolled off the line is dumb.

I think its coming. At least I'm assuming our local Mazda dealer isn't planning a DCFC installation because they think the MX-30 will suddenly become popular in the southeastern US.

The Japanese car companies including Mazda are way behind on EVs, Nissan arguably excepted.

The MX-30 EV is very expensive and has a tiny battery and consequently terrible driving range. It’s a city-only vehicle.

The Japanese auto industry, more than anywhere else, is on a burning platform.

> Nissan arguably excepted

Why arguably? The Leaf is awesome. Nissan blazed the trail with bidirectional charging.

They let their rollout lag significantly, pinning things on one model for a long time. There was likely some internal corporate politicking involved.

Leaf is decidedly not awesome. The lack of liquid cooling means it runs into thermal limits very easily and battery degradation has been a real issue for them. CHAdeMO is arguably the better spec, but since it's a dead plug for north america and can't handle AC people with leafs are going to find themselves tethered very close to home.

If someone needs a commuter only car they are okay, but I think I'd get a bolt over a leaf if I wanted a cheap used commuter EV.

Yes. It would be fine if the Leaf was cheaper. But at least around here, Leaf costs Tesla money, and getting worse product for the same money makes no sense.

One reason to argue about Nissan is how much they've let their head start stagnate.

The Leaf was Ghosn's baby and some of the ouster of Ghosn was Japanese Nissan leadership getting cold feet about EVs (because none of their Japanese peers cared about EVs "so why should they?") right at the point in time where they should have accelerated. (The EV concerns being on top of/correlated with conspiracy theories that Ghosn was too friendly with French-owned Nissan sibling Renault because they were just about all-in on EVs and Ghosn was hoping for early economies of scale, faster, but that looked to Japanese investors too much like a French coup for Nissan ownership. Also, my favorite alleged part of that conspiracy was Ghosn saw Nissan of America as an SUV/Truck-loving albatross around Nissan's neck and suggested that the very profitable division get renamed back to Datsun to make it easier to pull the ripcord and jettison the entire division once EVs started to get popular enough and its absurd profits became absurd losses.)

I don't know if the truth will ever come out how much of a crook Ghosn was or was not, versus the spin of the Japanese court system and many conspiracy theories that came out of all that, but that saga definitely seemed to put the breaks on Nissan's EV efforts at a bad moment and they do seem to be lagging behind where they should be considering their head start with the Leaf. It's a fascinating story no matter what the facts were on the ground.

>Nissan arguably excepted.

I.e. the underdog who didn't have a well oiled money printer jeopardize by bringing self-competing EVs to market.

I would LOVE a full EV Mazda 3. Mazda 3 was and still is my first car and I'd love to stay in the family (rust issues aside).

Unfortunately they have a history of lagging in this space, either due to mentality or just the fact that they don't have the money to transition over without help (hence them partnering up with Toyota).

Fun fact: One of their chief designers: Franz von Holthausen just happened to become the lead designer at Tesla! Him leaving Mazda was well documented back in around 2010. He talked about how was frustrated that at Mazda any green initiative was always nothing more than a side project. Hopefully things have changed now.

Like I, Robot (2004) is supposed to be near-futuristic dystopian, and the one super memorable scene I think was - will smith is driving his car and then, well the Tesla Analog - US Robotics shuts him down and tries to kill him.

The government already has enough room planting bombs in cars and cutting brakes, I don't think I need a corporate overlord to have their thumbs in that.

The way the EV market has been going so far has reminded me of the NoSQL hype of the early 2000s. It suddenly became important to have "web-scale" datastores and a lot of new hotness didn't use SQL, so folks started associating NoSQL with scalability, regardless of whether some SQL databases could scale, or some non-SQL databases couldn't.

Fast-forward to the present day where I've recently overheard someone say they "want an electric car so it can drive itself". Tesla has made self-driving (for some definition of self-driving") and over-the-air updates and giant tablet entertainment screens synonymous with EVs, to the point where it seems like every major manufacturer is including those features on every new EV they launch. I'd also like to see essentially an anti-Tesla EV - a simple, good car that happens to be electric, without it being a "smartphone on wheels". Make the entertainment system a double-DIN stereo and I'll know I've found the right car :)

A number of existing EVs or plug-in hybrids would easily meet your needs. Toyota RAV4 prime for instance.

Tesla is far and away more of a smartphone on wheels than any other car.

I like to describe it as an iPad strapped to four cordless drills.

That'd be a Rivian; Tesla has two /s

>Fast-forward to the present day where I've recently overheard someone say they "want an electric car so it can drive itself". Tesla has made self-driving (for some definition of self-driving") and over-the-air updates and giant tablet entertainment screens synonymous with EVs

There are even people in this very comment section that think that way ;)

> Tesla has made self-driving (for some definition of self-driving")

I'd be okay with this if they weren't f'ing it up.

Put Lidar in there and just get it right. Stop w/ this non-sense.

Aside from whatever Tesla is doing, LIDAR has some fundamental technical deficiencies such that it is unlikely to ever be a viable long term solution. I find the arguments against LIDAR compelling with the context of having worked with this data.

can you be more specific what those deficiencies are?

LIDAR has some issues in rain and snow, and can't read road markings or signs (or make out colours). And it's pretty expensive currently. A combination of LIDAR and cameras is likely what'll end up working best, they complement each other nicely.

Just to nitpick/paint a less absolute picture: Having worked at a couple companies using lidar, you can make out stuff like road markings based on relative brightness (especially if retroreflective paint is used), in ideal conditions, but that's of course not everywhere.

I agree a combo seems like the way forward.

The one that few people think about is that use of LIDAR interferes with other LIDAR. LIDAR works mostly because almost no one is using LIDAR. By contrast, passive optical scales infinitely even if it is more difficult and there is an existence proof that it is possible. Automotive companies view LIDAR as a dead-end even though it works well (in some environments) now.

LIDAR is absolutely the technically superior approach compared to photogrammetry + ML but is cost-prohibitive (in Tesla's view)

Personally, I'll never trust their self-driving product for anything more than lane-keeping unless they incorporate LIDAR

LIDAR would certainly solve the problem of crashes, which is indeed a serious issue.

But I don't see how you could drive with it. It couldn't identify lane markings or exits or traffic lights or cones. And if you can do that well, you should be able to avoid hitting things.

Clearly Tesla hasn't solved that and maybe never will. But adding LIDAR wouldn't really solve the problem.

It's not LIDAR alone it's a combo. The problem of course is that Tesla/Elon is being stubborn and unwilling to put the "expensive" lidar claiming that pictures is enough to work on.

Maybe it is, but not today.

Volvo seems to be getting it right hardware-wise with it's forthcoming EX90 (electric XC90). 250 meter range LIDAR (kept clear from ice, snow and dirt by it's own heat emisssions and nozzles at the end of the windshield wipers - you can tell it's not designed in California), 5 radars, 8 cameras and 16 ultrasonic sensors.

That's amazing. Mercedes has the first certified level 3. Only a few states, but the rest will come. Tesla is falling behind due to its hubris.

I also think they haven’t figured out how to do the sensor fusion with the compute available.

their real problem is frame to frame consistency, due to lack of a world model.

this is what Elon talked with Lex a year (or two?) ago. (they mentioned it as how to know you are in a school zone, and remember you are in a school zone, etc)

Sounds like they're working on the world model at least in places. With the removal of the parking sensors, they've started remembering obstructions that are now out of the cameras' vision.

I see LIDAR self driving vehicles all over the place around Phoenix and Tempe. My Tesla’s autopilot can’t reliably stay on the correct side of the road going through intersections.

Humans don't have Lidar. They can still drive just fine. Solving self-driving is OBVIOUSLY not about Lidar.

Cameras are nowhere near the capability of our eyes especially in low light.

Computers are nowhere near the capability of our brains in terms of image processing, object identification, path anticipation etc.

Until these things improve, self driving cars need to compensate for this gap with more data inputs to be reliable.

Camera are better in low light than our eyes Computers are faster than our brain Software (Neural Net) are not at the level of our brain, in particular they do not fine tune constantly to the current conditions and problems. But they are getting there. Just looking at the visualisation in FSD you can see how accurate the system is at recognizing all the cars, their position, theirs speeds, etc. Human only only track a few objects and only when they catch our attention. Furthermore theirs system has 8 cameras, no distraction, sleepiness, etc.

I saw this visualisation recently in a taxi. It was constantly changing its mind about things. One second a scooter would appear as a garbage bin, the second it would disappear and then show up as a scooter again. Pedestrians would only be displayed while they moved. I was surprised how inaccurate it was.

And cameras are really bad at noise levels at low light and don't nearly have the dynamic range levels needed for good night vision.

Just wait for better cameras? Big pixels solve the noice level problems and multiple cameras solve the problem of dynamic range. People also can not measure distance to static things if seing capability is limited to only one eye (riding bicycle is possible with one eye but driving a car is not).

Depend on version of fsd. They used to go through a normalization process that tried to make the video similar in differents conditions. This has been ripped off and now the signal go strait to NN. I heard (and saw video) where the camera detected animal in the dark that were impossible to see to the naked eyes.

It’s possible their system is not that good, but eventually cameras will outperform the human eyes in every way if that’s not already the case.

Our perception is not that good, but our brain filter it out and make us believe that we see the full picture were if fact we see only what catch our attention.

> Put Lidar in there and just get it right. Stop w/ this non-sense.

This is a popular refrain among people who are not studying Tesla’s progress particularly closely, and/or are unfamiliar with the utility LIDAR actually provides. Tesla FSD still has some way to go before it is ready to be a properly autonomous robotaxi — but where it's failing are not areas where adding LIDAR would help.

Tesla's vision stack is already sufficiently capable of mapping the three-dimensional environment with sufficient precision.

Tesla FSD needs better planning strategies when faced with unusual obstructions like novel construction zone diversions. Adding LIDAR wouldn't help there. Tesla FSD desperately needs more road sign reading skills. LIDAR can't read road signs. Tesla FSD will eventually need to recognise law enforcement officers and respond to hand gestures. LIDAR cannot translate hand gestures into actionable driving instructions, and certainly can't assess the plausibility that the person is a LEO.

Lidar's are excellent at verifying that the 3d model map is correct. E.g. a perpendicular semitruck with trailer on the road.

For item recognition the resolution gets low quick though with range.

> Lidar's are excellent at verifying that the 3d model map is correct.

IIRC Tesla does use LIDAR in their test vehicles to measure the ground truth of their 3D model maps. They just don't do that with every single car on the road.

Examples:

https://twitter.com/gbrulte/status/1395356317410287617

https://electrek.co/2020/06/29/tesla-spotted-testing-prototy...

Wouldn't LIDAR be useful to help it not occasionally drive into objects?

Waymo talks about using LIDAR on their gesture recognition system: https://blog.waymo.com/2022/02/utilizing-key-point-and-pose-...

Is this the same vision stack that was pulling up ahead of stop signs in some places because the signs were bigger than it expected?

If it can't make sense of something as simple as that, why would I trust it with hazards?

https://www.thedrive.com/news/teslas-can-be-tricked-into-sto...

Certainly that is the current Tesla PR spin that their vision stack is good enough to not need it, but it is hard to see why LIDAR wouldn't be useful for defense in depth against the situations like people tricking Teslas into painted tunnels like Wile E. Coyote. Especially when we all know the reality is that LIDAR is extremely patent protected and expensive to buy because of that and Tesla dropping LIDAR was pure cost cutting.

(Self-driving seems to me to be somewhere you absolutely want as much defense in depth and redundant sensors as possible.)

I'd like to see someone exposing a Tesla to a intricately produced Wile E. Coyote tunnel. I would predict that it would stop, because the vision stack leans heavily on motion vectors to map out drivable space. And even if it didn't, the tunnel could only be painted to have the correct perspective at one point along the road. Moving closer would result in the model seeing the road get narrower, causing the car to slow down (narrower roads necessitate slower speed) until it gets within a few car lengths — at which point the painted road would appear so narrow as to be literally undriveable.

If Tesla hasn't already tested this in simulation, I'd be astounded.

Also if a false tunnel good enough to fool FSD beta, I'd suspect it'd also be good enough to fool a decent proportion of human drivers too.

Certainly there is some hyperbole there, but not by much: https://screenrant.com/stop-tesla-autopilot-fsd-self-driving...

What you're looking for is basically the Prius Prime. Sure it's not fully electric, but it gets 40 mile electric range (which for a lot of people is enough for the day to day), gets legit 70 mpg at 40-55 mph, and around 50mpg at 70mph. No fancy tech, but it drives.

That's right, the moment Toyota actually jumps on the full EVs, I hope they preserve that direction - those would be amazing cars.

There's one fancy thing from Prius I don't think anyone else does though - the heads up display, which looks amazing and I would really like to have. (It's still optional, so you don't lose the usual dashboard)

The Toyotas BZ4BX would like to differ. After it recovers from the recent recall, that is.

Give them another generation or two, and they might reach the point you're describing. But they ain't there yet.

I'd really like to meet the marketing genius who decided to name the car "BZ4BX". Really rolls off the tongue, that one.

It's actually slightly easier, bZ4X.

The name does actually have a meaning: bZ(Beyond Zero emissions) 4 (based on Rav4) X (Crossover)

That said, I wish they had just called it the Rav4 Electric. I believe mass adoption comes from car companies integrating the electric models into what (non-cutting edge) consumers already trust (Chevy is the only one really embracing this idea)

Considering this model was announced before they asked Toyoda to step down for failing in EV adoption, I suspect it was named to not sully the reputation of an established model.

> Rav4 Electric

REV4.

  - it's a Rav4
  - it's an EV
  - it revs
  - it's a revolution

> That said, I wish they had just called it the Rav4 Electric. I believe mass adoption comes from car companies integrating the electric models into what (non-cutting edge) consumers already trust (Chevy is the only one really embracing this idea)

There are some more. Peugeot has electric models with the same naming as their ICE models but an "e" on front (e-208, e-2008, etc.) Hyundai has the Ioniq in EV and non-EV versions. And there was also a Volkswagen eGolf, although I think that one has been abandoned to be replaced by models with electric-specific naming.

I would pronounce that “busybox.” I wonder if it uses BusyBox.

The sister Subaru Solterra is slightly better, but not much.

It's actually BZ4x. Beezey Forks.

Toyota press people don't like people calling it the Beezey Forks. But much like the XBone, once you hear the name, it sticks.

I actually really wish Toyota kept pushing their plug in hybrids. The Rav4 Prime get 40 miles on its battery and 40 mpg as a small suv is impressive plus 600 miles worth of gas in it. My neighbor pretty much uses most of the battery during his commute, charges it and uses the battery coming back. He can take it on long road trips without any stops too.

If you've got 40 miles of range when it's new and you're doing a full cycle of the battery twice a day, won't the battery basically be dead weight within 3 years or so?

Only if a "full cycle" is aggressively draining the battery. More likely, that 40 miles is a safe amount of discharge for the pack.

Been driving our Rav4 PHEV for 2 years soon. My wife drains the battery once a day on her way to work. We still get 65+ km (40 miles) in winter and over 80km (50 miles) in summer, driving mostly in the city.

that's not how car batteries work. phone batteries suck because they are incredibly space and weight constrained and they're too small to effectively include thermal management. Toyota warrentees their hybrid vehicle batteries for 10 years/150k miles for 30% range degredation. after that, since it's a relatively small battery some looking around suggests that the cost of an out of warrentee replacement is roughly $4000, and needing the replacement is relatively rare over the life of the vehicle

Not only is Toyota's warranty on Prius batteries quite good, a good chunk of the battery issues with older Priuses come down to corroded terminals. A dealership will happily throw a new battery in there for a few grand, but a good indie hybrid mechanic knows to try the cheap and easy fix of cleaning the terminals before replacing the battery (and will recommend reconditioned battery packs for a serious $$ savings)

There was a moment in 2017 when I was sure the GM Volt would usher in an age of series hybrids with larger and larger batteries. Then Tesla released the M3 and GM released the Bolt and the Volt was subsequently discontinued.

There must be some solid reason as to why mid-capacity batteries in a hybrid don't make economic sense for car companies.

Batteries getting cheaper and required emissions equipment getting more expensive and complex have made PHEVs a tough market. For most small and mid sized cars and crossovers the cost of equipping a full ICE drivetrain along with a reasonably sized battery and electric motor drivetrain pencils out to about the same price they can make a full battery electric car for, especially when pure BEVs tend to have higher government incentives compared to PHEVs (varies by location).

Packaging is also a big downside. Fitting a 10-20 kW battery and a full combustion drivetrain takes a lot of space, so BEVs with packaging advantages over even pure ICE cars priced around the same number suddenly look a lot more attractive to the potential buyers who overlap a lot between PHEVs and BEVs.

With clever engineering a PHEV doesn't really need a "whole drivetrain". You can use the fact that you have a motor and a big battery to solve a ton of problems that ICE engines typically have.

To make an ICE efficient, you want to give it a big transmission with a lot of gears so it stays in peak efficiency RP, undersize it, and put a big turbocharger on. This produces a relatively heavy drivetrain that has lag when you put your foot down.

When you have an electric engine and battery, you can take the same small engine, but instead of a transmission, you just steal energy and put it in the battery when you don't need power and give it back instantly when you put your foot down. This removes almost all the weight and complexity of the transmission, keeps your engine at peak RPM, and gives you the responsiveness of an EV.

But the engineering cost to do all that is very expensive and unique, two things car makers hate and avoid at all cost. There is a reason the long discontinued Volt is still the best PHEV around and only BMW i3 has ever had your proposed layout. No one else has been willing to spend the money required to really optimize a PHEV and i3 could use more power getting up hills than the engine could generate, so your battery % could drop with the engine running. The OEMs want a 'good enough' PHEV to qualify for subsidies with minimal spend and allocate all the real resources to BEVs since they see the end of combustion.

Plus it's not just the mechanicals. You still need a gas tank, exhaust, catalytic converter and all the other ancillaries that come with combustion. That all adds to the bill of materials, engineering and assembly complexity, and packaging constraints.

> The OEMs want a 'good enough' PHEV to qualify for subsidies with minimal spend and allocate all the real resources to BEVs since they see the end of combustion.

I think a lot of this comes from seeing PHEV as "worse EV" rather than "better ICE". Car manufacturers see their business as building ICEs and EVs as a weird distraction that you have to throw money into as basically a PR expense (although this has started to change in the last couple years). The engineering cost here is expensive but not especially unique since it could pretty easily apply to the entire ICE fleet. The fact that the Prius has existed for 25 years, but most cars sold today don't have regenerative braking is kind of crazy. It's not like OEMs haven't put a ton of engineering into ICEs, they just haven't considered hybrids as "real engineering".

Except no cars do that. That's called a serial hybrid, which never shipped, unless you count oddballs like the BMW i3, with the optional "range extender".

GM Volt is a series hybrid. Arguably the best hybrid ever made.

The Prius prime already gets about half way there.

I read a review of a prototype BMW mini. The turbine (fixed RPM) + batteries seemed like a great combination. Plenty of HP for highway cruising, plenty of battery+AWD for great acceleration. Turbines are efficient, crazy small for the HP, and have few moving parts. The downsize is having a fixed RPM, which would normally make them unacceptable for a car.

Sadly it never made it to market.

The reason is because hybrid drive trains don't make sense, as evs get cheaper. I suppose there is less demand. I was hoping for a car with 100 miles ev range and 250 more miles gas range. Then you get a lot of weight from two drive trains and the batteries.

Mostly that two full drivetrains are expensive, heavy, and labor intensive to install. You end up with the worst of both worlds.

BTW, the volt was advertised/promoted as a serial hybrid, which was a really interesting idea ... right up till it shipped and it wasn't.

Certainly at least the Skoda Enyaq offers a heads up display. I suspect that means that all the VW group cars do.

It was an option on the VW ID.3 I bought, so yes, all VAG EVs presumably.

Heads up displays are common for most carmakers (maybe apart from cheapest ones like Dacia or chinese brands), but they are always a premium equipment for (big) extra charge.

Our bmw 5 series from 2014 has it. It is amazing tech, easily the best improvement for me in car driving in past 2 decades. Constant visual contact with road and surroundings, while being aware of my current speed to the level of single kmh, speed limit, car navigation, switching songs/volume with knob on steering wheel, perfectly readable in all conditions and never obtrusive. I just dont look inside the car anymore. The problem is when I drive car without it, it feels severely lacking and ancient (like driving long stretches on highways and a lot of speed radars without cruise control).

Yeah, I meant it for normal tier cars. There's a lot of high end stuff available if you pay $$$$$, but not for an average driver.

Well I paid for it 20% of the price of new, 6 years old with 90k km on it. Even if I had to invest another 20k into it on repairs (which I wouldn't and I won't), its so much better value than new ones. After 1.5 years and 20k km, seems like aircon died (getting it fixed soon) but that's it.

I'd never buy a new car, price/value compared to used ones is ridiculously bad, not grokking who does that unless its like 1-5% of their annual salary. Even then its just throwing tons of money away. Electric cars seem to me much worse in this, hopefully this changes over time.

So no ultra expensive cars, you can have it for the price of really basic new cars (if I ignore maintenance but this can be managed by not using official repair shops, which is good idea anyway since they just love swapping whole expensive blocs instead of fixing actual problems). On top of massively better crash security, comfort, proper fun driving etc.

Because on average you'll pay the same in repairs or replacement compared to a more recent car. You got lucky, and that's ok. But the prices aren't completely made up. Your BMW costs a lot less, because the expected average time it will survive is low. Anecdote != data and all that.

On the other hand, having an ex-demo car from a dealer meant no silly markup and when the transmission fell apart after 4 years, I got it replaced for free instead of paying thousands to an independent shop. There are pros and cons.

(And yes, completely new cars have silly markup, but used ones with low mileage don't)

Corvettes had huds 20 years ago. I have never understood why it isn't mainstream.

The Prius Prime is definitely a "smartphone on wheels" by any measure. In fact, a lot of people appear to covet the lowest end model because it at least has some knobs for the AC. The upper models force the driver to use an enormous touchscreen with shitty responsiveness and shitty UI/UX.

And at least in the U.S. it has had a 25 mile electric range for the past decade or so. Only the 2023 model claims to have a 40 mile electric-only range, and that hasn't been released yet.

What would be great is if Walmart released some kind of electric vehicle analog to their old Sceptre tv models. Steering wheel, pedals, battery, and of course a flash drive reader that autoplays any mp3s it finds. (Premium version could add a cigarette lighter.)

The rav4 prime has 40 miles on its battery so I wouldn't be too surprised they get the prime out with 40 miles soon.

Doubt it… look at the number of first gen Volts still on the road.

I have a 2015 Volt with 98k miles. Still drives great and charges to full capacity. Chevy dramatically over built the first gen, it was the second gen where they were forced to actually limit their design based on lame goals like "making a profit"

I have a '17 second gen that I'll be selling within the next 3 years. 60k miles on it right now. Gotta sell it before it has a $20k boat anchor on board. Unless something happens and I get the battery replaced under warranty for some reason, then I'll continue using it.

Lifetime 172 mpg over 60,000 miles!

That's kind of misleading. My electric only car gets infinite mpg over 65,000 miles. It's 8 years old.

How is it misleading? It seems to be a standard measurement for vehicles that can move via both gas engines and electric motors.

It gets around 42 mpg when running purely on the gas engine. Based on the distance I have traveled and the amount that I have used the gas engine, it works out to 172 miles per actual gallon used.

MPGe is what you would refer to for your fully electric car.

I don't want to touch vehicles with full touch screens with a 10 feet long pole. Touch screens on cars just cheaper, look fancier but unusable at all.

Agree. My Model 3 is a usability disaster. Even having hard keys around the edge would be way better, like my avionics.

MFD buttons would actually be pretty amazing.

I have a set from Thrustmaster for my combined driving and flight sim rig, it works really well for mfd input. (F16 mainly).

A set of blank buttons eg at the bottom of the display that could be mapped to in display functions would have been very useful.

(I've gotten used to how it is now - and actually really like it after a year - but not going to say it couldn't have been done better. It would look less minimalistic, however.)

Playing games can hardly have any consequences, but driving does. All those buttons/knobs are designed to minimize the chance you have to look for something. Virtual keys somehow alleviate a little bit as there are reduced physical keys but still, you will probably have to press multiple buttons to do one single task.

Wehn driving, you don't want to move your sight away from the road. Thus, muscle memory is super important. But touch screen simply rendered all that useless.

The new Prius looks like they've got what Tesla is about, as laid out in this comment chain down to here. It's aesthetics, ease of use, frictionless experience, etc.

The iPhone moment was often referred to as the smartphone revolution, but 15 years later, the experience it offers are not fundamentally different from advanced flip phones it replaced, just better. Technical aspects of an iPhone, such as touchscreen user interface, non-replaceable battery, jailbreakable OS, were not fundamental in disrupting the market.

The Dacia Spring is like that - except for the "good" part, no idea if it's really good or not :)

I rented one for a couple days, that car definitely makes sense as it is.

In my case I just want a early 2010s Fiat Panda, or any equivalent. Functional, cheap, little electronic bullshittery.

Isn't that really what a Nissan leaf is?

VW id2

I'd say what you're looking for exists but not in the US. Brits have electric city cars that I'd want to buy, but can't.

> a simple, good car that happens to be electric, without it being a "smartphone on wheels".

Now, that's an EV I'd consider buying.

You can just turn off or disable the internet connection from the car (take out the circuit breaker for the modem). It turns out the things on even my 8 year old tesla were really useful. I liked streaming music for free, voice recognition, maps with up to date traffic. But the car would still work great without an internet connection. Some people are driven crazy by not enough touch screen buttons, it's never bothered me.

But you can just turn off all internet connections and go on your way.

What about the Nissan leaf?

my friend imported an EV from china which is what you are looking for. It is essentially a golf cart.

I believe there would be a huge market for a simple (but with safety equipment) golf cart style electric car.

My next car will definitely be an electric truck, but I agree, I want simplicity and probably wont get it.

TBH, the maintainability probably isn't as bad as you've imagined. Short of full battery replacements, there isn't much on a Tesla 3 or Y that is significantly harder than other cars.

And the factory service manual is available for free. Aside from HV parts, most parts are directly orderable from the service center as well.

Battery replacements shouldn't be hard. A lot less work than an engine, for sure. I had the battery replaced in my Bolt a couple months ago and it was about 6 hours from when I dropped it off to when I picked it up. I think the actual job is like 3 hours or something.

A couple hours doesn’t seem u reasonable if the batteries are under the frame. Which you’d expect from a weight distribution angle.

"HV parts"

I assume HV == High Voltage, if that's the case isn't that basically all the important stuff. I.e. the bits that do the actual automobile things.

Yes and no. The powertrain is big and expensive, but it's a fairly small fraction of the car's complexity. (And some parts of the cabin climate system are probably also high-voltage for power and packaging reasons, but that doesn't change the discussion here.)

But everything else, the instruments, the infotainment and telematics, the ADAS, the windows and wipers and headlights, seats and airbags and lock solenoids, the list goes on... That represents a lot of complexity and cost, a lot of moving parts, and it's all still 12-volt. Partly for legacy reasons, partly for safety. (There was a push 20 years ago to go 42 or 48 volts to make the wire thinner while still being LV/SELV safety, but legacy held it back.)

Plus all the undercar stuff, wheels and bearings and control arms and bushings, half-shafts and CV joints and boots and swaybars, wheels and tires and stuff, that just never changes, and since EVs tend to be heavier, they tend to be harder on all that stuff than their ICE counterparts.

So there's plenty of stuff you can service with good old mechanic skills and tools, and plenty of it needs servicing.

Actually, Tesla is moving to 48v on their new(er) systems. This is a good thing and I can't wait for the rest of the industry to follow them. 48v has been needed for years and I'm glad someone took the first shot at it.

[0] https://insideevs.com/news/656775/tesla-switch-48v-voltage-s...

Oh, it's about time. Maybe they can make it stick when nobody else could.

I would just love to see winches and stuff at 48v, a whole lot of things would just be dramatically less awkward.

Aside from the things already mentioned, its important to note that "HV parts" isn't always an intuitive category.

For example, the charge port isn't a HV part, since it isn't energized by the car and requires no special skills to replace it. This is useful, since its also one of the most likely parts to take physical damage.

A lot of the other wear items are suspension related and are pretty conventional parts.

And, of course, there's a vibrant aftermarket of used parts for Tesla in general, so even HV parts are not necessarily hard to come by.

Everyone says things like this thinking "Tesla" in their head, while in the real world there are all sorts of EVs that are just cars that happen to be electric.

Tesla is just a generation ahead of other EVs. They’re an Apple iPhone and everybody else is the cheap knockoff Android phones from 2011.

That’s a hilarious comparison knowing the build quality of teslas. You’re getting sold a shiny yugo for the price of a merc, but it has a Maserati power train so it goes fast.

The quality of Berlin, Shanghai and Texas made Teslas have been pretty great. Maybe you should listen to what actual experts like Sandy Munro say instead of believing in fake news.

He is insider (though informative)

Yeah, I just drove a brand-new (16km on the odometer) Peugeot 308 for a trip in France. It was a complete piece of shit that I spent the entire trip yelling at. Always-online via 4G cellular (prompting for a system update on every shutdown and prompting me to go through their tutorial on every startup), glossy touch screens (zero analogue/physical gauges of any sort), constantly forcibly steering me back if I go near the painted line (such as when I'm trying to make extra space as I go around a driver who can't seem to stay in their own lane) which I was not able to turn off, beeping incessantly every single time I park because I am vaguely close to a curb or a random plant or small object (another thing I couldn't turn off), all controls on said touch screen with a horribly-designed UI... Oh the fuel gauge stopped working the night I was taking the car back to the rental company, gotta love that. They charged me for refilling 1/4 of the tank even though I completely refilled it - the gauge is simply faulty. I'm sure the charge will be reversed once we're done dealing with that, but you don't expect something as fundamental as the fuel level gauge to fail within ~4000km of driving. The steering wheel isn't even round, and of course because it's all "drive-by-wire" software-driven it literally feels like driving one of those arcade racing simulators, including the pedals. I don't know if new US/JP vehicles are like this but driving Peugeot and Renault rentals in EU has taught me that new cars appear to be total trash. I still can't believe people pay some tens of thousands of dollars for such atrocious computers on wheels.

European regulations require mandatory car tracking. You will be tracked regardless of what the UI looks like in your car.

https://road-safety.transport.ec.europa.eu/statistics-and-an...

That is not what your link says. There is no mention of any type of live data tracking, just the deployment of black box loggers (which need not be online) for vehicle data to be used in the event of a crash.

(these already exist in US cars too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_data_recorder)

True but e-call has been mandatory in the EU for years too.

>If you buy a new model of car, approved for manufacture after 31 March 2018,

Needless to say, almost no car in Europe has it. Simple upgrades to the model do not require an approval for manufacture.

I have a Tesla model Y. It’s definitely different to operate than any ICE car I’ve ever had. But Tesla made it kinda easy to help you transition. They sent me like five videos to watch about 25 minutes total I think. I watched them and was able to get in it and drive it 400 miles home without issue.

TBF, Peugeot hasn’t made a decent car since 1962.

The 205 Gti wasn’t bad for an 80’s hot hatch.

https://www.classic-trader.com/en/magazine/peugeot-205-gti-b...

The sporty 405 sedan and the 505 from that era of Peugeot were pretty good cars too. And before that the iconic 504.

> Peugeot hasn’t made a decent car since 1962.

Pretty opiniated statement.

I once owned a 306 Peugeot (90s) as a student vehicle and it went way over 350'000 km without any noticeable problem. The TU series engines of Peugeot were beast of a kind and pretty hard to kill as long as you minimum service them.

Recent Peugeots are like any recent, EU-made cars: full of electronics, fragile piece of tech and with turbo-compressed engine that favor fuel consumption over reliability. VW and German counterpart (which I also drove) tend to be the same crap.

Nowadays, almost only the Japanese constructors stand off for their reliability.

They've made plenty of good cars. But since the 2010s it's been downhill for most euro brands.

Weeeelllll, you are conflating “new car” with “new French car”, and this is not something one should do.

French cars are total trash. This is a given. New cars are total trash would require more datapoints.

Renault was making good non luxury electric cars, that are still on the road today, in 2012. Their engineering is so good, and they are so simple, that they just do not stop. Their aftermarket prices show how much the market prefers EVs.

I’m only winding French car owners up. I owned a Peugeot for a few years and I loved it!

Sure, bits of it used to fall off with alarming regularity, and it’d just turn itself off when stopped at the lights periodically… but apart from that…

Ironically, Dacia are the best cars Renault sells :)

Haha, I am really happy with my 2019 Renault, too (I never wanted to own a french car, but the model we bought was the only one in the entire market that fit all our requirements). There is and should be no french car without its little "strangenesses" and ours is no exception. Still: overall we couldn't be more happy, had zero technical issues, and enjoy the fact that besides the occasional "why did they do that??" it has also lots of "how great that they actually thought of this!"-moments

> I don't know if new US/JP vehicles

Can't tell about US cars but for JP manufacturers, aim for Mazda. They seem to get it right on all the points you described, and more (at least my Mazda 2 does)

Yeah I have an RX-8, it is amazing and basically the perfect car IMO (though the visibility is not as good as I'd like, and of course the rotary engine has its uhh, shortcomings). Mazda would definitely be high on my list for a new vehicle. I had a 2008 Honda Fit as well which was quite excellent. It seems like I'd probably have to stick with like late 2000's if I wanted a new vehicle... >_>

> It seems like I'd probably have to stick with like late 2000's if I wanted a new vehicle

Unfortunately that's not possible for me: Crit'air certificates (which are based on EURO ratings) are being enforced. Our city is going to ban anything above and including level 2 by 2025.

It means I will have to let go of my other car (a '08 Civic Type-R, rated level 2) which is a damn shame and completely absurd to have to scrap it given its overall (at ~100000km it's mint-like) and yearly (2000km/yr, emission contribution is well below the noise floor) mileage.

That's also why we bought a 2020 Mazda 2 (level 1). There's AirPlay but apart from that it's all good. 3 trim levels which basically add HUD, bigger wheels, leather. Everything else is included from the basic one, zero options, completely opposite mindset from the software-gated nonsense. The engine compartment has plenty of room for maintenance and I could swear it was designed to hold a much bigger engine. The screen is touch-able, but disables touch over, like, 2km/h. Ultimately I just use the dial joystick, which is just so good. So, definitely, you don't need to go back 20 years to get a car you are in control of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crit%27air

I had lately an VW Golf as rental car. The car itself, was yes, ok. But the touch interface. What did they think?!? It was f.. bright and no way to make it darker, because it was already in the darkest mode. It was so annoying at night. And when the heating was on, after a while the touch screen had trouble to feel the touch. And just bellow the touch screen, there had been so modern clickless touch buttons. Often when you clicked something on the touch screen bottom, you accidently activated also a button from below the screen. Symbols on the map are often to small for fingers (while driving anyway). I mean, it's 2023 and we know how to do such things. Who does such things test and accept?

> the fuel gauge stopped working

This is working-as-intended. Some modern cars only have a very approximate sensor in the fuel tank, and then use computer modelling of fuel use to make the gauge look like it is going down smoothly. After all, the engine knows exactly how many ml it injects with every stroke, so can measure fuel use very precisely - the only unknown is what you are putting in.

Therefore, they assume that you never fill up less than say a half tank. If you fill up less, it will pretend you didn't fill up at all, and the gauge will still say three quarters when it is full to the brim.

The only way to get the gauge and actual tank back in sync is to use up at least half a tank, and then refill all the way.

This reads like satire, but sadly isn't?

So modern cars have millions of new shiny sensors, but cannot get accurate information on the fuel tank, something my old shitty car reliable can?

I think it's because fuel tank sensors frequently break, due to being buffeted by sloshing fuel, and sometimes getting corroded if there is a little salt water in the fuel, so car manufacturers have decided to use other methods other than a float and variable resistor...

I'm not sure what is actually used instead, but I'd guess they just measure the pressure on the inlet to the fuel pump. An absolute pressure sensor only costs 3 cents and the fuel pump is probably already on the CAN bus.

Back in my day, before all the newfangled shiny sensors you would get an accurate fuel tank reading every time - except if you were going around corners, accelerating or breaking, or had done any of those in the past few minutes and the spring returning the float was feeling slow that day.

Otherwise it was, like all things back in the good old days, incredibly precise +/- 10%

"Otherwise it was, like all things back in the good old days, incredibly precise +/- 10%"

The sad thing is, if todays values are worse.

My first car the sensor was clearly at the back of the tank.

Going uphill? Gauge says 1/4 tank left.

Steep downhill? Out of gas.

Not sure which end the pump was on, but I never ran out despite what the gauge would say.

Ahh yes, how could I forget about the hills, you are giving me flashbacks to the good old days!

Cars barely made it to 100k miles decades ago. They didn't even have 6 whole digits on the odometer and rolling over was an event

How many decades? Because mid-range and up euros routinely did that multiple times over in the 80s. So you’re either thinking 50+, or you’re thinking reliability issues on early direct injection.

> Cars barely made it to 100k miles decades ago. They didn't even have 6 whole digits on the odometer and rolling over was an event

That would be a lot of decades ago. Cars from the 80s routinely went well over 100k. The 70s cars I remember as more cantankerous but if taken good care of (which was simple because the cars were simple) they would as well.

Ironically, a hundred years from now I predict that the only working museum/collector cars left will be those from the 1990s and earlier. Newer cars will not survive as long, with all the fragile electronics that require maintenance with factory equipment that will no longer exist in a century.

>" The 70s cars I remember as more cantankerous but if taken good care of (which was simple because the cars were simple) they would as well."

What's more complicated about taking care of a car today? In fact it's easier as the number of maintenance items has gone down

Cars still have oil, oil filters, transmission fluid, air filters, maybe differential fluid, and spark plugs

Car NO LONGER have distributor caps, spark plug wires, power steering fluid[3], and timing belts. Finally you don't need to adjust the timing, the throttle cable tension, for FWD cars [8] you eliminate the need to change differential fluid, and you don't need to "lube" anything.

------------------------------------------------

> Cars from the 80s routinely went well over 100k

That heavily depends on the brand. American cars were piles of garbage in my opinion and I'm sure I could find some source to support that. You are right about Japanese cars and that was a new phenomenon at the time. Here's a NY times article about how cars are now (in 2012) lasting more than 200k miles.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/automobiles/as-cars-are-k...

My friend had a 91 Civic that lasted for about 250k but I had multiple GM cars (86 lesabre, 91 corsica, 88 6000) where either the transmission went or bent valves (exceeding the cost of the car at the time in the late 90s when I owned them) without even getting to 120k.[6] Anecdotal but again Honda and Toyota were so popular the US government made Japan limit the number of cars coming in.[3]

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-01-28-fi-1076-s...

------------------------------------------------

Newer cars are less complex in key areas. I quickly mentioned this in the first section but there's more:

- Spark plug wires are gone. Since they carried high voltage from the distributor cap they needed thick insulation and that insulation would crack due to heat cycling. once small cracks appear it would arc to the engine or other wires because of the high voltage. Now we have ignition coils which aren't considered a maintenance item (they last at least 100k but really more depending on use)

- No more distribution caps (due to ignition coils). Caps were a maintenance item

- No more power steering fluid, and power steering pump because of EPS racks. This also eliminates the hydraulic lines

- Throttle by wire which eliminates the throttle cable that would get stretched out and sometimes break. This also allows for cruise control without the use of vacuum lines [9]

- In the past cars have timing belts, timing belts can break and if your engine was an interfere engine the valves will contact the piston causing a massive repair bill. Today almost every car has a timing chain which lasts significantly longer to the point where it's not a maintenance item.[1]

Starting the 80s we got OBD 1 then later 2 which provides sensor data. This allowed you to see the real symptom of the car instead of the apparent one. For example, car has a rough ideal but really it's running lean. Besides the massive performance and efficiency increase because the ignition timing can be based on the exhaust contents , temp, air flow levels, etc it also makes it easier to fix things by providing data on how the engine was operating. Today cars have even more computer diagnostic systems to help repair them.

------------------------------------------------

Finally let's get to the electronics you are concerned about. Cars now have more control modules, (which are mini computers for systems, like the door controls) then in the past. There's door modules[2], ambient lighting module, cruise control, etc. The point is you don't repair these modules you just replace them. You aren't soldering little resistors onto a board or something. It's no different than replacing a steering wheel. It's just a thing. [5]

Many of these modules are for optional luxury items. If 20 years from now the ambient lighting and module doesn't work in my car who cares. If lane assist, blind spot detection, or the rear camera breaks then the car is just like the older cars you think are better.

I'm sorry to make this accusation but you are probably letting nostalgia, the current climate of simmering anger at the world, and the desire for things you grew up with and are comfortable with to form your opinions.

I want to put a millennial into a muscle car from the 60s and they'll see the over boosted power steering, the giant v8 that was overrated in power and get 10mpg, a body that leans in every corner, tires that can't grip, and a chassis that feels like a rubber band when you turn. A modern 4 cylinder turbo hot hatch would destroy them and outlast them.

------------------------------------------------

[1] Some older cars had timing belts and non-interference engines. This means that if the belt broke the piston wouldn't contact the valves and the only repair you'd have to pay for is the timing belt and towing. Still annoying but better. Timing chains make more noise and because of their weight create more drag on the engine but with engine covers and the power today it doesn't matter

[2] In the past cars didn't have as many modules even for things like like power locks. Power locks used to just have control wires and power running directly to other parts of the car where relays might turn them on and off. The advantage of having a module is computer control. For example the following features are present on many new cars:

- lock the car when you start driving - unlock in park - windows up when rain is detected - auto down and up windows (all the way). - car can't go into drive when the door is open - specific door warnings (though old cars had a general one)

Doing all this by running wires around to other devices is insane so there's a module the window switches, lock switches, door sensor, door locks, window motor, and etc all connect to which then receives control info from other modules

[3] A few performance cars and maybe some older models of mass produced cars still use hydraulic steering.

[4] Mostly due to "perceptions" of American quality, small cars becoming popular, and the horrific engines in American cars in the late 70s and 80s as American manf had little experience with small engines that people wanted because of the gas crisis. There's also an emissions issue. American quality has somewhat equalized after the late 90s IMO

[5] Modules do need to be programmed with the config for your particular car. Buying one for your model and in your country usually means it's fine. There are also programmers that aren't expensive and dealers will often do it for a fee.

[6] My experience with American cars was everything breaking besides the engine, then that going.

- Headliner would fall off and rub on your head - The door that controlled recirculation of air would break because it's a cable connected to the knob on the hvac controls - Plastic trim pieces came off or rattled - Door locks would stop working or require two key turns or if I had a fob two button presses - Rough idle and erratic idle - AC definitely didn't work past 60k, probably R12 leaks

Rather have a cool new electronic feature break today than no AC

[8] Most popular style drive config is to have the engine in the front and front wheel drive. The diff is built into the transmission in this situation (called a transaxle) If your car is AWD or RWD with the engine in the rear you need to replace the differential fluid every so often. Larger SUVs are AWD, some sedans, many pickup trucks.

There are a few performance FWD cars that have a limited slip differential that requires a fluid change, super rare though (Elantra N, Golf GTI maybe R, Veloster?)

[9] Vacuum lines were how cool features pre 2000s worked in cars, like cruise control. Problem is the lines got cracked and a slow vacuum loss was difficult to diagnose and often caused unusual issues. I've been in so many older cars where cruise control just wasn't working.

> The point is you don't repair these modules you just replace them.

You replace them if you can find a replacement. It's a lot harder to make ICs for outdated cars than mechanical parts for old cars, which was probably the OP's point.

Let's say you want a trunk lid for a 1965 something. If you can't get a used part having that made is extremely difficult. You would need plans or precise measurements and a machine shop.

Control modules are just software and you could probably make a generic one that takes different flashes with a variable pin layout, think raspberry pi.

This is done today to an extent with power upgrades. Take a look at a jb4 for a bmw b58. It intercepts data signals for different components, like the turbo, and changes values. It's just basic software.

> Control modules are just software and you could probably make a generic one that takes different flashes with a variable pin layout, think raspberry pi.

That's not going to pass SMOG checks. It must be the factory control module, and it that's no longer in production, too bad.

For track cars it's fun to replace the electronics with customizable units, but you can't get away with that for a street car (in California at least).

Older cars aren't subject to smog protection and if the module is set to the OEM configuration it will. I only used a tuning module because it's an easy example

> Older cars aren't subject to smog protection and if the module is set to the OEM configuration it will.

Only cars prior to 1974 are not subject to smog check in California.

And part of the smog check is a visual inspection which will fail in the presence of any non-factory emission related equipment (such as engine control modules) even if their behavior is 100% identical to factory.

> What's more complicated about taking care of a car today? In fact it's easier as the number of maintenance items has gone down

Electronics is what makes todays cars very difficult to repair down the road.

You're right in that when they are new it's actually easier to repair. Just plug in the diagnostic computer, it tells you what's wrong, you replace the whole module and done.

This gets very expensive though. For example I had a BMW with a brake light problem. In any old car that's a $0.25 bulb change, or worse case $10 in wiring if you need to replace all the wiring to it. Easy to do by anyone at home. On the BMW? It was a $1500 brake light control module that had to be programmed with a factory computer that only factory technicians have access to so on top I had to pay labor.

The real problems come when the cars get older. Any voltage variations from aging cables makes the whole system (everything is interlinked, unlike old cars) become very unpredictable. A friend is a BMW factory mechanic and the horror stories are endless.

As I noted in a peer comment, I had to sell for scrap a ~60K (when new) BMW that was mechanically and cosmetically perfect but had so many electronics glitches that it was impossible to repair without spending tens of thousands of dollars. What a waste. Such a problem is never possible with older cars, since the electrical system is simple and easy to diagnose and repair.

All the things you list as complex (spark plug wires, vacuum tubes, distributors, etc) are mechanically and electrically extremely simple devices. That's what makes repairs so easy at home without access to esoteric parts that might be out of production or factory tools not available to consumers.

The simplicity of the device doesn't matter because people replace parts. A distributor is useless now as the ignition is 12v direct.

No one is repairing an alternator, vacuum tube(what car has them), or a control module.

I think the criticism is fair - charging takes time.

I'll speak personally from my parents who are pushing 70. They purchased a Tesla because of the EV credits and overall price attractiveness.

My dad tells his friends about it because the driving experience is so much better. He presses the "gas" and it's instant and the handling is very good. He likes to say never goes to the gas station anymore.

I think it's easily arguable that you could get a lot of the same benefits of drivability and handling in say a BMW or Audi. The last one is a paradigm shift.

The way you've done things is now different, better (in that life is a bit easier). It's not yet a massive one, so I agree the numbers who are switching will be slow, but steadily it'll get there.

Graphene Aluminum batteries solve the problems better than solid state at a lighter weight.

There are some very promising alternative battery chemistries out there, graphene-aluminium being one of them. Sodium is another that is perhaps closer to commercialization (there's some chinese EV already that has them).

Recent article (forgot the link, but I’m sure it’s on google) basically said BMW, VW, and many others are abandoning solid state batteries because of its negligible performance compared to LiFePo4 and regular NMC batteries that are easier to produce and are slowly improving their density and stability.

I am getting an electric car, a cheap one.

It is one of the best cars I have ever driven. I like driving.

I think the very heavy battery helps.

That said, modern electric cars are given away for free (the one I'm getting is). The only thing you pay for is the battery. I found this out by pricing replacement batteries....

The whole model of car making is going to collapse if batteries become cheaper, but for now: By a battery and get a car thrown in.....

The used EV battery industry hasn't even started yet. Even the very first Nissan Leafs and Tesla Model S's are still running on their original batteries, way longer than the manufacturers expected.

When we start actually getting used EV batteries on the market in masses there will be multiple industries repurposing them and thus giving "expired" EV batteries resale value.

A 50kWh battery that's "unusable" for EV use (let's say 30% degraded) is still a 35kWh battery - which is insanely big for storing solar power in a home. Or it can be split to multiple sections and 3 RVs can get a 10kWh battery that they can charge at any EV charger or even at a campsite.

Ditto. At one point, car makers realized that if their cars lasted too long, they would not be able to sell more of them when most people had one. Modern cars have various unreliable and anti-maintenance features to make sure you are going to buy the next one in 10 years time. All these tracking is also a profit source since the data is sold.

That’s hyperbolic. Toyota is still selling the same quality cars (if not better) than their 2004 - 2009 Prius I’ve seen go 550k and similar miles repeatedly.

There are a lot of custom EV conversions if you really want to control everything, probably no modern new vehicle is going to meet what you describe.

You can already buy lifepo4 cells, I've thought about making a boat, but time and money etc.

But this is about the masses, the Toyota Camry sells well, and I'm sure those same people will eat up the Toyota Camry EV when it comes out.

Future cars will be moved forward by electric engines. That's not even debatable.

The power, reliability and efficiency are in a whole different bracket than in ICEs.

What IS up for debate is how the power for those engines is stored in the car. Currently we're going with batteries or liquid combustion fuels (PHEV and serial hybrids).

Yes, there are very specific use-cases and industries where EVs don't work today, but the tech is developing insanely fast.

>or that can choose for itself to slam the breaks on

Given the possibility that this feature could save your life or another driver/pedestrian's life, I don't see a strong objection to this. Driving is one of the deadliest activities that we tolerate as a society and the more we can do to reduce the risk the better. I agree with everything else though, I don't want an iPhone on wheels.

Until there is a weird reflection on the road and you get rear-ended to death by the Ford 750 tailgating you at 125mph in the right-most lane.

It's an empirical question what the ratio of false positives to true positives is. If the ratio is 1 to 10000, for example, I think that's tolerable and a net positive. You also have to account for humans making similar mistakes.

But humans aren't always logical. Especially when it comes to low probability events that have a high impact if they do occur. Like plane crashes, or to a lesser degree car crashes.

Yeah but in this case, the impact is the same whether you die from human error or automation error. I would rather reduce the overall probability of death by 50% even if probability death by malfunctioning equipment goes up by 1%.

it can also end your life or another driver's or pedestrian's life; slamming the brakes on is how a tesla model s caused an 8-car pileup on the bay bridge a couple of months ago, though astoundingly that somehow failed to kill anybody

https://jalopnik.com/tesla-fsd-causes-8-car-pile-up-on-sf-ba...

generally speaking individual people are better at choosing risk tradeoffs than governments are, both because they know more about their own situations and because their incentives are better aligned

this is why liberal societies are not only much wealthier but also have much higher life expectancy than authoritarian societies. but governments aren't uniquely corrupt; they're just organizations with great unaccountable power, a somewhat more extreme version of any large corporation. we shouldn't entrust ford or tesla with the ability to kill with impunity any more than we should entrust the fbi with it, or for that matter pinkerton or peabody or pullman or the teamsters

so you should be able to freely choose which slamming-on-the-brakes software to run on your own car, or to run none at all

> it can also end your life or another driver's or pedestrian's life; slamming the brakes on is how a tesla model s caused an 8-car pileup on the bay bridge a couple of months ago

Come one... I thought I was on a scientifically-minded website. That's not how things work. It's like saying seatbelts are bad because they sometimes trap people in burning cars. Yeah, that's true, but it happens orders of magnitude less than crashing and splattering your brains across the highway if you aren't wearing one. That's the point x)

> but it happens orders of magnitude less than crashing and splattering your brains across the highway if you aren't wearing one. That's the point x)

So you went on a sci-minded website just for claiming unproved statements (seatbelt point is proved though)?

> this is why liberal societies are not only much wealthier but also have much higher life expectancy than authoritarian societies

Worth noting this is referring to classic liberalism where individual rights and freedoms are a top property, not modern liberalism where universal rights are protected by larger governments and laws that limit individual freedoms in the name of the greater good

yeah, i was talking about real liberalism

mill is still a real liberal tho

> If you want to convert more people to <product>, start building some that I'm remotely interested in.

This is such a peak HN comment. The best part is that the author admits they’re a tiny minority. If they are a minority, isn’t it rational to ignore them and make something the majority wants?

Top HN comments will tell you all kinds of wild things about what HN commenters think are essential to succeed. For example, client software should never be written in electron and never contain telemetry if it wants to succeed. Most successful text editor used by 75% of all developers? That’s VS Code, written in electron and chock full of privacy busting telemetry.

I’m reminded of the top comment on the original thread revealing Dropbox, asking “why would I want this when I can simply use ssh + curlftpfs + git”. I’m sure many HN users are capable of doing that, and yet Dropbox found more than a few takers in the real world.

At this point I honestly believe that the top HN comment talking about a product is useful to read because it’s going to be the opposite of correct in every way.

This thread is filled with “EVs don’t work because they don’t cater to my outlier use case today”. Firstly, you’re an outlier. EVs do well for the majority whose commute is less than 300 miles. Secondly, they don’t need to cater to outliers today, they can gradually fill niches as they become more mainstream.

> The best part is that the author admits they’re a tiny minority. If they are a minority, isn’t it rational to ignore them and make something the majority wants?

I didn't see any data either way, so it remains to be seen if s/he is really in minority. Even sales number might be bogus for approx. the same reasons why A/B might be bogus. “Most consumers buy EVs with touchscreens, therefore they want touchscreens”. No, they don't, given choice they would choose differently. The big problem, which GP pointed correctly, is lack of decent choice, and it follows TFA.

> This thread is filled with “EVs don’t work because they don’t cater to my outlier use case today”. Firstly, you’re an outlier. EVs do well for the majority whose commute is less than 300 miles. Secondly, they don’t need to cater to outliers today, they can gradually fill niches as they become more mainstream.

They either need to fill the niches by 2035, or “EV transformation” will be a failure for a significant chunk of population, who will feel let down by whoever decreed that they need to change without providing viable alternative (solving existing problems within their purchasing power). Currently it doesn't take much to fall outside scope of the market: for example it's enough that you have 3 kids aged 4, 2, 0 and carrier fitting drastically reduces your choice (or bumps the price beyond reachabilty). EV won't happen if you can't be a low to mid income 5-people family, for whom lack of car means significant degradation of living standard.

You made a very good point. We should have EVs without any of the other non-sense

Battery is not even half of the problem of EV. How to charge them in minutes is the biggest problem, and no viable solution anytime soon.

Completely agree with this.

Additionally, the risk exposure of owning an EV is pretty bad. The initial cost is extremely high, the immediate depreciation is high, fluctuating energy costs impact TCO, fast chargers are effectively more expensive than petrol here limiting long range economy, longevity data is fairly limited, there are serious difficulties getting them repaired and the complexity results in reliability issues. At this point I don't know anyone who's bought an EV who didn't eventually replace it with another vehicle, apart from one guy who has a Model S as a drive ornament and never uses it.

Seems like a poor investment. I'll stick with my 2014 Citroen which I can replace entirely for the first 20 nanoseconds of depreciation if I buy an EV. And the 5 year fuel cost is paid for by the second 20 nanoseconds of depreciation :)

>Additionally, the risk exposure of owning an EV is pretty bad.

I'm not sure where you're getting that data from, maybe it's different where you live.

> The initial cost is extremely high, the immediate depreciation is high

I dispute that the initial cost "extremely high". Higher, yes, but those prices are coming down. The depreciation here in Ireland is a lot less than a traditional ICE car. My 3 year-old Mini Electric had lost a lot less, percentage-wise, than the comparative ICE model when I traded it in recently. My service costs for those 3 years were zero.

> fast chargers are effectively more expensive than petrol here limiting long range economy

The key word in that is probably "here". In Ireland, I can do 300 miles per €25 of fast charge. My previous diesel car would have cost €50 for the equivalent distance.

Have you had the opportunity to charge your EV at home? I think in most countries, charging your EV at home is the only way to make EV cheaper to drive than ICE.

I live in an apartment building with chargers in the underground carpark, so that's where I usually charge. It's cheaper than public chargers, but not quite as cheap as a home one.

Having said that, fast charging is still cheaper than running an ICE, as I mentioned in the parent comment.

I don't think we can universally say that fast charging is still cheaper than ICE, this statement will not apply everywhere in the world. In most EU countries I've been to or lived in, fast charging was more expensive than driving an ICE car with an economy engine. The cost of public charging in my home country for example equals to a fuel consumption of 6.5L/100km in cost, while an economy ICE car consumes less than that.

Can you list examples of those countries?

I haven’t analyzed the whole world, but in the developed parts of Europe, EV fuel costs are clearly cheaper than ICE

> fluctuating energy costs impact TCO

compared to gas?

"Some"? Try "most". I've never seen anybody outside HN and environmental communities who think of EVs in the context of saving the environment. Indeed, everybody I know use their EVs in very environmentally-unfriendly ways such as using fast charging often.

I too would love a vehicle that is both energy efficient and not designed solely as a way to extract as much money from me as possible, but sadly the corporatists who run our world have decided that we can't have such things as it would mean some very rich people would get richer less fast, which is the one thing that's truly not allowed in any circumstances the world today.

Car companies know full well there's a huge market of people just like us that want exactly the vehicle you're describing, but it would make them less money than the subscriptions on wheels garbage they're forcing on us now, so get ready for a future where every car is over $100K and costs $10K a year in subscriptions.

The market always wins, and the market for EVs is about to be massive. A beautiful thing about capitalism is that when a large market exists, smart people and resources flow toward solving every discrete problem standing in the way of tapping into that opportunity. Yes, some of these challenges exist, but none of them are insurmountable.

There would be a huge market for teleporters so why settle for EVs?

I understand the point you're making, and I have heard a number of the remarkable advances in "alternative" energy technologies. But I don't think that very many people believe that if the market were left to itself the climate will solve itself.

> I don't think that very many people believe that if the market were left to itself the climate will solve itself

Even if every single car across all of Europe and the USA were to magically become an EV overnight, the climate will not be "solved", although the power grid would instantaneously collapse.

China. India.

Sure, don’t believe a scientific organization like the IEEE.

They're not a scientific organization. They're the professional association for two specific types of engineer, electrical and electronic.

Engineers are scientists.

No. They're two different disciplines. There can and is an intersection but the goals of science and engineering are fundamentally different.

> People are buying EVs because they're better.

And absurdly subsidised[1]. And I suspect this figure doesn't include the indirect subsidies, such as exemptions from certain taxes.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1332156/average-ev-finan...

Oil is heavily subsidised too. And that’s before things like dumping masses of CO2 and other nastiest into the air are factored in. It’s amazing that this can just happen and the cost externalised.

More on fossils fuels as a group, but this is disturbing. https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidie...

Here in Europe, we will have to buy them because the alternatives will be banned.

Only new sales, and that can be and likely will be moved farther to the future. If there are almost no charging options (relative to the number of cars) even in big cities, then ban will go nowhere. E.g. if it's year 2035 and I still won't have anywhere to charge EV, then I won't buy it, bans or no.

PS: 500-1000 stations per 1000000 of people with hundreds of thousands of cars is nothing really. Sure, they can service some luxury EVs now, and that's about it.

I'm buying an EV so i never have to change my own oil again

Amen brother.

I have to disagree. I absolutely have the money to buy a Tesla, but I don't. Why?

I don't want a giant button-less touch screen, for starters.

Next: I don't want to find myself stranded in my state the second I go a ways away from a major city, which is STILL an issue. (I'm almost 50, my parents are still alive. Their house is nowhere near a charging station. It is literally in the middle of nowhere)

Finally, I was close to buying a Tesla before...I wanted to do my part to help avoid Climate change. Then Elon Musk showed he was an asshole. Now I won't touch Tesla because Musk is involved. The fact that Tesla vehicles have suddenly become so pronounced in my state (A certain southeastern state that became internationally known for a school shooting yesterday) is testament to why he is doing things this way. He is just trying to drive new sales and he is seemingly succeeding by buying into republican nonsense.

Please don't be that idiot. Don't buy anything sold by Mr Musk.

Thanks.

I am waiting on Ford to ramp up the F150 electric production, however. Power my house in a power outage? Yes please. Haul what I want? Oh boyyy...

> Next: I don't want to find myself stranded in my state the second I go a ways away from a major city, which is STILL an issue.

Unless you live in one of the large northern states, you probably can charge enough for a round-trip in a station along the way: https://supercharge.info

Or you can do a nice thing and install a charger at your parents' place.

> Next: I don't want to find myself stranded in my state the second I go a ways away from a major city, which is STILL an issue.

Plug into a normal power socket like most EV users do.

Edit: it occurs to me that the US is 120V. This can’t help.

Yep, 120V countries are harder for at-home charging. Japan and USA as the two biggest ones.

My car is charging from a normal socket at 2.7kW right now. I could go up to 3.6kW, but the included charger only goes up to 12A and I really don't need the extra charging speed.

I get 100-150km charge overnight easily. 5% -> 100% is ~17 hours and I rarely go under 40% in everyday driving even though I charge only to 80% to save the battery as per manufacturer instructions.

I think you're getting a touch screen on all EVs, but some have more buttons than others. My general preference after having lived with buttons for decades and a touchscreen + voice command for four years is the fewer buttons the better.

Re: being stranded, I used to live in TN, and I still routinely drive through there. My hometown is practically a village in the middle of nowhere and it still has a supercharger only 30mi from it. I'm having a hard time believing you can get "stranded" anywhere in TN. In the incredibly unlikely absolute worst case, pull out your mobile charger and charge from an RV or 120V outlet.

Re: Musk, I didn't like his antics when when I bought my 3 four years ago, and I liked his behavior even less when I bought my Y this year. If I didn't patronize businesses with executives who behaved in ways I didn't agree with, there would be no one left for me to do business with.

Good luck with the Lightning! Ford's projecting they will lose $3B on EVs this year, but I hope they pull through.

It's funny how I'm sure we're both individually reasonable people but we have wildly opposite points of view on pretty much everything you said. I drive a Model Y and consider it the best possible car regardless of price for me and my family.

> I don't want a giant button-less touch screen, for starters.

Eh. I'm neutral on this. In some ways it's awesome, like when I want to orient myself on a map or scroll through my music options. In other ways I wish I didn't have to fumble around in a nested window to change climate settings. If Teslas had a few more physical buttons but kept the huge screen I'd be happy.

> Range anxiety, parents live nowhere near a charging station

I've gone on so many road trips and never once got into an iffy situation. 320 mile range gets you a lot of places. My parents also live two hours away from where I live (Seattle area), but there are superchargers on the route there and a couple of level 2 charging stations closer to their house. And I put in a level 2 charger at their house, so I can always leave with a full "tank".

> Elon

I'm in WA state, which is as blue as it gets. Despite that, Teslas everywhere. Some of my friends who are die hard Democrats (or even further left), still happy Tesla owners. For me, life is too short to filter everything I do through a political lens.

Although if I wasn't already in love with the cybertruck I would be considering a F150 lightning, so I guess we have that in common.

I agree, it's a "linear extrapolation of business as usual" assessment, the kind that Tony Seba calls out in his talks on disruption.

The future of EVs isn't even "battery electric car" so much as it is "new models of transportation". Tesla's business model was in the classic mode of consumer tech where it targets enthusiasts at a premium. The broader auto market, though, is getting nibbled away by a combo of new communication and transport services for each vertical - you can buy or rent an e-bike, hail a Waymo, have Wal-Mart deliver by drone, as well as "just" do more from home, online, and save a trip. Some of these things are early in their deployment but largely proven, others are already widespread but with room to go further.

In a disrupted market, you can't pick winners easily, but you should always bet on the new asset classes, because the alternative is a ghoulish non-future.

The other point these people are missing is that this allows for flexibility in choosing our fuel. Anything that can be converted into electricity (gasoline, coal, nuclear) can power an EV. It’s not limited to green power sources.

> People are buying EVs because they're better

Define “better”? I need something to haul around a family of eight with enough towing capacity to add some fun to those trips. They don’t even make an EV that ticks those boxes, let alone something “better”.

Didn't you hear? People aren't supposed to have large families anymore due to the "carbon footprint" or something.

> I need something to haul around a family of eight with enough towing capacity to add some fun to those trips.

I can't decide if this is trolling or not. I mean, it's an EV thread, so this kind of wild edge case gets repeated like it's everyone's use pattern instead of the 1 in a million case it really is.

Assuming it's true, there are damn few ICE vehicles that suit your needs either. You're looking at a full size (HD truck size) van. Chevy Express 3500 or something along those lines.

Though the few people I know that are in a remotely similar situation break it into two cars rather than try to find an 8 passenger daily driver.

Not trolling, and yeah went with a Suburban.

Point I was trying to make is not everyone’s needs can be satisfied by a sedan with a 300 mile range.

I think you need a smaller family.

I like driving, and my next car will most likely be an EV, not because it's "better' (whatever that means), but because the Australian Taxation Office has modified the treatment of EVs to make buying anything else financially stupid (if you buy your car through a business entity).

Personally I'd rather have a PHEV with ~50km EV-only range at freeway speeds, which would mean using EV-only for ~90% of my driving, while being able to use petrol for towing & longer trips, but (a) there are none available yet with a sensible price / performance mix (in Australia at least), and (b) the ATO has already indicated they will not continue to treat PHEVs favourably in the long-term.

I'm also Australian and have ordered an EV a few months ago because of the FBT incentives. You're right that there's an extremely limited selection of vehicles in Australia. Hopefully that changes with the new favourable tax regime.

Can you elaborate on (b)? I hadn't read anything that indicated PHEVs are out of favour, but I haven't paid attention since the initial flurry of news.

Sure, it's in https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/document?docid=AFS/EV-FBT/00...

"Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles - 1 April 2025 onwards From 1 April 2025, a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle will not be considered a zero or low emissions vehicle under FBT law."

However, I mis-remembered it - if you buy a PHEV by 1 April 2025 it will remain FBT-free.

Thanks! I had somehow missed that. Feels irresponsible that it hadn't been mentioned in reporting of the changes (or maybe I missed it there too)

As someone who has to walk/ride next to an endless stream of filthy cars and trucks daily, I cannot wait for the road to be at least 50% EV, but not sure if it will happen in my lifetime.

Doesn't solve the fine dust brake particles flying around at every intersection (many with asbestos) but it will radically reduce diesel particulates and other exhaust nastiness.

Should help with brake dust too, EVs will only use friction brakes when regenerating won’t slow the car enough, which isn’t common.

Better in some ways, worse in others. If you are just driving around town, plugging in at night is probably better than having to fill up at a gas station. If you are driving your family, including young children halfway across the country to visit in-laws, having to stop for hours while waiting for your car to charge is much, much worse. Even if charging stations become ubiquitous.

> having to stop for hours while waiting for your car to charge is much, much worse

So will this never get any better? Will it still take hours to charge, 5 years from now? What was it like 5 years ago?

I'm sure it will get better. But the parent said EVs are better now. My point is they aren't for everyone. I purchased a vehicle in recent past, I looked into getting an EV, and came to the conclusion that none of the options, especially ones I could buy used, would fit my needs. Five years from now? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it. And I really hope I won't need a new car that soon.

your username says it all. ugh is what I always think when someone complains about roadtrips.

I personally do not have kids, but I love roadtripping my Tesla. With my ICE car, I used to drive as fast as possible, as long as possible thinking that's the way, but I'd also end up so burnt out after 8 or 9 hours of driving.

I'm going to make a 12 hour drive this weekend, it'll end up being around 13 hours with a Tesla, but my Fiancé and I are making a list cool things we'll do when we make the stops, and we'll actually enjoy making the trip over the 13 hours. Each stop will be around 15-20mins every 3 hours which is perfect for getting a stretch, snacking, or going to the washroom.

I'll also have the newest updated FSD11 for the highway which has been a large improvement over the previous autopilot on highways - the biggest for me is that it now bias's over to the left (or right), if I'm passing a large semi (or if the semi is passing me)

Car rentals are a thing for that once a year road trip. I’m making the assumption your aren’t driving 1500 miles each way every other weekend.

Every new EV sold today can charge from 0% to 80% in an hour. You can drive 250 miles before lunch and 250 after.

Or you can buy an ICE vehicle and charge to 100% in one minute. Your choice, really.

That speed is just not useful. You need a lunch break in your 8 hour drive.

(Also, the entire pit stop time for ICE is much more than a minute, so it's a false comparison)

Do you eat or work at the gas/charge station? If no, then you also need to add trip travel time from work to the charger and back. And possibly city transport ticket fees for two trips if the charger is far away.

The overlap between places with lots of charging stations and places I would really like to spend and hour for lunch while on a road trip isn't huge.

I'm not saying you cannot road trip with an EV. Lots of people obviously do. But there is something about having to plan your route in detail before you leave and having all your stops dictated to you by your GPS which feels unappealing.

And if you want to spend your hour break somewhere where your restless kids can safely run around, it norrows it down even more.

> having to stop for hours while waiting for your car to charge is much, much worse

Have you done this? I picture burning some kid-energy during those breaks. I'm genuinely curious about how that ends up impacting the trip experience.

“People are buying EVs because they are better…”

Right, exactly the reason why governments around the world first try to subsidize EVs through various schemes (tax rebates, discounts, etc), and then it doesn’t work - threaten to stop non-EV sales in 10 years. All of that because the EVs are a better product that consumers are screaming for. Right.

This is not a good argument. EVs are expensive. But having electric vehicles clearly has an advantage. And it may be in the government’s interest to drive adoption.

However I disagree with the GP’s statement that people are not buying them as a solution to climate change. People definitely believe they are part of the solution. I’ve heard of people installing induction stoves to remove their reliance on gas.

>This is not a good argument. EVs are expensive. But having electric vehicles clearly has an advantage. And it may be in the government’s interest to drive adoption.

That's OK (ignoring all the other environmental costs of EVs and the continued car use, as opposed to public transit).

But it doens't fit with the "they buy them because they're better/fancier/cooler" narrative. As another person writes below: "I like driving, and my next car will most likely be an EV, not because it's "better' (whatever that means), but because the Australian Taxation Office has modified the treatment of EVs to make buying anything else financially stupid."

This is normal to increase supply. They're expensive partly because they're produced in smaller volumes. Economies of scale haven't made them cheap yet, so subsidies are needed to break this chicken-egg problem.

Rebates also help overcome the higher upfront cost. The total cost of ownership of EVs can be lower than an ICE car due to cheaper energy and low maintenance, but the upfront cost is a barrier.

And then there's the fact that a lot of people don't know how good EVs are, so they base their purchasing decisions on myths and assumptions, and need a push to even try them.

We had a Tesla Y for 6 months and returned it. I really wanted to me to keep the car. But in the end we couldn’t.

The range was simply not good enough for longer trips. We returned it for a normal car and are quite happy with the range.

Are you a single car family? Until battery tech allows for either huge range or recharging as quickly as a gas car, I still see the utility in owning an EV for commuting and around town and a gas car for road trips. It doesn’t have to be either/or for most.

Yes we are… we live in a big city and can’t afford having two cars due to parking restrictions.

Small commutes are done with our electric bike.

For most people on the planet who drive gasoline cars ATM, EVs are still too expensive and impractical.

No. Most Buy electric vehicles because operating cost/cost of ownership year on year is 70%-80% lower than internal combustion engines.

Yes, exactly!

I can say I read about 1/4 of the way through the article and although I’m interested in the authors research, I did get the feeling the author hadn’t actually driven an EV - which may not be true, but I agree the author didn’t touch on the idea that EVs may simply offer a superior driving experience.

> People are buying EVs because they're better.

You should have added "people with money". Regular people don't have the luxury of paying up to 50% more for a car that often times is inferior to what they currently have.

> For example, laws banning gasoline cars by 2035 are as useful as laws banning flip phones by 2015 would have been.

If that were true, there wouldn't be any such laws in discussions and in the books. Just like there never was a law to ban flip phones, people just migrated on their own.

There are lots of incentives to push people to EVs such as federal tax breaks and HOV lane access.

you wouldn't need legislation to ban ICE if electric vehicles were better for everyone. Many people need range. Or cheap cars.

As an EV owner, I completely agree that they are better cars to drive for most people. Handles better, cheaper to run, more fun to drive, and range isn't an issue unless you drive all day to far places.

But

Until the infrastructure and manufacturing scale are bootstrapped, they can only reasonably compete with the help of subsidies.

And

You can also say that ICE cars, as a component of the hydrocarbon industry, get a lot of subsidy from the insane amounts of military cost deployed to ensure a steady oil supply.

Altogether societal beliefs that get people elected are having a strong influence in the way things go. In spite of EVs being better cars, if society decided to tilt back the balance of support towards ICEs, I think the market would snap back pretty quickly.

> That's the whole point of Tesla making attractive vehicles, aesthetically and functionally.

Aesthetics are one thing, although I find Teslas to be quite boring and even outdated, but the claim regarding Tesla's functionality is heavily debatable. Tesla is basically rediscovering why cars are the way they are and also struggling with quality.

> and also struggling with quality.

The problem is that the media's endless obsession with Tesla means that criticism of their products become mainstream news, whereas criticisms of the average Toyota or Ford are never more than bullet points in car reviews. A few key points which contradict the assertion of Tesla "struggling with quality":

• Tesla products consistently get high satisfaction ratings by their customers. [0] (Perhaps panel gap consistency isn't as high on the list of customer importance as car reviewers think it is?)

• Tesla products have been consistently rated as among the safest cars on the road with respect to crash-worthiness. Most notably the recent assessment of the Model Y by Euro NCAP. [1] Maybe the panel gaps aren't perfect, but the chassis under the skin seems to have been well engineered.

• Toyota, the supposed world leaders in car manufacturing, recently admitted — in public no less — that the Model Y is "truly a work of art". [2]

[0] https://electrek.co/2022/06/15/tesla-tops-list-most-satisfie...

[1] https://cleantechnica.com/2022/10/01/the-tesla-model-y-earne...

[2] https://thedriven.io/2023/03/01/toyota-admits-tesla-model-y-...

Tesla ranks amongst the lowest in reliability in Consumer Reports. Tesla has also intentionally underreported warranty fixes by not labeling them as such. Tesla has a poor reputation for fit and finish.

Consumer satisfaction is going to be heavily skewed and untrustworthy in a case like Tesla where one is buying a premium vehicle with a lot of hype and fraudulent marketing. I wouldn't associate it with quality. Personally, I have sat in several Teslas. They all feel cheaper than my Kia.

Safety is also loosely correlated with what is meant by quality. And another manufacturer's, particularly one going through a lot of drama and turmoil regarding EVs, anonymous sentiment is irrelevant.

So what you're saying that subjective notions of "feel" are important to the idea of product quality, but whether the product is actually well engineered is just "loosely correlated"? Wow. You are twisting yourself into a pretzel to emphasise that which favours your opinion and disregard that which runs counter to it.

"Better" how? I want a range the same as petrol car, with a recharging time the same as it takes me to pump gasoline into the tank. Until I have that, EVs aren't 'better' for me in any way. I drive 300 miles point to point several times a month and with an EV the journey time is an hour longer, and definitely not 'better'. That's not to say that EVs won't improve, but by 2035 will we have 700 mile range EVs that charge to 100% in 3-4 minutes?

The chassis, interior, and "technology" in combustion engine cars is largely the same for every manufacturer that produce EV + internal combustion because of economies of scale. So that's not a unique selling point.

What you want might never happen, especially the charging time part. If you pull out a calculator, you will find out the current required （under domestic voltage) to charge a 80kWh battery in 2 hours is already staggering. In 3-4 minutes at your home? I don't see it anytime soon.

Current Teslas will get you 50% charge in half an hour. Is adding 25 mins to your 5 hour journey really that big a deal?

In the UK, in 2023, yes.

I drive a part motorway, part countryside route that has very, very, few EV charging points, and on many occasions they've been full or broken, or both.

EV cars are good for cities and city to city along motorways. Anywhere else, not so much.

The UK charging experience has improved rapidly in the the past few years and will continue to do so. That is, buy an EV today and it's only going to improve tomorrow as more and better charging infrastructure is rolled out.

Isn’t "adding 25 mins" conditional on having a charging point right on your way waiting for you?

Exactly my point.

Based on time to charge vs time to pump gas, let's be charitable and say you need 30 minutes to charge an EV fully, vs. 5 minutes on a pump, so you'd need 6x the number of publicly available EV chargers to replace an existing gas station.

On my regular UK route, the motorway services have petrol garages that can fill 20 cars at once https://goo.gl/maps/wF7dxup3jBMAGqjg9, and only 6 EV points: https://goo.gl/maps/GXm2xoPNvXGZiMxU9 and they're always occupied when I pass through.

I'm sure every car park will eventually get more EV points, never one per space though, but we're not there yet. We're not even at 6x the gas station pump count yet.

I'm sure I'll be in the last group of people to buy an EV.

This is not real world. Here is one (https://abetterrouteplanner.com/?plan_uuid=550e4ca1-4a68-4ef...) My family regularly travels from Denmark to Austria for skiing. This route is 10:36:00 of driving, and 2:26:00 of charging. And that's assuming the chargers are free. They're often not. In reality - and I have tested this with a rental - charging occupies 30%+ of total driving time. This is absurd on a road trip.

I think EVs are great - for short trips. They're clearly terrible for longer trips. We all hope they get better.

> I drive 300 miles point to point several times a month

EV's won't be better for you any time soon; unless the solid state batteries with a higher energy density become the norm. For long road trips, ICE vehicles are more convenient. That being said; I've drive an electric car (Model S) twice from Norway to Spain (3700 km ~ 2300 miles), so it's definitely doable, but it does add time compared to a doing the same trip with a regular ICE car. At highway speeds you can probably add 1 hour per every 2-3 hours of driving.

We had an i3, and when on a summer vacation we noted our "usual" trip took about an hour longer due to a couple of recharge stops. However my SO, which drove the whole way, said she actually preferred it as she felt less exhausted when we arrived thanks to the extra stops. As such she was able to do more the evening we arrived.

Obviously others prefer to get there ASAP, but yeah, isn't necessarily clear cut.

There’s nothing except you preventing you from taking an optional longer stop in an ICE car (with more flexibility on where you take it instead of being limited to just “anywhere within walking distance of the fast charger”)

Of course. But she hadn't considered the effects of the stops before being "forced" by the EV.

> Obviously others prefer to get there ASAP

My problem with long road trips in an EV are not just the time added. Especially if you drive across Europe and rely on the supercharger network, you will notice that they are very often located in the middle of nowhere; next to a gas station or McDonald's. Not cool places to hang out for 45 minutes. There was one supercharger on my way to Spain (I think it was outside Bremen?) that was located next to a shopping mall, or "factory outlets" for Puma/Adidas etc. At that location 45 minutes flies by like nothing, it's actually to little time. But at some random gas-station, hotel or McDonald's in the middle of nowhere, 45 minutes feels way to much…

> At highway speeds you can probably add 1 hour per every 2-3 hours of driving.

Similar experience for me. Our family wrote off getting an EV until they're significantly better.

300 miles, this is like 5-6 hours? You don't want to take a break for 15 minutes to go the bathroom and get a bite? That is all you need to add during your drive if you start with a fully charged battery. It can also be done at pretty much any point besides the first and last 50 miles.

Genuinely curious, what EV can give you a comfortable 300 mile with a good threshold, and charge in 15 minutes from a regular EV point?

As I said in the other reply, there's a paucity of EV chargers in the UK that are not along a major route, there aren't a large number of them, and they're rarely 'superchargers'.

When you leave for your trip your car is full.

The Tesla Model 3 has a real world range of 300 miles [0].

You want to give yourself a 50 mile buffer. So you need to add about 13kWh of energy along the route. That's like 8 minutes with a 100kW charger round it up to quarter hour.

[0] https://ev-database.org/car/1591/Tesla-Model-3-Long-Range-Du...

285 miles on the highway isn't bad but that's only in mild weather. People in the North (American and Europe) live six months of the year in cold weather. Then they get 217 miles on the highway. In Europe this isn't even three hours of driving. And this is one of the best ranges on an EV under $70k.

I mean this is just what abouting and hunting for edge cases where you can feel good for being camp gas-car. And I guess that is fine.

I am just saying that having lived with a reasonable family-EV for a year, there has been nothing that would make me regret the decision.

Someone trying to convince me that I should have regrets is just gaslighting.

It's a very common scenario for hundreds of millions of people. I'm really happy that your EV works for your family's use case. It doesn't work for mine.

> "Better" how?

Several metrics. Clearly the only ones you care about is maximum range and minimal recharge/refuel time. But for many others there are other metrics that are more important, where a BEV is better.

For example, for us, being able to recharge at home is a major plus. It's been 6 months since we used a public charger, and our car is used daily. Especially my SO appreciates this, as she hated having to fill up with gas at the end of the day rather than going straight home to sleep. Not to mention it's way cheaper than gas, at least here.

Noise is another one. In slow moving traffic, it's so nice and quiet. We got an ICE rental last year while our car was being serviced (got hit by someone who didn't honor our right-of-way), and we'd completely forgotten how noisy (and stinky) an ICE car is.

Just some examples. Not saying BEVs are perfect, but range isn't the only metric that matters for everyone.

> The chassis, interior, and "technology" in combustion engine cars is largely the same for every manufacturer that produce EV + internal combustion because of economies of scale.

Precisely why I'm looking at BEV's that don't have an ICE variant. So much better with a pure BEV design.

> I want a range the same as petrol car, with a recharging time the same as it takes me to pump gasoline into the tank.

The "recharging time" part is easily achievable with battery swapping, which is already big in China. The luxury car maker Nio is introducing it to Europe, Norway first.

Battery swapping also reduces the sticker price of cars. You don't pay for the battery up front; you pay for it over the lifetime of the car in swap fees. The advantage is if you don't need much range for the next week or so, you can choose an old partly used-up battery pack for a lower price than a brand new one.

Range is more difficult, but there are grounds for optimism that this won't be so much of a problem in 2035.

1. https://www.nio.com/blog/power-swapping-europe

Edit: Ample[2] is working with manufacturers in the west to try to create a "gas station" industry model for battery swapping, where any manufacturer's batteries work with any manufacturer's cars.

2. https://ample.com/

>> People are buying EVs because they're better. That's the whole point of Tesla making attractive vehicles, aesthetically and functionally.

As someone who rode in a Tesla Model Y for the first time last week I disagree. It was horrible. Inside it was very spacious but felt plasticky and cold (I did like the glass roof through). The worst bit though was the ride. Every small bump was felt like a pothole. And within five minutes I felt motion sickness due to the persistent bouncing around. I can’t say anything about drivability (this was 30mins in an Uber) but if I see my Uber driver is in a Model Y next time, I’ll happily cancel and wait for someone else.

All of this has less to do with fundamental problems with electric vehicles and more to do with your opinion on a particular car (fortunately there are other electric car makers besides Tesla) and the driving style of your driver (granted, the stronger acceleration of an EV combined with an aggressive driving style or jerky steering can lead to a bad experience for passengers).

Yes, but the OP’s example of an excellent electric car was a Tesla so sharing my experience on that specifically.

> People are buying EVs because they're better.

No, they are not. It may be for some particular use cases, but generalisation is naturally bad idea.

Objectively they are vastly inferior to combustion engine cars (unless we bring Tesla to comparison). Low mileage, slow refuelling, very low lifetime. Slow acceleration.

If they were better as you state, governments wouldn't come with all sorts of subsidies to coerce people into buying EV. Market would correct itself and combustion engines would be a part of the past. But it's not happening, and I assert would never happen in future.

> People are buying EVs because they're better

Disclaimer: I am ignoring the environmental implications here.

Arguably they are not from many different POVs.

They are better for car makers, they can market them at any price they like and States all over the globe are subsidizing them, so that people can afford them.

In my Country buying an EV means paying 33% more for the same exact car, but with less autonomy, which is not a great proposition for the majority of the people living here that need a car.

The real solution would be removing cars from the streets as much as we can, which is about 50% of them more or less.

To follow on your analogy: saving car industry by switching to EVs would be like saving horse carriage industry by putting an engine on them in 1920.

Ignoring the hype, Tesla cars aren't better objectively from a purely functional approach. If I fill my current vehicle with diesel, I can drive 500 miles, fill up the tank in less than 15 minutes and drive back. With a Tesla or any other EV, I will spend several hours at charging points. EVs are great for local rat runs to the supermarket or nearby restaurants. However, they are still painful if you want to travel more than 100 miles.

Battery technology improvements will arrive. However, it takes time to productionise research prototypes.

During one of my holidays, I drove a self-charge BMW rental. It technically could still be sold after 2035. However, it had an electric range of less than 50 km before it switched to petrol. Car manufacturers will lobby for such loopholes to be allowed well beyond 2035.

> Tesla cars aren't better objectively from a purely functional approach.

I think this isn't as clear cut as it might sound. It depends on the usage pattern, local fuel cost etc. I drive a diesel too, but my next car will be an EV.

If you have cheap gas and/or regularly travel so far you need to charge on the road, then both the economy and convenience goes down the drain very quickly.

But if like me you have electricity at $0.10/kWh, you have 3x25A wires to your house, you can charge in your driveway, you very rarely need to charge on the road, and the diesel price is $10 per US gallon then the economy and convenience is completely different and much more favors EV.

This is your uninformed opinion.

I own one, I have never spent more than an hour waiting for any charge. The waiting time is also not wasted, I'll go eat or work on the laptop. Cumulatively over the year I have definitely spent less waiting at a charging station than I did with the fossil car I had previously. Most of the time it's just charged itself overnight when I slept.

It is SO MUCH CHEAPER to drive the EV than it is the ICE. Fuel cost ALONE pays for the monthly payments. Let alone having a modern car, better ergonomics, etc.

Do you hear yourself? You are admitting you have to stop for an hour any time you do a long trip, and apologetically claiming you can find something useful to do in that time. What kind of bs propaganda did you swallow? When I’m doing a road trip I don’t want to add one hour minumum per every few hundred miles, assuming I can find a charging station. Range limitations are the second reason why people don’t buy EVs, behind required home infrastructure expenses (a hidden one time tax).

My partner and I both drive cars that are almost 20 years old, so do our parents. Oil changes, tires, and a monthly fill up for $60 or trip fillup of $120 for about 700 miles. That’s it.

Todays EVs are like cell phones from 1985 with styling that appeals to the Pokémon generation.

My fill up for 1100km is less than 10EUR.

The only time I remember charging for 1h was when the charger happened to be a free 50kW charger. Why not.

During road trips it's much more like 15 minutes every 3 hours. Completely enough to keep going until people inside the car can't take it anymore, not a limitation of the car/battery. You make it sound like the stopping part is the hard part not sitting in a car that long.

I drive for about 300 miles, or five hours, then charge while we stop to stretch, eat, go to the bathroom, and the car has another 300 miles on it, at which point we stop for the night because we’ve been driving for 10 hours. It’s about the least painful experience I’ve ever had. But this is also very much a point in time discussion. I’ll wager in 5 years EV come with enough capacity to drive a full day without break or longer. The reality is that today 5 hours of continuous drive time is plenty of time to warrant a break long enough to recharge to capacity unless you’re big on deep vein thrombosis and drive with a catheter.

Waiting an hour to charge sounds horrific. That charges also takes much longer than filling a tank. And what if you need to recharge multiple times on a trip? I agree with the user above. EVs are awesome for short trips. They're terrible for long trips. We hope this improves over time.

This is the worst case outlier where the charger happened to be free in a city center location and I had nowhere to be.

Our typical usage of the car:

Wife drives for work to another city 185km away in the morning and back in the evening. So 370km round trip.

During summer: she leaves with the car charged to 90% and arrives back with more than 10% left. Zero time waited charging anywhere.

During winter -20C: she leaves with the car charged to 100% and battery prewarmed. Arrives at the destination with about 45% battery left. On the way back she spends 10 minutes at a 150kW fast charger next to a service station that happens to serve her favorite Goulash. Arrives home with more than 10% battery left.

Sounds like EV works great for your use case.

It is great to hear it works for your wife. I am forgetful and clumsy, and there would be days I will either forget to charge the car or not plug it in properly. This is not a big deal for an ICE car (petrol or diesel). However, you need a lot more discipline driving an EV car.

This is what the article is trying to highlight. For many people, EV cars are perfectly fine to use right now. However, only 25% of cars on the road are plugin electric (UK figures). Most of these are hybrid cars, reverting to fossil fuels when the EV battery drains. If you want to get to 100%, the government needs to do more than formulate policies.

Going to the gas station every week sounds horrific. I'd rather wait a bit on the one trip I take every other year than be forced to go to the gas station in the winter instead of plugging in when I get home.

This corroborates the point. You almost never travel far, so EVs are great for your use case. For those of us who do travel more regularly, EVs are very inconvenient.

It clearly works for you, and that is great to hear. When travelling with small children, an hour can be a long time. During busy periods like Easter, there are generally huge queues for the superfast charging stations close to the main motorways in the UK.

Technology will advance, and more superfast charging stations will be available soon. However, as the article highlights, there are still challenges. Unless you can charge at home, and unfortunately, not everyone can, EV trips can be more expensive. Time will solve this, however, that doesn't mean that the government can dictate policies without ensuring there is proper investment in EV infrastructure.

I disagree that laws banning IC cars are useless.

It forces car companies to plan for a certain future, not a possible one. That leads to an increased line up of cars for consumers, increases competition allowing consumers to afford those cars. It also forces everyone to thing about charging infrastructure etc.

> which is that EVs are some kind of medicine for climate change that society is trying to have discipline about

The obvious point, of course, is that EVs will not solve climate change or anything close. Mass automobile ownership has 99 problems, of which EVs solve 1. The key to better quality of life, as well as stronger mitigation of climate change, is boring stuff like trains and trams and bike lanes and walkable cities.

Cars are great (1) for rural areas and (2) when they are at maximum occupancy. Anywhere else, especially cities, and they are a disaster at almost any level you can think of.

I mean the bigger issue is that cars and trucks aren't going away and EVs are clearly important, but the much more important problem is investing in public transit, especially in the United States. We don't need everyone to "transition" to EVs -- we need everyone to transition to trains.

This comment seems at odds with one you posted yesterday, which said that individual responsibility for climate change doesn't extend beyond the voting booth. But unless I'm misunderstanding this latest comment, it suggests that we individuals are wrong to want private transportation, that we should be happy with taking whatever public transportation is available and walking the rest of the way. Even when public transportation is expanded as you say it should be, that still won't be the same as taking a car all the way from one building to another. Assuming that the point is to put an end to the negative impact of private transportation on the climate, this suggests that we are in fact responsible for changing our lifestyle to address climate change. Am I misunderstanding?

Prioritization of public transit over EVs is a policy issue which is facilitated at the voting booth. We need fewer EV subsidies (or targeted to more important EV markets) and greater public investment in transit. I'm not saying that you shouldn't buy a new EV in favor of taking your city's crappy bus service and walking a mile in the rain. I'm saying that your city should invest in making the bus a better choice than your car so that you want to use it; society should set up the incentives accordingly.

As the saying goes, public transit succeeds not when the poor can afford the bus, but when the wealthy choose the bus.

Then I'm skeptical about whether public transit can actually succeed. Why would the wealthy ever choose the bus over taking their own vehicle all the way from point A to point B? Does public transit succeed according to that criterion in countries other than the US? Is it necessary to somehow force the wealthy to do what is less convenient for the individual?

If the bus is faster and more convenient, more people will use it. Get cars out of city centers and reduce parking, and increase transit access -- more tram and bus routes with priority access through traffic, separated cycle routes, metro and long distance rail, etc. In my home city of Amsterdam it works very well -- over half of all travel is by bike alone.

> People are buying EVs because they're better

How are they better? Not obvious at all to me.

No gas stations, huge in cold climates. Instant acceleration which is physically impossible in ICE cars. Quite and no exhaust, so you can run them in a garage for preheating/cooling. Electricity is cheaper than gas. Less maintenance.

A lot of the advantages are dependant on a garage and mostly using the car to get around town and not road trips. If those don't apply to you then yea ICE cars are probably better.

EV's are not a solution to climate change. They don't exist to save the planet, or humanity. They exist to save the car industry.

> "laws banning gasoline cars by 2035 are as useful as laws banning flip phones by 2015 would have been."

These laws serve to create certainty around boardroom tables, which helps speed up investment decisions. For an automotive industry executive, it's easier to commit billions to convert your factories to producing EVs when you're not bothered by nagging "but what if there is still demand for combustion vehicles in the 2030s?" questions.

The executives get 90%+ of their compensation before 2035. So they care very little about the health of the company in 2035. What this means in practice is that companies like GM will say "We are going electric very soon" but not actually accomplish much. Here is an article from 2012. You can find very similar ones every 2 years since then. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-gm-evs/gm-aims-to-build-5...

The laws aren't just a single cliff-edge, but set targets to be achieved along the way. For example, Europe demands zero emissions by 2035, but also requires each automaker to reduce emissions by 55% between 2021 and 2030. In practice, that means the majority of vehicles sold will need to be electric by 2030. That means every car company needs to be taking action now to avoid facing billions in fines in coming years.

That’s not how careers work. You don’t get promoted by saying “I’ll do something very soon about that” and doing nothing. You get promoted by having something interesting to show to your bosses who can then look good to their bosses. With a clear objective set preparing to meet it is a clear way of getting promoted. The issue will be more that people prefer getting promoted by doing a bunch of stuff that looks like it’ll get you over the line, but often isn’t. I’m sure we will make a lot of progress by 2035, but it won’t be anywhere near “done”

>That's the whole point of Tesla making attractive vehicles, aesthetically and functionally.

Could've fooled me. Firstly almost all Teslas look like ugly frogs to me. And a Tesla Model S was also the first time I've noticed a car have misaligned front and rear doors while walking past a car.

I'm also not sure about the functionally part, unless it's just "electric motors are nice". I still see Tesla owners complain about the lack of CarPlay. Then there's the various issues that have come up. The ones that I remember: seatbelts falling off, steering wheels falling off, doorhandles breaking, doorhandles being inaccessible due to ice buildup, non-automotive LCD panels breaking inside hot/cold cars, and infotainment system bricking eMMC chips due to excessive logging. The self-driving features also look suspect, with some cars being unable to parallel park themselves, causing some weird behaviour on road, or crashing into obstacles when using the summoning.

A Tesla is not attractive to me, neither aesthetically or functionally. I find my Corolla more attractive, for obvious reasons.

> That's the whole point of Tesla making attractive vehicles, aesthetically and functionally.

They're not, though. They make cheap plasticky ugly cars with an interior fit and finish on a par with 1990s Eastern Bloc cars, and expect you to somehow cope with a massive touchscreen while trying to drive, and then charge "proper car" prices.

> People are buying EVs because they're better.

Doesn't this depend on the criteria by which you're measuring "better"? Personally, aside from reduced climate impact, they aren't better on any any count that matters to me, and are worse on a few.

For some people range matters. It’s particularly an issue for the electric trucks that Detroit is making big noises about.

For regulators EVs have been a deal with the devil since they are driving affordable and efficient cars (e.g. Toyota Corolla class) out of the market. in exchange for big promises about the EV future, Detroit is free to sell all the oversized trucks and SUVS they want today.

I see a lot of analogies between this and mobile phones.

The Motorola DynaTAC was made commercially available in 1983 and not very useful considering the lack of coverage infrastructure. Within 30 years we went from 30min of talk time and 8h standby through hours of talk time and weeks of standby to days of talk time and a day of usage, not to mention a whole spectrum of form factors and features.

And nobody, especially the incumbents, could predict the final shape the devices would take, sometimes to their demise(like in the case of Nokia).

The Mitsubishi i-MiEV was slow, expensive and small, with little range.

The Tesla Model 3 costs roughly the same (comparing to the 2011 MSRP for the Mitsubishi) adjusted for inflation, but is much better in every aspect.

That's less than 15 years of development. Who knows what will happen by 2035? Maybe we'll ditch lithium in favour of sodium, just like cobalt stopped being neccesary? Maybe the battery manufacturer Amprius will get acquired by a car company and scale the production of its 500Wh/kg batteries well beyond the planned 5GWh/yr? Maybe we'll have slow chargers attached to every streetlamp?

Norway is largely there regarding transitioning, despite having a cold climate. Took less than 15 years and their grid didn't collapse. Sounds like something the rest of the wolrd is capable of doing eventually.

There's a Porsche factory in Chile there they make synthetic fuel by synthesizing water and CO2 from air. So it is net zero emission (might even be negative). It costs $40 a gallon now. By 2035 it'll probably cost $2 a gallon.. maybe even mobile synthesizers will be available and we will end up seeing EVs extinct.

It seems far more likely that synthetic fuels will become cheaper than ev cars will become universally useful.

More info for others: https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/20/porsche-pumps-first-synthe...

... or probably not.

Synthetic fuels are great for airlines which is the only realistic solution for long-distance travels (cryogenic hydrogen containers would be heavier and a significant hazard, batteries are only feasible on shorter routes), but the allure of EV isn't just because it's cleaner but also it's significantly lower maintenance versus an ICE car. Maintaining an ICE car is no joke, and while EVs do still require some maintenance it is only a fraction of ICE vehicles.

Airlines can be turned into blimps. It's the big super-carrier cargo ships that are going to need all of the fuel.

That or we go the aircraft carrier route and make them nukes, which isn't feasible at the scale that international shipping operates.

> Airlines can be turned into blimps.

For cargo, maybe, but I really doubt passengers would accept a significant slowdown on air travel.

I love airships as much as the next person, but it’s really hard to see how they could replace passenger planes.

Won’t journey times be much longer? Where are you going to get the passengers, and all the staff? Where are you going to land them?

Super carrier cargo ships should be nuclear.

I have a Toyota Land Cruiser. It helps to have something super reliable! Understressed gasoline engine. Now I just basically need to maintain it, there are no expensive repairs out of the ordinary. Just servicing oil brakes, suspension, tires etc.

I probably spend under £100 a year maintaining my 25-year-old Range Rover.

Again, super simple engine, massively overengineered drivetrain, cheap and plentiful bits. Plus running it on propane makes it a lot cheaper and cleaner!

IC engines are pretty mature technology by now, and it's amazing how reliable they can be for something that is exposed to the air and houses thousands of explosions per minute.

But electric motors still have an inherent advantage that they have very few moving parts, much lower heat levels, almost no vibration, can be hermetically sealed, don't need complex transmission, etc.

Owned 3 Toyotas, currently a Corolla and a highlander hybrid. Grand total of 100k miles and $130 of repairs on them (battery), apart from regular servicing.

Yeah, those who go Toyota simply can't understand why people even bother with e.g. expensive German cars and such. Even the "Car Wizard" on Hoovies garage realized this recently.

I mean, it's not happening in the near future - but couldn't commercial airlines be powered by SMNR or Fusion?

The 787 has over 200,000 pounds of fuel.

IIUC, SMNR currently can produce ~300MW weighing 1.4M pounds. Naively, it seems reasonable in 30 years or so we could produce one that weighs 140,000 pounds and produces ~30MW (not even a gain, just a smaller reactor) - which could power a current 787. Naively, I imagine they'd have more efficient plane designs in 30 years, too.

And Fusion actually does seem less than 30 years away now. But who knows.

That latter is what really surprised me in 3 years of Model 3. Except to repair a punctured tire, no maintenance yet in over 20,000 miles. They recommend changing the air filters but I did not.

20000 miles is not really enough to judge the reliability of a car.

There are Prius taxis in NY clocking 500k miles or more.

On the other hand Hyundai Veloster is fun to drive but literally breaks down after 30k.

Maintaining ICE is actually not that bad, you just have to pick the right ones. Think Toyota-Honda-Mazda-Subaru.

Synthetic fuel is too expensive, the horrible efficiency of heat engines makes the cost ~5x compared to pure EVs. For long distance air travel and cross ocean shipping, which uses the energy density of organic fuels, it has some applications.

https://simpleflying.com/saf-cost-competitive-jet-fuel/

This doesn't address the issue of non-CO2 pollution. Which is especially bad in large cities.

The power grid will be roughly the same in 15 years. Now, know what the "TV pickup" is? - It's a spike in electrical grid demand when everyone turns on a kettle to make tea during commercial breaks.

So, consider EVs adopted at scale, and, like, there's an apartment building with 100 tenants arriving home in the evening. They start charging their cars. That would require 7.2kW x 100 = 720kW of power (a common max for charging stations) for a single building just to charge cars.

So?

The power companies makes money by delivering electricity. This sounds like a problem they want to solve.

Power companies have a monopoly and make money by doing the least amount of work possible to continue collecting (effectively) rent on the lines they own. The kind of capital investment necessary to upgrade the power grid for EV will require public funding.

Public funding you say? For infrastructure? Wasn't there some sort of thing the US President did at the end of 2021? For like a trillion dollars?

Gee, its almost like a private company is a useless middleman in cases like this and the government should just do it themselves.

Why do you think the government would do a better job? Perhaps in other countries, but in the US, the government is largely seen as incompetent at best, corrupt and captured at worst.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/06/m-16-a-...

This was during a war where lives were at stake.

The government can be held accountable directly. A corporation with a monopoly can only be held accountable via the government.

>The government can be held accountable directly.

By whom, itself?

By the people who vote for it.

Let me turn this around: who holds a monopoly corporation accountable? If your government is too corrupt to fix, what hope in hell does a corporation running a utility get you?

I don't think either is held accountable. Who was held accountable for Flynt? Who was held accountable for East Palestine? Usually, the only people held accountable are citizens when they make even the slightest mistake.

Ok, so my statement that a monopoly corporation is a useless middleman and the we're better off if the government does it because at least they're one fewer link in the chain is negated by neither being very good, so we do nothing.

And we wonder why shit sucks in this country.

The government and large corporations are parts of the same machine. The corporations fund the campaigns of the elected government officials and in turn, they pass legislation favorable to the corporations. The legislation is often written by the lawyers of those very corporations. Further, the bureaucrats who head the government agencies responsible for regulating the corporations are often hired by those very corporations after their tenure.

The only way out is to vote out the incumbent every election until we get the government we want. If and when we actually start doing this, it will probably take at least a generation because so many people are largely ok with it, or too busy surviving to pay attention.

Sorry to paint such an unpleasant picture, but it's what it is. I'm optimistic because people are starting to wake up to it quite a bit.

None of which invalidates my original statement that the situation in which a monopoly corporation controls a utility is strictly worse than the government controlling it directly because at least there is one less layer of indirection.

Can you give some examples where this is the case?

....it doesn't require examples, it is simple logic.

I assert that:

1) A monopoly can only be held accountable by the government.

2) The government can only be held accountable by the people.

Therefore, if the people wish to hold the operators of a utility accountable then having a monopoly control that utility is only introducing an extra, unnecessary, layer.

As far as I can tell, you make no claim that contradicts 1 or 2. You are, at best, saying that in practice having a monopoly run things is no worse than having the government do it directly. Feel free to correct my assessment.

So your argument would be stronger if you cited examples. I assume since you aren't you're arguing from a strictly theoretical / academic sense. If we're going to go that route:

  1) A monopoly can only be held accountable by the government.

This is not true. A monopoly can also be held accountable by the shareholders. A monopoly can also be held accountable by the market. Ask any cable company, for example. A monopoly can also be held accountable by new entrants to the market, ask any ISP that refuses to run lines to rural areas.

  2) The government can only be held accountable by the people.

From a strictly academic sense, this is true, but requires an election to achieve, and I've already gone over how those are captured by the very corporations governments are supposed to hold accountable. 88% of the population supports medical marijuana legalization, but it's still illegal at the federal level. Where's the government accountability there?

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/11/22/americans-o...

> This is not true. A monopoly can also be held accountable by the shareholders. A monopoly can also be held accountable by the market. Ask any cable company, for example.

The monopolies in question are utility monopolies, none of these apply except the shareholder control, the holding accountable of which is equivalent to holding the company itself accountable.

> A monopoly can also be held accountable by new entrants to the market, ask any ISP that refuses to run lines to rural areas.

Considering the state of rural internet access in the US, that doesn't seem to be supporting your argument at all. And when ISPs have local monopolies their service is measurably much more expensive and worse than when there is competition, and also measurably worse that municipally run connectivity, which they fight tooth and nail.

> From a strictly academic sense, this is true, but requires an election to achieve, and I've already gone over how those are captured by the very corporations governments are supposed to hold accountable.

As I said, even given this the situation with the government alone running things is only as bad as it is with the monopoly middleman while remaining potentially easier to change.

>will require public funding.

Truly astounding that you acknowledge that the power companies are (at this point) just rent-seeking monopolists, and your response is "Gosh, I guess we'll just have to subsidize them with a massive corporate welfare check! No other options are possible!"

We've seen this game play out with telecom before. Spoiler: the monopolists just pocket the money and don't build the infrastructure.

This is a simplistic view and it’s a problem that many businesses on many sectors face.

That's a solved problem - just combine a smart meter with a charger and you can adjust the power so that it doesn't make the peak worse.

For most of the night electricity usage is considerably lower than during the evening peak.

Very true, and it's a well understood problem. For a variety of reasons it is better to charge during the day than overnight (not the least being that solar works better during the day, helping to mooting nightly storage concerns), and so an ideal situation here is that many or even most of those charged during the day at work.

There's a lot of possibilities here though. With smart meters and cars hooked up all night, the power company has a lot of freedom to not just 100% every car instantly, but throttle and prioritize as necessary.

> For a variety of reasons it is better to charge during the day than overnight

This was one of the examples given in the article - the answer on whether it's better to charge at night or during the day varies by who you ask.

Solar does work better when the sun is out, but what if your area isn't using solar power? Air conditioner use peaks when the sun is out, what is your area uses much of its electrical capacity during daylight hours on HVAC?

The answer always ends up at "it depends"

There were very similar concerns about mobile bandwidth not long after the iPhone came out. Mobile carriers just built like crazy and handled it. No reason power companies can’t do the same thing.

> No reason power companies can’t do the same thing.

Nuclear power plants take over a decade - best case - to build.

But gas turbine power plants can take under a year to come online; even less when an existing plant expands capacity. Yeah, they still emit CO2, but it's a quick and cheap stop gap while waiting on green energy to replace them.

It should be noted that the USA has a refining crisis looming. Our refinement capacity is stagnant/shrinking and it's substantially more difficult to build refineries than it is to build electricity generation. This is largely a problem that's "by design" that will act as the stick, if the carrots for the EV transition don't work. We basically have an artificial cap on the number of ICE vehicles that can be supplied with gasoline unless something changes.

It took wireless network providers over a decade to build out their capacity too. In fact they are still building today.

This is not much power, and all cars support scheduled/delayed overnight charging already. There are cars that support V2G and can be made to even supply power to the grid for that TV pickup peak if necessary. BEVs have batteries large enough that they're fine even if they're not plugged in for several days.

Slow AC charging is little more than a kettle + electric oven, and we built the grid for that instead of lamenting it's too much for the grid and people need to continue to use wood stoves. Driving 40 miles (US daily average) uses about 10-12kWh of electricity, and there's whole night to refill that.

Why would I do that when it costs more to charge at that time due to higher demand. Indeed I'll drain from my house battery back to the grid at that time to make a little on the side and charge from midnight for far less cost.

Assuming it's for overnight charging, I would guess a large apartment complex that offers an EV charging hub might like to install some sort of load balancing/switching mechanism to limit how much total draw. It doesn't take the full evening to charge a car, so it would sequence where to deliver the power.

Most people don't drive that much in a day. For a typical EV user nightly charging isn't even really necessary, they're probably only needing to charge once every 3 days or so so it won't take that much to top-up if they're doing it nightly. If it's a small enough building tenants might be okay with doing a sort of sign-in system to use a smaller bank of chargers when needed. Sort of like reserving a treadmill at the gym.

I don’t think I could comfortably switch to only EV cars. I think I still need a gasoline car with my Tesla. However, both of cars are similar size and mileage. One uses electricity, the other uses premium gas, as a result… round trip from work, one will cost ~$6 dollars in electricity, whereas the other is ~$15 dollars. Plus there are still some trips we do frequently where there are zero charging station for miles so having a gas car does help

Making a car-shaped electric vehicle is like attaching a GSM module to a rotary phone.

Building future cities around electric scooters, EUCs, etc - yeah, I can see that.

Electric car-shaped objects - not really. The current car-shaped infrastructure will have to change in any case.

> Norway is largely there regarding transitioning, despite having a cold climate. Took less than 15 years and their grid didn't collapse

[Norway] "Sep 2022: Over 25% of all cars on the road are plug-in electric"[0]

They're just over 1/4 of the way there, I'm not sure I'd call that "largely there".

Persuading people with plenty of money to buy an EV is relatively easy, as one can tell from the tone of the comments here from EV owners, who seem broadly very happy with their vehicles.

Q: How do we propose to persuade the rest of society to switch? Apparently it won't be by throwing cash at the problem if one looks at Germany's take on the issue:

"Germany will reduce financial incentives to buy electric cars next year after an agreement within the governing coalition, as the vehicles' growing popularity makes government subsidies unnecessary, Germany's economy ministry said on Tuesday.

The incentives, or premiums, paid to buyers of electric cars will expire completely once an allocated sum of 3.4 billion euros ($3.44 billion) from the next two years' budget is spent, according to government sources."[1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicles_in_N... [1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/german-coalition-parties-...

Charge petrol users the true costs of their transport choices and there will be no choice but to buy an electric car (or no car at all - especially in cities)

That sounds like a great way to grind the economy to a halt. The folks who are left include the long tail of people who make ~30k in a year.

> Charge petrol users the true costs of their transport choices

Petrol/diesel users still massively outnumber EV users, and [at least in most places] everyone has a vote. Many less well-off voters are way more concerned about their family's immediate needs than they are about the long term future of the planet.

Politicians may be wondering if that's really a wise fight to start? At least, not right now.

Why would you lower the cost of burning fossil fuels? It seems counterproductive.

Separating out the road use taxes like that will have to be done eventually. Is this a "rip off the band aid" approach?

> Separating out the road use taxes like that will have to be done eventually

Across Europe, "fuel taxes vary greatly [...] [taxes account] for 65-80% of unleaded petrol price and 60-80% of diesel prices"[0]

All those [EDIT: hundreds of] billions raised from the sale of petrol and diesel is going to have to be found somewhere else instead.

Taxing electricity more, or taxing charging - or driving - somehow, or by taxing the sale of EVs themselves?

[0] https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ENVISSUENo12/page024....

The things to no longer subsidize would be road use (as part of a land tax) and generated externalities of pollution, including the military and political cost of maintaining a stable oil-producing middle east, the change to the global climate, and more local issues such as oil spills and rubber particulates.

However road users like socialism when it's stuff they want to be subsidized.

Taxing sales directly doesn't make sense - sure recoup the externalities of lithium mining when the manufacturers buy the lithium, but to charge a consumption tax unrelated to damage done doesn't seem much sense to me.

How does food for 8 billion people get grown without fossil fuel inputs for fertilizer? What happens to the other 80% of uses for them?

in the UK this will probably be achieved by a "per-mile" charge registered on vehicle odometers to replace the lost revenue from fuel duty.

That would be far more sensible (perhaps with different amounts based on co2 generation) - especially the crazy vehicle excise duty where two identical cars will pay the same, whether they do 3,000 miles a year or 130,000 miles a year.

But that would be far easier and cheaper than implementing some GPS tracking system in 31 million vehicles, where's the 9-figure contracts that can be given to the mate of a minister?

There are two ways around this: either tax the buy/sale transaction of petrol vehicles, which would severely harm the poor and the ones not living in megacities; or tax the fuel itself, which would make current inflation look like fun and games, as all countries logistics run on fuel.

The proper environmental solution would be going "fuck it, let's do it anyway", yet unfortunately, there is a whole planet outside of Sweden/Norway/Denmark, and they'd be more than happy to burn all of the fuel to pick up the economic opportunities that opened up.

Politics is hard.

Good point not often mentioned. The entire EU could be CO2 neutral by 2030, destroying itself in the process, and yet the net climate impact would be around 0.1C of average temperature reduction by 2100.

The thing with fighting climate change is that it isn't actually an emergency. We're way past that. It is also not a disaster like a flood that would cause damage so abruptly that only preventive measures make sense.

For a human timescale, climate change has been slow to set in and will be slow to slow down. The upswing of that is that we truly have time to adapt. Other species don't, unless we specifically protect them. It's a disaster in slow motion, and like everything else happening in slow motion, we'll outscale it by a large factor.

With human development, our ability to minimize damage from natural disasters vastly outpaces any (experimentally uncertain so far, but should happen according to predictions) growth in the amount and severity of disasters such as hurricanes and droughts.

Well that was a wild tangent. Anyway, main point is, unless all BRICS countries are involved in anti-emissions measures so drastic they will never agree to them, there's nothing that can be done to meaningfully prevent temperatures to climb at least 2C by the end of the century. Sorry, there's geoengineering too but we should also avoid that if possible.

Also we really aren't only talking about BRICS, but all other countries in South America, Africa and Asia as well. With sizable populations who certainly want to increase their quality of living by most means possible.

I think the number of countries ready to limit their increase of living standards if not already high are only those that are truly impacted. For everyone else they will try to find some other way around issues. And probably anyway end up better of than they are now.

Sounds like a great way to make all the EVs travel at a walking pace, as people just walk along the roads that they cannot afford to drive on.

I really believe that would start an actual war in the US. Would not advise attempting this.

The price target for companies like Climeworks is $100/ton for ambient CO2 removal. Assuming that price, it'd be a dollar a gallon. The gas price fluctuates more than that year to year.

That's a lovely target and I'll eat my hat if they get below $300/ton.

Yup. This has always been The Correct Answer™. Since the beginning.

In Norway the electric cars now drive more miles per year than ICE cars, which means if they are 25% of the cars, they account for more than 25% of the miles driven.

And both numbers are increasing.

The grid argument is especially spurious since the power required for driving is so low. At a typical 10 kWh/100 km that a daily city commuter will draw, with most such cars charged overnight at home, you will add a grand total of 100 kWh to your monthly power bill for 1000 km.

This will cover the great majority of cars and city tips with essentially no grid upgrades. The other part of transport needs - commercial fleets, long distance hauling etc. - will have dedicated charging infrastructure paid for the businesses that operate them, since it will make economic sense for them to switch to electric.

Sorry, 10 kWh at electricity meter for 100 km just does not sound real.

To be fair, Nokia was the target of a hostile takeover by Microsoft (Steve "developers developers developers developers" Balmer era) in their bid to make Windows 8 touch/small device a thing, then summarily and unceremoniously killed off when Windows 8 mobile failed to take off. Nokia was definitely in decline in the mid 2010s, but it was Microsoft who brought them to their early, untimely death by at least 5 years. I'm still stunned Finland allowed that to happen.

Nokia was slow to the party and competed between Apple and Android. When opportunity offered itself to adopt a third option, Windows Phone, with market monopoly, they took it.

Problem was that a couple of years later Microsoft announced their Windows Tablet, making them a direct competitor with Nokia. Now the organization was stuck with a very bad deal. They took the option of seeking acquisition by Microsoft as the apparent least worst option.

Source: Transforming Nokia by Risto Siilasmaa, Nokia’s Chairman 2012-2020 https://www.paranoid-optimist.com/

I'm in the midst of trying to get an electric car charger installed in my garage. Don't shoot the messenger.

I live in Las Vegas, in a 25-year-old subdivision. The homes' 200-amp panels don't have enough spare capacity to add a charger. (3 old less-efficient HVAC units, pool pumps, hot tub, electric oven, clothes dryer, etc.)

So to add a charger, I have to get my home's service raised to 400 amps. That wouldn't be a big deal, except... the neighborhood's transformers are already over capacity, too. A few of the homes already added 400-amp service so they could add Tesla chargers, and there's no capacity left in the neighborhood.

Nevada Energy is willing to add a new transformer in the neighborhood - but they want to charge me $20,000, plus the costs of trenching the new 400-amp line from the transformer to my house, plus the new panel, plus the charger. It's looking like a $40,000 installation.

Or... I could just put solar on the roof, build a separate isolated 200-amp panel powered by solar, and charge the car from that. (Plus move over the pool pumps, hot tub, etc while I'm at it.) That isn't free, either, but at least it'd cut my electric bills long term instead of adding to 'em.

I don't know how many homes & neighborhoods are in this situation, but I was surprised that a 25-year old neighborhood is having this problem.

How are you measuring your peak load? 200A is a lot. I could see getting a bit over 100A with all three ACs running simultaneously, but that leaves plenty left over for a normal L2 charger. Just time your charging so it's when you're sleeping, not cooking and doing laundry.

I only have one 5 ton AC, but I do have a pool, hot tub, and heavy draw electric appliances, and it takes some effort to clear 100A of simultaneous draw. Almost the only way to do it is to charge both my EVs simultaneously (and that's cheating, a bit, because the Tesla charger is pulling 48A all by itself).

Also, you could just dial it down, at 240V even 20A is quite sufficient for almost everyone.

> Just time your charging so it's when you're sleeping, not cooking and doing laundry.

But there's also passing inspection.

> But there's also passing inspection.

Why do you think that would fail inspection? A typical 200A panel has perhaps 400 amps of circuits on it. That's very normal. What primarily matters from a compliance/safety point of view is that the mains breaker is sized to protect the service wiring from overheating.

That's the problem - the city's inspection assumes full load from each of the appliances, plus some.

> So to add a charger, I have to get my home's service raised to 400 amps.

National Electrical Code 2020 says you can use a "power control system" (i.e. software) to ensure your busbar isn't overloaded (avoiding the service upgrade).

Related "smart panel" options to check out: Span, Lumen Smart Panel, Savant Power Systems

I've heard of people using this with 100A service to great success. So it should work very well with 200A.

That being said, code is code. So if the local codes won't allow the OP to use this, then they are still stuck.

Do you need a charger? Just a normal power point is fine for my Leaf usage.

It also has a setting to change slower if wanted.

Probably depends on your daily milage.

> The homes' 200-amp panels don't have enough spare capacity to add a charger. (3 old less-efficient HVAC units, pool pumps, hot tub, electric oven, clothes dryer, etc.)

200 amp is a LOT. You will do just fine if you manage the loads, just install a smart charger that can monitor the overall power use and cut the charging rate if the capacity is getting low.

My house is on 125 amp service, and I have plenty of high-power consumers. It worked for me!

TechnologyConnections has a great video about it: https://youtu.be/CVLLNjSLJTQ?t=793

In most places I know of, you will not pass inspection for new circuits if you don't have a certain amount of headroom in your panel, this is defined in the building code, and there will be no way to argue your way past it.

The new NEC actually allows flexible loads. So check if your locality has adopted the 2021 (AFAIR) version of the NEC.

Quite a few homes are in that situation, especially because some cities have much older houses on average than Vegas.

I had to get a panel upgrade on my house that was built in the 1960s, in order to get a charger installed, despite the house being built with 220v circuits originally for the dryer and the kitchen appliances. Lucky for me I didn't need the power company to upgrade anything like a transformer. It was still pretty expensive though -- around $8k for everything. I get a small rebate for installing it but it doesn't come anywhere near close to covering the full cost.

And this was for a house, so it's easy. Nobody can tell me I can't do it, unlike the situation for people who live in condos and need their HOA to approve things. A lot of condos were not built with this kind of power in mind and will need upgrades, potentially trenching across the community parking lot, etc. The members of the HOA who don't own electric cars are not going to be happy about paying for other people's chargers so they aren't going to be helpful.

If we want people with average incomes to be able to afford EVs we will need to make it much cheaper to install chargers -- and we will need significantly better public charging infrastructure for people who live in apartments and need to park on the street.

Plus we are doubling down on electric power for everything, and our power grids are generally not great. In California we can barely satisfy existing demand, and rolling blackouts need to be implemented in the summer so PG&E doesn't burn down another forest. If we all had EVs on top of the current demand, the grid would not hold up. Given how incompetent our utility companies are at everything else they do, I'm not confident they will handle EV demand well.

We installed an Energy Management System (sometimes called Dynamic Charge Controller) in our last place - a townhouse with 90amp service - in order to be able to charge our Tesla Model 3. It was permitted and passed inspection with no trouble.

https://dccelectric.com/dcc-9/

Wow, sorry to hear that. I'm also in Vegas and have very similar loads (2x 5-ton, 1x 2.5ton, pool/spa, car charger, etc) -- but I luckily already had 300A service.

I agree with the some of the other comments; you absolutely can "get by" with 200A. FWIW, I rarely use 50% and my car charger can pull >=72A by itself ("dual onboard chargers").

I checked into smart panels just because I was interested, and that may be the way to go for you (Span wasn't serving this area at the time FWIW), but you may have other options that are still up to code. My garage had an extra unused "dryer" outlet even, prior to installing the dedicated charger, and I have another outlet in an exterior garage too (probably was originally installed for welding, I've never used it).

It's certainly doable as far as the physics go; how much hoop-jumping you'll need to do to pass an inspection though, is another question, but it might be less than you think.

I'm not sure what the inspection requirements are for the "isolated solar" idea, but I'd _guess_ that it's similarly cost prohibitive (not sure if the "NVE off-grid fees" would apply at existing residence or not), and you lose some of the benefits of solar -- net metering & pseudo-arbitrage of TOU rates + "balancing" panel/system load (mostly applicable if you do ESS), etc.

Feel free to reach out (email in profile); I'd enjoy hearing more about the situation & perhaps could provide some guidance or ideas. :)

We have let the perfect become the enemy of the good. With the urgency of climate change, current grid infrastructure, and battery technology and production, the solution we needed to push hard was PHEV. For the battery in a single EV, it can build four PHEVs which means four households reducing most of their gas miles versus a single household. A common strawman is that a PHEV is more complex and harder to maintain. And yet that theoretical argument is directly countered by the existence of the Toyota Prius, one of the best for reliability, so good that it's used in taxi fleets. A PHEV is basically a Prius with a much larger battery. Another strawman is that there wouldn't be demand. And yet there is incredible demand for the Toyota RAV4 Prime. A PHEV with 40-50 miles EV range can be charged overnight with a simple 120V outlet, no expensive electrical upgrade required.

> For the battery in a single EV, it can build four PHEVs which means four households reducing most of their gas miles versus a single household

Is the adoption of new EVs being slowed by the lack of batteries? Building 4 PHEV with the same batteries as 1 EV doesn't mean you're going to sell four times as many PHEV.

yeah. World battery production has had to rise dramatically to even get EVs to where they are now. (and they contribute to EVs being about 10k more expensive than an equivalent gas car). A PHEV with 20-40 miles can get most of the environmental benefits of an EV without nearly as much of a weight penalty (especially since you can go the Toyota route to ditch the transmission) or cost.

A 40 mile PHEV covers average travel in EV mode range. You get 4 effective EVs for the battery of a short range (~200 mile) full EV with a substantially cheaper price.

Four PHEVs that draws down its batteries every day is far better than a single BEV that leaves most of its range untapped, given that batteries are expensive and require valuable resources.

Rich people buying luxury EVs as a third or fourth car is a huge waste as the VMT from those is wasted. EVs should be aimed at high VMT sectors like taxis to max their benefits.

>directly countered by the existence of the Toyota Prius,

The transmission design in the Prius is a lot more simple than a conventional automatic transmission. The engine is also so overbuilt that I've seen Prius engine swaps (sans hybrid system) into other Toyotas the basis of race engines. The 1.5L had forged crank and titanium conrod (very rare, even in sports cars), which could be pushed to 10,000RPMs with some valve springs.

Not an electrician, but why can’t you add a charger? If you don’t run ac and dryer and charge at the same time you should be fine? I also charged for 2 years just from standard outlet which had me nervous at times but made me a better planner. It cost me later $300 to add a charger(dryer outlet) which I think is quite cheap

This. I believe there are even smart management systems that can disable certain circuits when others are active e.g. if the hot tub, or dryer are on it turns off power the EV charger. IIRC they aren't cheap, but they also aren't 40k.

I don’t engage in long form discussion on HN anymore due to the moderation policy, I’ll say in short

1) You are in the process of being scammed. 200A is plenty to run an EV charger and 400A is absurd.

2) The max at home charge rate is 240v60A, 200+ amps extra is more than enough to peak charge three teslas at the same time.

Install a sub panel and 240v 60A outlet in your garage, then set your EV to charge around 11 or so. You’ll be done by 1-2am and never notice it.

Share the dryer outlet with a Y splitter, $50. Just saved you $39,950. You will charge at 20-22 miles per hour, which is plenty.

A passive Y splitter is not a good idea, but you can get active ones with a switch that only lets one thing run at a time, which works just fine for EV charging.

$250 or thereabouts, currently on sale. Boom we saved him $39,750.

https://splitvolt.com/collections/all/products/splitvolt-nem...

Love it!

200A?! Must be a single-phase thing.

Over here we have 3x25A (17kW) or 3x35A (24kW). You can easily charge a car at 7kW speeds without blowing a breaker. With a fancier load-balancing charger you can get all the way to 22kW, but very few cars can charge that fast from AC, most cap around 11kW.

200A in the US is 24kW.

Sounds like you could apply the money to more efficient HVAC with smaller circuits and avoid the $40k path.

Also, you can scale the EV charger to lower amps. I had trouble with tesla's gen 3 charger. I had a 60A circuit, which should allow charging up to 48 amps. But it would overheat sometimes and STOP charging. (bummer to come out to drive a car that hadn't been charged)

so I reduces charging rate from 48 to 40, then finally 30amps and it has been stable. And although I've parked with as low as 6% charge, I've never come out to a car that hadn't finished charging by morning.

That's a crazy amount of power, for reference here in France I run my whole house on a 9kW service (9kVA to be precise). That's with a heatpump and everything electric, including an electric car, and running the heating at more than 20°C during the winter. I might move it to three phases and 12kVA when we get a proper car charger installed, but with our solar panels and smart charging I think I might be able to save myself the trouble.

How are houses in the US made to be this inefficient? That's about one quarter of your installation if I'm doing the math correctly, (110V in the US right?)

Pool, hot tub, and uses air conditioning in Las Vegas...

Look, for better or for worse, Las Vegas is a testament to man's dominance of nature, and that takes a lot of electricity. It's not really about the efficiency.

Or as King of the Hill (TV Show) says of Phoenix: "This city should not exist. It is a monument to man's arrogance."

It's Las Vegas. Has a pool and hot tub and, of course, air conditioners. You folks in Europe don't have air conditioners and mostly don't need them (except when you do you do and you suffer). This is not really representative of most of the U.S., but it is representative of a lot of the U.S. Basically everywhere in the South we have central air conditioning, though it's not that common to have hot tubs.

The previous poster actually has an air conditioner. You Americans don't usually understand that heat pump is for heating AND cooling.

I expect it's partly efficiency too. He already said he has inefficient AC. As I understand it dryers that just vent to the atmosphere are still common in America which is insane.

I think power is cheap enough in America that you don't care about wasting it.

That was my impression as well. I'm in Poland, and 9kW is what you'd expect for an apartment or a small house. I needed 17kW for a small country house recently, but that's because of a "flow-through" water heater (no boiler tank) which makes sense in installations which aren't used every day.

A heat pump can heat/cool a small modern insulated wooden house with a 200W-450W power budget, throughout the year, with outside temperatures below freezing.

I installed an EV charger recently, with an 11kW of power allocation.

All that is way below the power in the installation mentioned…

US houses are incredibly inefficient.

I'm in Japan, and people even use less. 3-4kW is standard for a condo, 4-6kW is standard for a house, 10kW is max in general for a house with induction cooker and heat pump boiler tank.

We're not in Poland. Like I said in the post, I'm in the Nevada desert, in a 400 sq meter house, with a pool and a hot tub.

Here's a weather comparison to remind you that year-round, the highs in Krakow are lower than the LOWS in Vegas: https://weatherspark.com/compare/y/85104~2228/Comparison-of-...

I understand that. So include a 1.3x factor for cooling over heating (heat pumps are more efficient when heating than when cooling). That's still a far cry from the wattages/amperages mentioned.

The house is probably gigantic.

Houses in the US tend to be pretty large to begin with[1]. In newer cities that have a lot of land to expand into (entire new subdivisions in the suburbs), the average house is around 2500 feet^2 (~230 m^2).

But houses in the US also tend to only have one AC unit for the entire house. So if a house has three AC units, it is probably even larger than average. It could be 3000-4000 ft^2 (~275-375 m^2).

And naturally it takes a lot of energy to heat and cool all that space.

---

[1] https://www.propertyshark.com/Real-Estate-Reports/2016/09/08...

This is incredibly regional: in the south east ya, I guess you have lots of space and a not so great climate to deal with.

Houses on the west coast might just have heat pumps, maybe...and not even a central AC unit (instead, you get a separate heat pump unit for each room you want to heat/cool, our 2016 house has two units, but the first floor lacks any AC at all and only has small conductive heaters). Our electric bills are super low, however (mostly because...we don't need to really use heat all that much, and maybe AC a couple of weeks per year).

Not sure what your charging habits are but I fare well with a 10Amp, 240V wall plug to charge my car over night. Charging from 22:00 to 07:00 is sufficient to top up our day to day driving. We charge most nights and I can add about 20% over night. So maybe considering the time of use your whole load calc will look a little better?

People use clothes driers in Las Vegas? No wonder there is global warming.

I grew up in Arizona among the poor and working class and I can't recall even hearing of someone that didn't use a dryer

My home was built in the 1920s and I didn’t have any issues at all. Most neighbors with EVs also have chargers of some sort (similar age homes)

I find it hilarious that we are talking about preserving the environment and someone complains that they need would need more electric capacity to charge their vehicle and run their clothes dryer in the desert. As long as US exists, the world stands no chance.

You'd prefer he strung out a line in his backyard & hung all his clothes outside like they do in developing countries?

Yes of course? Not everything needs to go in an energy intensive dryer. It'll air dry just fine inside or outside

Oh no, he might look gasp _poor_ and lower neighborhood property values, thus cheating responsible savers out of their well-earned retirements.

Yes? I prefer to do that myself

I guess I'm from a -shithole- developing country myself, so can you explain to me how air-drying clothes is offensive to your sensibility?

(Again, in a desert; I can see how someone from Chicago might find it extremely convenient.)

Not offensive, just more labor intensive and uncommon in the US, especially for someone well-off enough to have his own pool.

The sheer sense of entitlement and superiority in this comment is astounding.

I will not even go into how drying clothes on a line is far kinder to clothes and makes them last longer.

Yes? Why would you not? It's a complete waste of money to use it if you don't need it.

I live in a place where you don't need a dryer for 80% of the year, and for 80% of the year I don't use the dryer despite owning one.

Just charge 120V. I honestly think a lot of people overthink this. 120V works fine, I also installed a transfer switch to switch between my charger and my clothes dryer.

You don’t need 400A service or any of that nonsense.

The transition to luxury EVs is hard. The transition to EVs is less hard. Things get easier if you throw out some of the requirements that we didn't need in the first place.

For instance, we don't need cobalt to make batteries. LFP cells are fine, though they may need extra insulation and heating/cooling systems in cold weather.

We don't need copper for the main power cables. Aluminum is fine as long as you can properly engineer the connectors.

For that matter, we don't need copper for the motor windings either. Aluminum could work there too, it's just that the motor will tend to be physically larger and less powerful.

We don't need rare earths for permanent magnets, though again this means a bulkier and less powerful motor (unless you go with induction, but induction motors aren't as efficient as permanent magnet motors).

We don't need cars with 300 mile range batteries. We /do/ need cars to be able to make long trips in a timely fashion, but that can be addressed by increasing charge station availability or (what would be much better) electrifying our major highways so that vehicles don't even need to stop to recharge. If the average car has "only" 100 miles of range rather than 200 miles, that translates to being able to make a lot more cars with the same amount of batteries, and the cars can be a lot lighter.

Most people buying Rivians and Lightnings and electric Hummers are wasting resources that could have gone towards building three or four boring sedans or minivans. Some people really do need trucks for what they do, but we could adopt policies that discourage truck ownership rather than encourage it (e.g. CDL requirement for vehicles with more than a certain power/weight, get rid of the chicken tax to improve availability of smaller trucks, add visibility regulations to prohibit comically tall grills).

Honestly even sedans and minivans are big when you consider that the majority of trips are taken by one person, the driver. EV Smartcars and Fiat 500's should be where it's at. And yet they don't even exist. The electric Fiat 500 was discontinued. So as much as I agree with you, the market has spoken, and, well, we're wrong.

The transition to luxury EVs is easier than the people's EV, because luxury car buyers spend more money on their cars. This means you can spend more money on the pieces that comprise the car, on super efficient motors and high capacity batteries using rare materials, and position yourself at the upper end of the segment. Those customer will scarecly blink at the idea that they need to spend $50k to rewire the neighborhood power distro point to add 600 amps so they, and 9 of their neighbors, can have 60 amp circuit with 48 amp chargers on them, and then be able to swallow a $7k charger install to rewire their whole garage as well.

Meanwhile, an apartment dwelling people's EV owner might not even have an assigned spot in the shared complex carports, never mind afford a couple hundred to install hardware to get an at home charger in a shared garage becase only half of Americans can even afford an emergency $500 bill. People buy cars based on what they want, and only secondarily based on what they can afford (otherwise auto financing wouldn't be a thing). Selling a small functional EV? Well, just ask Nissan how well the Leaf is doing and compare that to Tesla's sales numbers.

I think Arcimoto has the right idea. (The company itself though seems to be in a financially precarious position.)

Given the average price of a new car in the US is now $45k, There's a ton of room in the market for an electric car that costs < $10k

Unfortunately the FUV is about $20k, but given the nature of the vehicle it's probably possible that someone could manufacture something similar for around $10k.

The FUV doesn't qualify for the federal rebate, unfortunately. (I think you need four wheels for that.)

It's sad that EV smart are now looks like a random non-compact EV. https://ev-database.org/car/1667/Smart-1 https://www.motor1.com/news/658590/smart-3-crossover-debut-s...

I live in a German university town and there is not charging port I could use in any paid-for parking garage within 1km of my apartment (or in the entire city that I know of).

EVs for now are a thing for people who own houses.

Nobody would buy those cars.

We already have the Mitsubishi mirage, and the bmw 3 series easily outsells it. Most people don't get the cheapest car they can, they get the nicest car they can.

I'd buy that car, and so would lots of people like me!

The problem of course is that we wouldn't buy them new, we'd wait 5 to 10 years and buy them even cheaper used, which in the eyes of manufacturs is basically the same thing.

> or (what would be much better) electrifying our major highways so that vehicles don't even need to stop to recharge

Had to stop there. We already can't maintain all the road infrastructure that's already out there before it deteriorates. Adding electrification to any substantial portion of that would not be cheap or simple.

What's your benchmark for cheap and simple? There's a system being tested in Sweden that uses electrified rails embedded in slots in the road surface. Cars or trucks can have devices that drop into the slots and make electrical contact. It's not terribly complicated, though I don't know the specific details of how well it's performing.

There are also systems with overhead lines that are about half the cost of slots in the road, but they're only really usable by trucks because the cables have to be high enough for a truck to pass under.

The cost of petroleum fuels plus the environmental costs of CO2 emissions are themselves huge costs and drags on our economy and quality of life. Our options are: keep burning fossil fuels until they run out, transition to electric vehicles in a reasonably scalable way, or do away with cars entirely. Transitioning to EVs seems like the best available option to me, and appropriate infrastructure will make that transition much easier. If we can cut the average battery size in half by having electrified highways, then that's probably worth it.

Getting the technology working is not the hard part. As with EVs in general, the difficulty is in the deployment. And if you thought rolling out a charging network was difficult... here's just a few things you need to consider:

- How many such systems are there? Are they compatible, or will cars sold in one state/region not be able to charge in another?

- Can it be retrofitted onto existing cars or would people need to buy entirely new cars to make use of this?

- What happens when construction crews need to work on the roadway? Lanes are often shifted with cones or temporary paint, which won't follow the tracks.

- How expensive is it to install and maintain? We already have so much infrastructure that we have trouble keeping it going, and this adds extra costs on top of that. See how many bridges we have in poor condition. And what happens when it's not maintained?

- Who owns the technology behind it? Will they still support it 10 years from now? 20? 50?

Sure, it could work - but I think you're underestimating the logistics of actually rolling something like this out. The battery supply chain is a problem, but I don't think it's enough of a problem that electrifying highways would be simpler.

> Our options are: keep burning fossil fuels until they run out, transition to electric vehicles in a reasonably scalable way, or do away with cars entirely.

This is a false dichotomy. We can reduce our dependence on cars without fully eliminating them. (Oh, and smaller EV batteries are more practical if the places you're going are closer together anyway, even if they're not quite within walking or biking distance.)

>We don't need rare earths for permanent magnets, though again this means a bulkier and less powerful motor

It sure would be nice if there was a breakthrough in producing rare-earth-free magnetic materials:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/advs.202204...

> or (what would be much better) electrifying our major highways so that vehicles don't even need to stop to recharge.

Man, electrifying 8-lane highways everywhere sounds like a lot of work and maintenance.

What if instead, we built a special electric road with just two lanes, which means you only need to electrify one lane in each direction.

We want those cars to move fast, so let's make the lanes out of metal and use metal wheels on the cars. By making the lane actually a set of guide rails for the metal wheels, the cars can autonomously stay in their lane at high speed without special computer control.

Then, you could make each vehicle larger, so that you are efficiently using the capacity of each lane. These larger vehicles could autonomously follow each other at very close distances on the guide rails.

I bet such a system of two-lane, electrified, high-speed, autonomous-steering high capacity vehicles could move as many people as a large multi-lane highway in a smaller footprint all on grid power!

Appropriate user name. I agree with part of this approach, but trains suck for two reasons. Getting to the station, and sharing a carriage.

Why not have an EV that can run as a train? Drive to station, control goes to “highway management system” chill for journey?

That's basically "pods" from every future sci-fi. Pods are not efficient because they have all the same problems as cars and none of benefits (except emissions). You will need gigantic roads everywhere like we have today, traffic jams, parking issues, all super expensive and financed by the city dwellers who don't benefit from cars so much. It is actually funny that rich car centric suburbs are subsidised by poorer population in the apartment blocks in the city cores. :)

> Getting to the station, and sharing a carriage.

Both things that are in common with air travel which seems quite popular.

A good train system is better at both. Stations are smaller and less noisy than airports so they can go directly in city centers instead of miles outside the city. And space and comfort per passenger is usually much better than airline coach class, plus on intercity trains you can usually move around to cafe cars, dining cars, etc.

Overnight trains are often built with private sleeping compartments if that’s more your style.

Do you also watch Adam Something?:)

> I bet such a system of two-lane, electrified, high-speed, autonomous-steering high capacity vehicles could move as many people as a large multi-lane highway in a smaller footprint all on grid power!

To quantify this heavy rail has a route capacity of ~40k people per hour per lane, compared to ~2k for cars (using lower and upper estimates respectively). That means the route capacity for 2 lanes of heavy rail is at a minimum equivalent to a 40 lane highway.

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

The infrastructure is harder than the vehicles. New power plants take longer to get built than new vehicles.

Electric vehicles offer opportunity for innovation, but they don't have to be innovative. The zooming Teslas and Mach-E Mustangs get the attention. But that's not where the volume is. The electric Ford Transit is just a Ford Transit with electric drive. It's boring, but useful. Commercial vehicles which make many stops, from Amazon to the U.S. Postal Service, are rapidly going electric.

The real question is, when do electric vehicles become cheaper than IC vehicles. Last year, the same vehicle in electric seems to cost about US $10,000 more. This year, the Ford E-transit is about $5000 more than the IC version. It's harder to tell for passenger vehicles, because manufacturers are treating "electric" as a premium option and dumping in all the high-markup stuff such as leather seats. At some point somebody will come out with something comparable to the Toyota Corolla at a comparable price. BYD already has, but they don't sell in the US. Then electric sales will take over.

I'm less inimical to the idea of an electric car than I am all of the Orwellian control mechanisms that will come with it.

Contra all of the Really Smart People who seem to view the rest of humanity as livestock, a huge swath of people don't care to be bossed around and treated like livestock by those who are (a) too full of themselves and (b) demonstrably incorrect on pretty much every issue.

Get stuffed, global elite, and leave my diesel vehicle alone.

One really has to stretch to equate the change of prime movers in an automobile to a global conspiracy to destroy free will.

What could the conspirators do with an electric vehicle that they couldn't do with a Hummer?

As it stands, I think every EV in the US market currently has some kind of built-in data connections to allow integrating with the manufacturer's mobile app. So not about the prime mover, but it just so happens that the current generation of EVs are more connected to the hivemind, if you will. Of course, a number of ICE cars are also that way.

I, for one, cannot wait for the day that somebody brings the Toyota Corolla of EVs to the market; something under $25k MSRP with nothing fancy. I don't need OTA updates or the ability to turn the AC on from my phone.

I think the manufacturing costs for things bluetooth connectors or touch screen are usually minimal compared to the thousands of pounds of raw materials, or extensive quality assurance needed to build a car. So often these are added to luxury cars where drivers are charged a premium for them, and then later added to lower tier cars as manufacturing costs have scaled down and R&D costs have been recovered.

All of this means if you want a new basic car your shit out of luck.

Since margin is notoriously low on vehicles, OEMs strive to shave pennies in cost. While I'm also skeptical that we'll have a no-frills EV in the future, too, I suspect it's because monetizing transportation data will outweigh the benefits of reduced cost.

The motors and batteries are commodities...you can make a pretty good electric S-10 or Ranger with an '80s-'00s model for maybe $20-30k over the cost of the donor. Stick the batteries under the bed.

Try it, and tell us it isn't the most fun you can have on four wheels.

For us shifter+clutch snobs all the praises of electric vehicles in this thread are falling on deaf ears.

No reason you couldn't have a manual transmission on an EV, it could even help with energy efficiency but it might not be worth the weight. Biggest challenge would be the extreme torque.

Both of my diesels are manual transmission, but this thread has gotten downmodded far harder than most of my unpopular inputs.

On blasphemes Gaia at peril.

EVs are "already" cheaper on TCO. You drive it for 10 years and you save money compared to ICE due to savings on gas and maintenance. They'll possibly never going to be cheaper on sticker price.

This is going to shock people, but the days of buying a new car every 3-5 years is over. It's not going to make financial sense. Used cars will be mostly worthless due to the batteries being shit. Financing is going to be different for low income people. Potentially just fewer car owners period. (which is great actually)

Why won’t a drop-in replacement battery be a better deal than a new car after 10 or more years?

> This is going to shock people, but the days of buying a new car every 3-5 years is over.

The average age of a car on the road in the US is about 11 years. As that is the average age of a car on the road, it suggests the lifespan of a typical car is much longer.

I've look at the TCO of electric vehicles every year or two. The math always pencils out that it's far cheaper to keep my 4 door Japanese sedan another year, as I drive it less than 5,000 miles/yr and maintenance is minimal with that little use. I think most people trying to minimize their transportation costs would do better with a corolla, unless their drive more than average.

Of course, no one looking at minimizing their TCO buys a new car every 3-5 years.

As long as maintenance isn't yet eating you alive, there's no new car at any price that is going to have a better TCO. But if you were getting a new car to last a long time, it's tough to beat a compliance EV. Chevy Bolt, 260 miles of range, small but not tiny, great utility, and 26K before rebates. $11K after rebates if you're an Oregonian. Fuel is much cheaper, TCO is basically impossible to beat.

As long as it doesn't burst into flames: https://www.chevrolet.com/electric/bolt-recall

Tesla famously started building their packs out of laptop 18650 cells. To keep the voltage out of the kilovolt range while still being able to draw useful amounts of power you have to connect huge numbers of them in parallel-- the old model S had 74 in parallel. DIY battery pack HOWTOs will flat out tell you that you can't connect cells in parallel at all, while Tesla is connecting dozens of them together.

Presumably they have to go to great and awful lengths to characterize/bin the cells, maintain QC during manufacture, keep pack temperature constant to avoid hot spots from aging single cells, lots and lots of balance wires to carefully charge sub-sections, etc etc etc.

GM saw all this early adopter crap, and all the extra weight from the redundant steel casings on each cell, and say screw that, let's use really big lipo cells. Well, you still have all that variability and inconsistency... just hidden inside a big polymer pouch where you can't see it. Recipe for unexpectedly going fwoosh in the middle of the night while charging.

GM's new Ultium platform still uses LG lipo cells. Let's hope they worked out the kinks!

> it's far cheaper to keep my 4 door Japanese sedan another year

This is like saying it's cheaper to wait a year before contributing to retirement because you'll have more money in checking if you don't contribute to retirement.

Average lifespan of an ICE car is around 14.8 years. For an EV it's 22.2. They last longer, and break down less often, and fuel is cheaper.

Over a period of 20 years, it does not matter how expensive the EV was when you paid for it. After 20 years, there is more money in your bank account, with the EV. So buying or keeping a used corolla is pretty much guaranteed to leave you with less money after those 20 years. No matter how cheap the corolla is now, keeping ICE cars will add up to a higher cost. The longer you wait the more you lose in the end.

>Average lifespan of an ICE car is around 14.8 years. For an EV it's 22.2

I am going to need to see some figures on that. How many electric cars were even made 22 years ago?

The average expected lifespan of an ICE vehicle is 200k miles, and the average expected lifespan of an EV is 300k miles. The average ICE vehicle in the USA is driven between 12k and 15k miles per year. So for an ICE vehicle that averages out to 14.8 years to reach 200k, and an EV, 22.2 years to reach 300k. On average.

> Average lifespan of an ICE car is around 14.8 years. For an EV it's 22.2.

Citation definitely needed for those figures. There are no mass market EVs that are 22+ years old, let alone old enough to make their average lifespan be 22.2 (which obviously implies some EVs lasted a lot longer than that).

> So buying or keeping a used corolla is pretty much guaranteed to leave you with less money after those 20 years.

That's clearly not true in the absolute. Might be in some cases. For instance my parent has a 1998 Corolla which works perfectly well and requires minimal maintanance. There is no conceivable scenario where it'd be cheaper to buy a new EV vs. just keep driving the old car.

I meant to say on average. Add up the fuel and maintenance for that corolla over a 20 year period, plus its initial sales cost. The EV is cheaper over 20 years.

If they barely drive it and nothing ever goes wrong, they should still be spending several thousand a year on fuel and regular maintenance tasks, on average, over time. If they aren't then either they aren't doing the suggested maintenance or aren't driving it much at all, or both.

The EV uses cheaper fuel and its maintenance cost is significantly lower.

Again: the initial cost of the EV is greater. It's the cost over time that is lower, because ICE vehicles cost more over time. Even taking a used car into account, its average cost over time is greater.

> It's the cost over time that is lower, because ICE vehicles cost more over time. Even taking a used car into account, its average cost over time is greater.

A person looking to buy a new car today, you're mostly right in that their total lifetime cost will be less if they buy a new EV today.

Mostly though, not everyone, since there are ICE cars cheaper than EVs and for someone who drives very little it'll take a long time to recover the initial price difference.

But for people who already own a car it's a very different equation. The old car is already owned, so buying an EV is a huge expense unlikely to ever be recovered by reduced operating costs. Such as the example above of my parent. Were they to buy a 40K EV, it'll take easily 40 years to break even compared to simply keep driving the old Corolla. Nowhere near worth it.

the days of buying a new car every 3-5 years is already over. The average vehicle on the road is approaching what pennsylvania identifies as open to "Classic" registration. I gotta wonder who the first person that registered a ford windstar classic will be.

Vehicles are so damn reliable compared to the 70's that - we'd actually be closer to going full EV if cars were less reliable....

>Used cars will be mostly worthless due to the batteries being shit.

Modern battery chemistry can last for 2000 cycles. Assuming you get 200 miles on a charge, that's 400000 miles. A typical ICE car doesn't last that long.

Battery performance is highly variant both per manufacturer and based on temperature and elevation. Some perform half as well as others. And battery lifespan varies depending on charge type, use profile, climate, vendor, etc.

I shouldn't have said worthless. But on average their degradation varies between 5% and 10%, and individual units have had quite variant actual performance lifespans.

"EVs will/will not create more pollution than they eliminate."

I'm just skeptical about the heavy push for passenger EVs: while they're a small fraction of the carbon emissions pie in the world, they manage to be what we spend the most time talking about. It just seems like getting new cars has the added benefit of us buying shiny new stuff without concentrating on the heavy lifting. (Or disrupting industries that would lower gdp)

Transportation accounts for over one third of CO2 emissions in the U.S., and decarbonization of electricity generation, which is another third, is already well underway. It makes perfect sense why we talk a lot about decarbonization of transportation in the United States.

Transportation accounts for a third of American CO2 generation and is the largest non-industrial source of American GHG emissions. We need to make dents here through every manner possible, including electrifying the existing modeshare, while promoting much more energy efficient modeshares like cycling and transit.

Passenger car emissions are ~8% of total CO2. Trucks etc are easier to greenify, replace with trains etc.

Passenger cars are 33% of transport-related GHGs, the single largest category for transportation-related GHGs. Transportation-related GHGs is the largest category of GHGs in the whole pie for the US and comprises 27% of US GHGs. 33% of 27% is 8.9%. Light-duty trucks are 17.2% of transportation-related GHGs, so 4.6% of overall US GHGs. The US already has a heavily used freight-rail network.

[1]: https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-...

[2]: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10153PC.pdf

Electric trucks are in the works too

Exactly its especially crazy to see the huge SUV EVs. Instead of driving less, using public transport and bicycles, you can just swap to an EV.

It’s not crazy, it makes perfect sense given the reality most Americans live in. You see EV replacements for existing SUVs rather than people using public transit because… there is not good public transit for most Americans. People can’t wait for their government build public infra - they need to be able to get to the grocery store today.

No it is exactly the point. Most towns and cities have bus lines even if they dont have trains. People should move to apartments and give up their suburban mc mansion. The fastest growing areas are AZ, TX, FL, the new suburbs there are vast and car centric its enabled by cheap gas and cheap cars. People just prefer that because they can.

It's not simply because "they can," but that the towns and cities get built so that things are distributed and not served comparably by bus lines. For example, in my median-density medium-sized city, by USA standards, my grocery store is 16 minutes away by bus, but 5 minutes by car. A coffee shop I'd go to is 29 minutes by bus and 6 minutes by car. Things are much worse for where >60% of Americans live too...

Sure, I'm sure you can move to an apartment that is more central, cheaper and more efficient to heat as well. People would rather not do that.

In a previous life, I learned that the fleet of all Toyota vehicles out there produced 320.5 million tons of CO2 in 2019. See line 11 of table I on pg 37. https://global.toyota/pages/global_toyota/sustainability/rep... Basically the vast majority of CO2 Toyota produces are from cars on the road.

EVs -> no emissions in transport, 27% of US emissions. EVs drive lower battery cost and capacity needed for renewable energy adoption - 17% of total installed and 60%+ of new power generation capacity. Your skepticism is impeding the single most impactful factor in mitigating climate change.

Last summer I did a 4200km roadtrip in my 41kWh Renault Zoe from southern Germany to northern Spain. The car is *absolutely not* built for long range. There were significant gaps in the charging network in some regions. The terrain was largely mountainous and traffic was fairly bad.

Despite all this, the trip was great: The car never was a limiting factor and always could go further than me as a lone driver (maximum daily distance: 660km). With 2 apps, google maps and some planning while charging it was possible to reach basically every place I wanted to go. Unlike the dozens of broken down ICE cars i saw, the Zoe had zero issues. The only problem worth mentioning was a company called EDP supplying too few and totally unreliable chargers in Asturias and Galicia.

With a car with a longer range charging on the highway becomes less and less important, so as long as there are plenty of 11kW chargers in cities for overnight charging or 300kW chargers for day charging (solar!), EV use is easy and already 100% usable. If you can charge at home for your daily commute and we are smart about the timing, I see few issues here.

For 90 years, the whole of humanity poored all resources into IC. They got so good, they can go to the moon and back without more then basic maintenance.

We are maybe 10 years into mass market adoption and still have internal resistance to research investments in all major IC companys. So we are not even near the part, were the break throughs happen and far away from the moment the whole affair plateaus out.

We also go against the most entrenched resource industry if ever there was one. Half of the middle east and russia, all dependent on this technology failing. But somewhere, in some cooperate battery lab, there sits someone, who will deal it a lethal blow. And as ECs push ICs into the uneconomical lethal zone, the resistance to it will fade.

I don't think I'll be buying an EV for at least another 10-15 years. I usually buy used and considering the best is yet to come with EVs and it will likely be in someone's hands for a few years before it's thrown on a lot for something I'd be willing to pay I'm just not seeing one for me in the near future. I'm also not looking forward to a future where buying a used car entails having to sign up for a monthly butt heater subscription.

Problem is it's not just EVs that are adding the subscription and everything software cars. All cars are going in that direction

Well I guess I'm gonna buy a Volvo and try to maintain it for the next 2 million miles.

Don't worry the butt warmer will have failed long ago in your 15 year old EV

Typed while sitting in my 20 year old pickup truck whos manual windows still work but not most of the electronics :P

But does the passenger door swing open on left turns like my father’s pickup? That was exciting the first time that happened.

Lol, not quite that jank yet. Maybe in another few years.

Besides climate, there is one point about EV/ICE that never gets discussed: for decades now, we are polluting our environment with ICE emissions, in some places to unbearable levels. Why is this still allowed? I would have expected to make it mandatory to require an electric engine to every new car since hybrid technology became available, if not for anything else but having those cars capable of doing at least the urban stop-and-go without the stink.

Looks like we became so used to poison each other's breathing air that we don't even question it any more, we think it's some kind of inherited right we have. But guess what - I am also not supposed to throw the content of my potty out of the window anymore - nowadays that's not only unacceptable behavior, but outright forbidden. Because better technology became available to solve the problem.

In Germany we have city zones where only vehicles with certain emission standards are allowed to enter (usually the downtown areas with most population and traffic).

Seems like it would be possible to use this model to further restrict to only in EVs, which would also provide some incentives for more EV adoption.

There are a few places that have already done this, usually only for delivery vehicles. I think part of Paris is one example.

Those of us who understand how EVs work have been saying this for years. I think we all hope everything magically gets solved simultaneously to make all the deadlines work. I expect most of us know it probably won't actually work, but we also don't want anything to stop us trying, so we just... keep moving forward. I think we also hope nobody tells the consumers that they're in for at least a decade or more where everything is terrible, or they might not buy the cars; none of this works if they don't buy the cars.

Based on USGov estimates, we need to increase lithium access by 2.5x every year for 18 years. We need something like 10x the grid capacity to serve the new power demands (and that's not considering that, for example, most green energy supply fluctuates). Land still has to be acquired to build out all the new infrastructure. Supply lines need to be increased and made robust enough to build all the cars without more delays. Skilled workers need to be added to service the new industry demands. And then we have to hope somehow that all the industry EVs are replacing get new jobs and don't depress the economy, hurting EV sales/investment. Oh, and probably at least half of all new EV infra funding is based on robust credit markets.

Where is that 10X coming from ? Americans drive 14,109,317,259 km per day which would be 2821 GWh vs 11616 GWh total daily consumption. Considering you are charging mostly at night I have no clue where you are getting 10X from. For the price of COVID response you could've outfitted every US household with 20K solar setup a few times over.

> Where is that 10X coming from ?

He is lying like every other oil shill in this thread. I'm quite surprised how many of them always come out every time an EV or other clean energy related article is posted.

There's an interesting video from "Climate Town" explaining how these troll accounts work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOi05zDO4yw

>like every other oil shill in this thread.

I could likewise assume every pro-EV person is a member of a cult, or an Elon fanboy.

Let's not do that.

Oh please, show me the evidence how there's a cult/Elon paying people to post pro clean energy stuff.

Total vehicle miles on USA roads for 2019 was 3.26 trillion, or 5,246,461,440,000 km. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/185579/us-vehicle-miles-...) (https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10315)

That's 371 times more than your estimate.

Firstly, there is significantly less green energy available at night, when everything is supposed to be charging. The DoE wants 45% of all energy to be generated from solar. Add to that cloudy days, time of year, etc, and solar will need to be supplanted by lots of other energy sources. We need more capacity even if we don't use it all at once. (And don't count on those other sources being steady: winds vary, geothermal isn't very efficient, hydropower varies with climate) There is talk of rolling out more pumped hydro, but it isn't feasible everywhere, and it's not apparent if enough can be provided to cover extended lulls in green energy.

Second, passenger cars are just one part of the market, another huge part is trucking and fleets (as the road-miles estimate shows). There are several metric shit-tons of money to be made converting trucks to EV. All those trucks are gonna need a lot of power, distributed all over the country.

Third, as more coal/gas/non-renewable energy markets spin down, we need new green energy markets to cover lost capacity. That's not just "energy going over the wires", it's land, new construction, new interconnects, depots, etc.

Fourth, the capacity has to be increased sort of everywhere, to effectively replace gas stations in addition to providing more capacity in dense housing arrangements (40% of Americans live in apartments). This means more power runs to more places - not just gas stations/depots, but also throughout urban and residential areas. Gas and diesel today can be transported, but all that transportation needs to be supplanted with both storage and transmission of energy; imagine every gas station and apartment building having additional power run to it and more chargers.

At peak, to replace ICE with EV for all markets, we will need closer to 10GWh, just for the transportation segment being replaced. I don't think anyone has really explained to the public how big this thing is going to be.

Edit: sorry, I didn't see you specified per day, my bad. I'll see if I can find more concrete numbers for my claims; it does seem like my estimate is much higher than expected.

Your comment reads like market dynamics and incentives, general corporate capacity and human ingenuity don't exist.

> Volvo cars CEO Jim Rowan boldly proclaims that electric vehicles will reach price parity with internal-combustion-engine (ICE) vehicles by 2025. Not likely, counter Mercedes-Benz’s chief technology officer Markus Schäfer and Renault Group CEO Luca de Meo.

"If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong." — Arthur C. Clarke

Maybe all of them are right for their own companies.

"Anyone" already knows the EV transition isn't that easy. It is basically only lobbyists, politicians and journalists who seem to life in a world divorced from reality. Esp. journalists, who are fighting on the forefront of peope-manipulation. Journalism seems to be dominated by wishful thinking and political dogfights. Gone are the days when a journalist actually reported about what is going on, not what they would like to see.....

I'm shopping for a car now. I want to buy an EV in principle, but there aren't any specific EVs I want to buy. I'm a highly motivated buyer, completely sold on the benefits, but there just isn't anything that meets my requirements. So for all intents and purposes I'm tallied in the same column as someone who thinks EVs will destroy the power grid and ruin the auto industry.

Outside of range… what requirements are you not able to fill? There are a ton of vehicles in the US now at a variety of price points and trim levels. I am honestly curious what you are looking for that you can’t find

I'm not the parent, but feel the same way. My requirements are basically a minivan (lots of space for family + cargo and definitely appreciate the sliding doors), all-wheel drive, and costs under $50K. I'm not in any rush to buy a new car though, so hopefully by the time I am looking for my next car there will be some EV options available. The VW ID Buzz looks interesting, but not available in our market and I'm skeptical that the three-row, AWD version will priced under $50k if/when it is released here.

On the other end of the spectrum we have an ultra-compact "kei" car that cost under $20,000, also AWD. Nissan has released the Sakura EV which gets close on price (after incentives), but still no AWD option. We will probably be replacing this car soon, and sadly it doesn't look we will be replacing it with an EV. But at 47 mpg for a standard ICE engine, and we also don't put that many miles on it, I also don't feel too guilty about it.

We have similar requirements but compromised on different criteria:

- Active family of 4 that likes to go on road trips. Need to be able to haul bikes, gear, etc. - AWD required for the occasional ice/snow on the hill I live on - Cost <=$125K. <=$100K preferred - EV

Except that I absolutely refused to compromise on the "EV" part after driving a Model 3 for a few years.

Would have loved a electric minivan if one existed. We evaluated Model Y, Model X, Rivian S. Ended up going with a 7 seater Y with a tow hitch. It has been great but a little cramped with 2 car seats, and the third row is unusable for tall people (all the adults in the extended family are tall).

I have a preorder for a cybertruck which may be nearly perfect. Huge cargo, fits 6 people. Ridiculous range if that hasn't changed from announcement specs.

My biggest requirements are around dimensions: I need it to fit in my narrow garage, and I need it to have a certain amount of ground clearance. I also need 4WD or AWD just to get off my property in the winter. Price is also a factor, up to a point.

I still haven't quite figured out how all the people that street park because they don't have driveways or garages or even a place directly out front of their house are supposed to use EVs. Cities are not building the infrastructure to support that at all.

New apartment buildings are adding EV spaces, but on-street parkers either have to find a charger and take time, or regularly park somewhere with a charger (like at work). The city could start adding chargers pretty easily at like street lamps, but haven't seen any indication of that so far. I've found that the big city is not particularly friendly for either gas or electric if you don't have a fixed place to park, the chargers are generally slow and Tesla has great coverage outside the city (at least where I've been), but poor support inside the city. There is going to have to be some infrastructure upgrade at some point.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33418206 depicted a public charger for street parking. We’re going to need millions of those, but I haven’t seen any yet.

EV spaces... But realistically you want EV charging on every spot and reasonably infra and cabling to support some fraction of them working at same time.

Shuffling your car around and waiting for shared facility possibly misused just doesn't seem like good fun to me.

The places I looked at had some EV dedicated parking spaces and then shared EV charging. Just like gas cars you don't need to charge every day, they will probably add more chargers as more people get EV cars.

But yeah, it is pretty inconvenient for a lot of people at the moment, I have a home charger in my garage, but traveling to a city is more challenging. Range has been no problem, super chargers are fast, but then you have to find a charger in a garage or something where it usually charges money to park and if it's not a Tesla charger usually doesn't charge very fast, it gets expensive quickly. Reminder we are constantly moving in the 'better EV support' direction, whereas I have seen a gas station removed recently and a neighborhood protest about building a new one.

On the other hand, I have now stayed at hotels where the valet tops off the car, so I didn't even have to stop to charge at all on trips < max range.

There are alternatives to cobalt, nickel, manganese and even lithium in batteries. There are a lot of articles being written how EV:s are not possible because they require so much materials and often mention cobalt and nickel.

A Tesla Model 3 version that has been available to buy for a long time already has LFP batteries don't contain cobalt, nickel or manganese [1]

Hence, are the articles actually worth it if they don't acknowledge this?

1: https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/a-closer-look-at-lithi...

If they real purpose of both manufactures and consumers of EVs was to combate climate change, then a much easier, cheaper, and better solution would be for everyone to discourage driving and promote public transportation and telecommuting. That would not only reduce emissions much more effectively, but the money saved in maintaining expensive and unnecessary infrastructure like thousands of miles of highways and bridges could be invested in maintaining and expanding public transportation and in bringing, fast, reliable and inexpensive internet access to every household so more people can telecommute to work/school. But cars look nice and they are fun to drive.

Exactly.

Electrification of single-occupancy vehicles – which, let's face it, is what the overwhelming majority of the EV business is really about – is not ecological. When you take into account environmental stress in general[0], and don't tunnel vision just on CO2[1], it should be immediately obvious to everyone that stopping the climate and ecological breakdown needs much more imagination than just replacing a car with another car.

[0] https://goodlife.leeds.ac.uk/national-trends/country-trends/...

[1] https://www.insnet.org/carbon-tunnel-vision-or-inter-connect...

I'm betting many of the policymakers understand as much about EVs, the power grid, and global supply chains, as they do about TikTok.

They have to deal with the metal/battery recycling problem otherwise they have to make a fleet of batteries every n years and deal with staggering landfills. Uneven distribution of raw materials in such a case will cause tensions.

Compared to the externalities of fossil fuels I suspect these challenges are easier to solve.

Whether or not they're easier to solve, we haven't spent that much time trying to solve them yet.

Compare that to fossil fuels, which have had billions of dollars of research poured into them. We know what the cheapest forms of harm reduction are for fossil fuels, and they're not cheap enough even for the budgets of multiple nations.

Lots of players are active in the battery recycling space. Tesla’s former CTO, J. B. Straubel, departed to start redwood materials in 2017 as one example. Until recently it has not been much of a problem. I suspect hybrids will be the interim solutions until we get to scale with battery recycling.

Is not just cars. Consider the disposable vaping pen. Those things need to be banned.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the units here, a Tesla Model 3 has a battery that holds 230 Ah, whereas a vape pen is closer to 280 mAh. So each electric car is going to have somewhere in range of 1,000 disposable vape pens.

That doesn't change the fact that disposable vape pens should be banned, but it's an interesting data point in the recycling discussion.

They will probably be the interim solution until the charger and power networks are up and going. Some of us have longer-haul driving in our repertoire, and carrying a charger beats the wait for (limited) charging stations. Or, perhaps, when the people we visit lack charging.

It's also (still) bloody hard to carry a bucket of electrons to get a stuck car going - we'll need portable power units to clear, say, highway mass fender-benders.

Yes, but it's a matter of making them more than anything else. The F150 can charge other vehicles:

https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2021...

Throw a bus battery or a generator on a trailer and as long as the vehicles aren't too damaged to operate you can make quick enough progress clearing things out.

Depends what you mean by "easier to solve." It's certainly not easier than not solving the externalities of fossil fuels, which is what we're currently doing. If we somehow mandated that fossil fuel externalities were solved (internalized), then perhaps we would find that solving the externalities of alternative energy sources would indeed by easier/cheaper.

You're probably right, but that ship has long sailed, I fear. In order to solve for the externalities you've got to get broad buy-in, and people are already hesitant to spend money on a small device that captures participates and emissions at the source, to say nothing of a carbon-tax. So you're stuck with a political problem.

On the other hand there is already a market for recycling of metals and batteries. So you've basically avoided the political problem entirely buy just telling people "you'll get X dollars back when you recycle your car's battery". Just practically speaking, a person has got to do something with their old battery, might as well get a few bucks.

> It's certainly not easier than not solving the externalities of fossil fuels

Sorry if I was imprecise. I meant dealing with the externalities of fossil fuels, even if 'dealing' turns out to be "change nothing and see what happens".

The point is that one of the externalities of EV materials production is CO2 emissions. Mining and processing the materials is incredibly fossil fuel intensive. By the time you have enough materials for a meaningful percentage of the world driving with EVs our CO2 footprint will be significantly worse than if we had focused on hybrid vehicles with small batteries.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. A fossil fuel vehicle too takes a lot of non-renewables to get it ready to drive. Yet it also needs even more to keep it moving. And changing all their motors to electric is more work than replacing fewer power plants.

You’ve got the perfect wrong. The good is plug-in hybrid with 40 miles range and 1/8th the battery. 8 built for every electric car. Solves 90% of personal transportation needs with electric alone. The fox on full electric is criminal imho.

It will be a large problem 20 years later ... in 2043 But there is already companies that do it now, used batteries are basically very high grade ore, well worth to recycle. But there is also a good change that we will have better chemistry in the next 20 years.

I think it’s a net positive, with for sure some challenges along the way, meanwhile gas cars still work and will for a long time.

Assuming that everyone in the world got an EV with a 100 ft^3 battery pack, and every 5 years that battery pack was replaced with a new battery pack and the old one was sent to a landfill, and that peak population will be 10 billion people, 72 battery landfills that are 20 miles x 20 miles x 50 feet deep would be enough to last 200 years.

We will need to eventually figured out something better than disposing of batteries in landfills, but we have a long long time to figure that out.

Many batteries will be reused before being recycled. After their useful life for transportation they still have most of their charge capacity, so they can be used for grid storage.

This is handy because it will allow used EVs to retain more value than otherwise.

Battery recycling is already ramping up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jim1nksFKTI

We can recycle EV batteries up top 95% efficiency _today_.

And very very few of those even get recycled, because there's a huge 3rd party aftermarket for "expired" EV batteries.

There's also a whole industry of people who fix individual cells inside bigger batteries when the official instruction is to scrap it and get a new one for $$$$.

What are the byproducts of the recycling? We can recycle gold-alloys 100% but there are cyano-compounds in the river after that.

The tech is so new that most companies are pretty quiet on their actual methodology and what percentages they can recover. Competitive advantage and all.

Reuse/refurbishing will still be the biggest use for EV batteries for the 2020's in my opinion.

I wish there is a dumb car with an ev powertrain and nothing else. No screen, telemetry, autopilot nothing.

You're exactly describing the base model Nissan Leaf before the 2018 models. And base models of the 2018 and later Leaf are still relatively spartan.

The current crop of electric motorcycles are like that.

I think it's bizarre to make the claim that EV users generally should be encouraged to charge during the day instead of night using the argument that California, at some times, has a surplus of solar energy it is unable to utilize.

There is no attempt to argue that any states other than California have a solar surplus, no cure for the rolling blackouts they do occur during the peak hours in California, or any analysis about how many electric cars would eliminate that California surplus.

It's such a niche of a niche perspective.. I'm pretty sure there's good reason why my utility provider sells me energy at $0.01 overnight and $0.17 during the day.

I can still remember when EVs were physically impossible, and then when they were possible but worse than ICE for the planet, then when they were only toys for rich playboys and on and on.

So I'm surprised by the headline claiming everyone thinks this is going to be super easy.

The big question is what sets him apart from all the naysayers saying many of the same things that he's apparently never noticed during his in depth investigation of the matter.

Policy makers who push towards EV adoption and the necessary infrastructure changes basically have to present it as somewhat easy to do, otherwise everybody will object with "it's too hard, let's not waste any money on it".

That doesn't mean they actually believe it's easy.

This also misses the point that EVs are cheaper over time. There is currently a slightly higher upfront cost, but there are no oil changes, less break wear due to regenerative breaking, no transmission to service, no spark plugs, no timing belt, no engine air filter, etc.

In my experience with an EV, all you need to do is rotate the tires and add window washer fluid. That's it!

One would say it was ill-thought.

Remote working is reducing the need for having any car, and its utilization. People who are eco-conscious may rather choose to refurb an old car they use sparingly rather than buy a few new tons of common and rare metals. And most cities in europe are ill-suited for cars that need regular charging. All this infrastructure was for 26% of CO2 (before remote work).

Cars have no place in a sustainable future.

Independently from their source of power, a society built on cars as the primary mean of transportation is unsustainable and will always be.

We don't need to invest trilions in transitioning fuel engines to EV. We need to invest them in rebuilding our cities and suburbs to be walkable and to minimize the need for travels.

I'm surprised nobody else echoes this argument, is the US really that car dependant?

I think micromobilty and improvements in transportation on demand would really reduce the need for car ownership.

Already in big cities with good public transport cars don't make much sense anymore, but I believe suburbs will follow.

Check out the excellent "Not Just Bikes" and "Strong Towns" YT channels to know how dependant we are on cars (spoiler: a lot, unless you live in exceptional places like the Netherlands) and to see how we are still in time to build a better future.

It's essentially impossible to upgrade existing residential neighborhoods to 200A service at every home. Nobody's going to pay for that infrastructure. This alone is going to limit the scale of adoption. Never mind the millions who will never have access to a dedicated charging station.

Our house has 100A service and we use a 30A car charger and have never popped our main breaker. On a hot day when the AC is likely to run, I'll hit the button on my car charger to delay charging to the middle of the night when we won't be running the electric dryer or stove.

You don’t even need 200 amp service for the 50 amp chargers that most EVs come with

Depends on what else is in your house.

What you need is enough headroom in your panel to pass inspection. That's generally more than you really "need" at any given time, but good luck convincing the inspector that you will be fine because you won't charge your EV and use your dryer at the same time.

Most homes were built with enough headroom to power all the appliances that were present when the home was built, and that may not be enough if you add a 50-amp car charger. This is often the case for older homes that had air conditioning installed at a later date -- there goes your headroom!

As a homeowner trying to own an EV this sucks, but as a home buyer this is good -- people should be able to have confidence that electrical systems can handle the load the appliances in the home are capable of drawing, and it's not unusual for people with families to do laundry, cook, and charge their cars at the same time.

You can get circuits to shut off or reduce the car charging until enough headroom is available to charge the car.

I've got a 125A panel and am just using L1 charging. I thought it was going to be an issue but it turns out I drive less than 40 miles a day so it isn't a big deal.

Just don't charge the car while your oven is on. No change in power needed: Problem solved.

I’ve been driving EV for quite a while, if you have your own garage it is a no Brainer because you essentially have a “pump” at home. It’s like you don’t go to a gas station to charge your phone. Charge at night, same here. It is just so much better overall with next to nothing maintenance.

The tinkerer in me loves to own a vehicle I can easily service myself. Electric vehicles, in their current form, can easily electrocute an amateur DIY mechanic to death.

I love older purely mechanical vehicles. Their simplicity means that I can fix most things with duct tape or a piece of metal wire.

I'll never get why PHEVs never caught on. They're no more complex than a hybrid and combine the best aspects of both ICE and BEV vehicles. They require no charging infrastructure, and need only a fraction the battery weight of a BEV.

> I'll never get why PHEVs never caught on.

I think they haven't caught on because at this point, most people who buy EVs have another gasoline-fueled car, or are pure EV enthusiasts. Plugin hybrids are great for 1 car households whose daily drives are within the battery range, but want easy refueling on long trips. But 1 car households are rare in the US. They are also more expensive than their non-plugin versions (at least they were before the IRA tax credits went into effect).

Most of combating climate change debates implicitly assume that reducing GHG emissions alone will stop or slow down significantly the climate change. I am afraid we already passed that point. At least in short term we should give a serious consideration to active climate engineering that working together with limiting GHG gives us a fighting change to restore the planetary climate to a set-point we are comfortable with. Unfortunately, most of debates are emotionally charged and single-mindedly focused. My hopes for a rational multi-prong approach to climate control are low.

>going to scale threatens people’s long-held beliefs, ways of life, and livelihoods, many of which will be altered, if not made obsolete.

This is the biggest challenge. You can't teach an old buyer new concepts without ramming it down their throat. The biggest transition hack will be training mechanics to become EV-focused. We have about 40 years of mechanic knowledge to churn before their knowledge retires with them. Eventually, fixing engines becomes cost prohibitive, and the roads will grow silent. Only then will the throat-ramming process be complete.

Someone enlighten me please.

I’ve been wondering why we don’t concentrate on sodium batteries instead of lithium for EVs. They’re heavier but is that really a problem?

Today’s cars are heavy as hell, there must be ways to make lighter vehicles that balance the weight of sodium, no?

The main barrier in EV adoption is the price difference, which, if I understand correctly comes mainly from the battery.

Take all the heavy/expensive crap out of modern cars, use sodium batteries instead of lithium and you have yourself a winner, right?

That all seems like obvious choices to me.

Where am I wrong?

> I’ve been wondering why we don’t concentrate on sodium batteries instead of lithium for EVs. They’re heavier but is that really a problem?

Sodium batteries suitable for EVs don't really exist yet.

> Today’s cars are heavy as hell, there must be ways to make lighter vehicles that balance the weight of sodium, no?

You can make them slower, smaller, and shorter range. You can add lightness with things like aluminum and composites, but those are rather expensive. No you really can't remove enough weight and maintain the same form factor and user experience.

Batteries have been consistently coming down in price. This is the one thing that capitalism is good at, I feel quite sure that batteries will continue to come down in price. There are still huge advances being made every day in the lab; wait 5 years or so and those upgrades will be in commercial production.

If a sodium chemistry can prove itself to be the best, it will be used. Research institutions and industry are trying multiple parallel tracks

Several Chinese manufacturers are introducing GWh scale sodium battery lines that should begin production this year or next. Some plan to use them in tandem with lithium batteries

Sodium-ion batteries still don't exist yet. And even if they do, they will be much lower energy density than li-ion. EVs will get heavier, not lighter.

Sodium-ion batteries are approaching lithium-ion battery density. Researchers think they can reach and surpass lithium battery density, but that seems unlikely.

Until that happens we should switch to sodium-ion batteries for stationary uses, such as in homes an businesses and leave the lithium-ion batteries for portable usage such as vehicles and portable electronics.

Not even close. At best something like LFP, but not the peak of li-ion.

Stationary systems do not call for conventional batteries. They would be something else entirely if we are serious about the problem.

And rightly so. The best car for the environment and for you and for the economy is the one you don't buy.

Subsidizing buying new cars is an incredibly misguided policy no matter what the new car is. The emissions an costs of production are nothing to scoff at unless you're an extremely heavy driver.

>given the sheer tonnage of lithium, cobalt, and other raw materials needed for EV batteries, that figure is overly optimistic, suggests the mineral market analysis company Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, unless nearly 300 new mines and supporting refineries open by then.

This is the real show stopper. We lack the supply chains necessary to replace all the cars with electric models. This simple fact should give rise to other questions about the practicality of mass conversion to electric vehicles.

---

As for me, if the supply chains got fixed. I've got the cheapest house in town, with 100 amp 240 volt service. Without spending 10% the cost of the house to get a bigger utility panel, the NEMA 6-50 240 volt / 50 amp breaker option seems barely doable, so in theory I could charge a car overnight at +30 miles range/hour.[1]

[1] https://www.tesla.com/support/home-charging-installation/mob...

This is why we should be focused on PHEVs, not BEVs. PHEVs use 1/10th the batteries, batteries cost 1/10th, take 1/10th the energy and time to charge, but provide electric driving for 90% of trips.

If we build 10 PHEVs with the batteries it would take to build one BEV, instead of saving 100% of one vehicle's fuel usage, we could build 10 PHEVs and save 10 x 90% = 900% fuel usage.

What is a phev?

BEV = Battery Electric Vehicle (eg. Chevy Bolt)

HEV = Hybrid Electric Vehicle (eg. Toyota Prius)

PHEV = Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (eg. Toyota Prius Prime)

ICEV = Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle (eg. Ford Model T)

It's actually very easy. As soon as electric cars are better for the customer, people will automatically start buying them. As soon as that happens, manufacturers will ramp up production to meet demand. Transition over.

I for one can't wait for the new 2024 Mini EV. With double the range of the current model and on a dedicated EV platform it'll be the perfect little car.

I can't be bothered with an SUV as a single person.

The fear of collapsing the energy grid is why I think it would be a good idea to put solar cells on electric cars, even though that's not a great place to put solar panels if all else was equal.

You're going to get like 5 miles a day in best case scenario

5-10 for normal sized cars, yes.

I hear the average miles driven is only about 12 per day, so it's still significant.

Or it would be if people didn't generally prefer to park in shade on sunny days.

But as cars are a big energy sink, even 1 mile/day is still potentially very useful.

The Aptera can get up to 40 miles per day from its built-in solar panels in California sunshine. A lot less in London, England. It can get that much because it's twice as efficient as a Tesla Model 3.

Aptera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpiH-Y-HOvE

I think if the batteries will be too big of an issue then we will end up going hydrogen for cheap cars and battery ev for more expensive vehicles for people who drive a lot.

The only transition that matters is to mass transit. I transitioned away from a car by moving into a dense urban environment. Best car I ever owned was the nonexistent one.

Best car I own is my own feet. And my second preferred mode is public transport.

Wow, I didn't expect this many oil shills in this thread.

Articles like this are music to a Tesla exec's ears. :)

555 comments and nobody pointed out that cars are unsustainable anyways. The world desperately needs to move towards public transportation now.

> The EV transition is harder..

I drove exclusively pure electric (bmw i3) for 7+ years and it was far easier a transition than i ever imagined. Like 10x easier.

These titles with such FUD assertions prioritize drama and attention seeking over facts from years of data.

edit: these articles overlook that a huge percentage of daily around town driving recharges easily on the existing grid at 110v, but the articles tend to presume everyone need charge a depleted long range battery, daily, which is patently false.

You seem to be speaking to your personal experience of transitioning to an EV, whereas the article is concerned with the scale of changes needed to transition the entire automotive industry to EVs in the 15 year timeframe that policymakers are targetting.

Yes, and thank you, because I should add (should have added) that i charged at 110 volts and the power draw is negligible on the grid, for most days. the interesting and oft overlooked reality is that EV use, and charging on the existing grid, is beyond adequate for a huge percentage of daily driver purposes.

It's not so much hard as it is just not easy and society has lost the will to do things that are not easy.

The chart is so completely confusing, i totally can't read it however much i try... They could do better.

I can’t imagine relying on an EV in a wide scale emergency. Maybe as a secondary car.

My model 3 lease is up next year aand I'm getting a Ford Ranger next.

No shit! It's as hard as many have repeatedly said, it's only the techno-optimist crowd that got it wrong. It ain't gonna happen in any of the promised "deadlines" by EU and others. And if there's a prolonged recession all bets are off.

And in case it's not obvious already, same goes for all the "Mars mission" targets by Musk and others (regarding, "SpaceX's 1st crewed Mars mission could launch as early as 2024, Elon Musk says").

Of course nothing will happen (even at 2026, 2029 dates, beyond this "as early as" date), those are PR announcements.

But if somebody said than in HN a few years ago at the height of the Musk-hype they'd be laughed off.

the transition to gasoline was hard too but it was forced through as a way for Pacific/Standard Oil to make a killing (of people who's land they were digging up)

Its because EVs are HIGH cost with LOW range.

Also, EV minivan club, party of 1

The article mentions an ebook. Anyone has a link?

It's pretty easy to game the system in terms of an EV. Get the credit for the EV, install a fossil fuel charger/range extender in the back and you have a hybrid that can do range and charges on fossil fuels. It's not as green but it is isn't as disruptive to the system.

Does any of that exist? Sure you could put a generator in your trunk but without making structural changes to the car that wouldn't really work.

This is essentially what the Chevy Volt was. It ran as an EV until the battery ran out and then the engine kicked on to keep the battery charged.

But presumably what parent was implying is that you could get a pure EV (I'm assuming here it needs to be an EV, not a plug-in hybrid or a hybrid to get the subsidy) and add a generator to it.

Yes, I understood that.

The fact that this is rare indicates it's not a good value.

It's all a scam. None of it lines up with touted aims.

The cost in so called green house gases to mine, refine and transport the materials will far dwarf whatever is saved of 7% or so of CO2 that comes from personal transport (including buses). And on top of that electricity generation is likely to be coming from hydro carbons of one form or another anyway.

This is all to impoverish the many to enrich a few. Be under no illusion this process has been repeated ad infinitum through out our history. All systems of control are thoroughly captured and you'll walk willingly towards it as many continue to listen to these worm tongues.

The materials need to be mined and refined _once_. Then they're in the reuse/recycle -loop forever.

Oil we pump out of the ground (mine), refine and transport in a constant stream and then we literally burn it into dust. GOTO10.

More people have been "impoverished" by oil spill damage than ever will be because of battery mineral mining or electricity generation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com