Hacker News Reader

Comment by jandrewrogers | Hacker News Reader

That point is so far in the future that I don’t need to consider it. The US is not going to abandon their massive agricultural infrastructure because EVs. As long as significant parts of the US are not readily navigable by EVs 12 months out of the year, and that looks to remain the case for quite some time, there will be plenty of petrol.

I am sure that in 2050 the EVs will be far superior to what we have today. But then again, so will AI etc and most of these discussions may be moot.

I don’t understand what people expect to gain by antagonizing people that cannot drive an EV. It trains them to ignore or oppose the same people on useful climate mitigations that have nothing to do with EVs.

View on HN

> I don’t understand what people expect to gain by antagonizing people that cannot drive an EV

it's because the people who do this are actually expecting those who cannot drive EVs to sacrifice, in order to drive an agenda (which might be climate change for example).

> drive an agenda (which might be climate change for example).

Calling climate change an agenda is like calling gravity a political position. If you don’t believe in climate change, there is no value in a discussion. If you’re driving a studio apartment on wheels around town, some sacrifice might be required. The future is unlikely to look like the past.

“About a quarter of Americans (23%) think they’ll have to make major sacrifices in their everyday lives because of climate change. A larger share (48%) expects to make minor sacrifices because of climate impacts and 28% of Americans expect to make no sacrifices at all.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehic...

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-clima...

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/25/1208016669/heres-how-american...

> If you don’t believe in climate change, there is no value in a discussion.

it's not the belief that's in question. It's the actions required.

I, and many others (whether they admit it or not), do not wish to make personal sacrifices to fix climate change, if others are not willing to make the same level of sacrifices (such that relative positioning within society does not change).

This is a fundamental dynamic of human behaviour. To deny this is detrimental to the goal of reducing climate change and improving the environment we live in.

This is why i think we need global policy changes and regulation to achieve the commonly beneficial goals.

If we wish our species to survive long-term we might need to educate ourselves so that we behave in less selfish ways. I don’t live in Florida, but I am doing my part in saving it (I love my friends who live there).

That is naive. Humans are selfish, we need to accept this and adapt our poicies accordingly - as we have historically.

We can give up, of course, and always assume the worst out of everyone, including us, or we can use whatever tools are within reach to, at least, try to make better humans.

While I agree we aren't the nicest species of primate (that title goes to our cousins, the Bonobos), I also believe a lot of our nastiness can be attributed to nurture rather than nature.

My point is that as individuals we are not OK with making individual sacrifices if the neighbour does not have to. If everyone makes the same sacrifice we are OK with it, see GP's point.

My feeling is that any individual is OK with sacrifice as long as they are not unfairly disadvantaged relavitely to their society/neighbours.

For example: i would not be willing to pay more income tax unless this applied for everyone; even if i wanted higher income taxes.

What you say is that most people are uncomfortable to lead by example. I still think it's nurture, rather than nature, that makes us like that.

Americans would say, if offered the choice between losing Florida to the sea or cheaper gas prices, "so what's the downside?"

I would totally understand if Floridians got really mad at the people who are unwilling to change their lightbulbs to LED ones in order to save their land.

A good couple Americans living in coastal areas might end up sacrificing living in coastal areas because of climate change. Others who are subject to increasingly frequent extreme weather events might end up sacrificing their current homes in favor of underground bunkers.

The world is changing fast and the Earth does not wait for its population to be ready.

> "it's because the people who do this are actually expecting those who cannot drive EVs to sacrifice, in order to drive an agenda"

There's plenty of good reasons to drive an EV even if you don't care about climate change or the environment. Lower running costs, less maintenance, better reliability, better performance, quieter smoother driving experience, etc.

Besides that, there are significant wider economic benefits from domestically-sourced fuel: money spent on electricity returns to the local economy rather than enriching (often foreign) oil giants, and electricity is much more resilient against fuel price fluctuations caused by wars and oil shocks etc.

So far in the future that you don't need to consider it?

We're already well into the EV adoption S-curve, globally. I think it's worth considering.

Also, I assume by year-round navigability you're referring to snow. I'd point out that Norway has 80% EV adoption, and is covered in snow 6 months out of the year.

[0] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F4dwzC2WEAAvpxd?format=jpg&name=...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37966767 (“HN: Cratering motor fuel sales in Norway show the death spiral that can end oil”)

https://electrek.co/2023/10/20/cratering-motor-fuel-sales-in...

Iceland has 41% EV adoption, and I'm pretty sure they have more snow than anywhere in the US (perhaps only comparable to Alaska).

Iceland is small. It is smaller than the vast majority of US States. The farthest distances you can travel in Iceland requires not much more than a single charge.

https://supercharge.info/map

Every major automaker except Stellantis has made an agreement to obtain access to the North American Supercharger network, and there are few coverage gaps evidenced by the map provided above. On highway routes, you’re never more than 30-50 miles to the next Supercharger. Tesla’s standard has been developed by SAE (SAE J3400). Gaps will be filled and density will increase as the EV transition accelerates. Electricity is mostly ubiquitous in the developed world, anywhere with electrical service is a potential charging point (albeit at slower charge rates than 150kw-350kw).

https://cleantechnica.com/2024/01/01/sae-develops-nacs-j3400...

Wyoming refused the terms for federal funds for fast DC charging stations. You cannot help those who won’t accept help, getting left behind is a choice.

https://www.eenews.net/articles/why-wyoming-wont-build-biden...

The US is massive. That supercharger map shows vast regions of the US with almost no superchargers and entire long-haul highway systems with none at all. And some of these are highways I travel on. If you actually know the highway system in the US, that supercharger network map is a joke. Maybe in another decade it will be something close to having decent coverage but that map is stark evidence of its deficiency for many people.

Sure, there are a lot of superchargers on many parts of the coast. They have always been available where I live and I have a Tesla charger in my home. But the US is a continent sized country. Pretending the inconvenient parts don’t exist doesn’t make them go away.

I am always astonished at how dismissive some people are at the practical concerns of Americans that don’t solely live in an insular coastal metro. It isn’t a good look and needlessly invites resentment.

The problem is you’re arguing today and I’m arguing the next ten years. The Supercharger network has grown wildly since I bought my S in 2018 (and have driven it cross country over the last six years, mostly on Superchargers), and as long as it keeps up with EV uptake, that is good enough. It does not need to be perfect, and someone will always find a complaint. Sell to people who will buy, ignore people who will find excuses not to.

As long as Tesla can sell every vehicle they build and continue to drag legacy automakers to an EV future, individual opinions of the network are of low value. It was of enough value for major automakers to know they couldn’t succeed without it.

In ten years, I might not disagree. Today, there are many parts of the US where many people would be idiots to buy an EV. Many people would be fine with EVs today, but that probably isn’t the case for a large percentage of Americans.

Sure, is there anyone forcing them to buy EV if it does not fit their need?

Most people in Manhattan would not need a car at all.

Most people in LA would should be much better off driving an EV.

And those who live in places where an EV is not sensible or even feasible do their thing.

Why do you need to fight against adoption?

The size of the US has no bearing on how far your car needs to travel before being refueled.

Europe is large. And.

If you don't want to drive an EV, fine. You want a drive an Audi 700 miles a day. You do you. 99% of America doesn't do that.

> You cannot help those who won’t accept help, getting left behind is a choice.

It’s a bit like antivaxxer parents: it’s their decision, but it puts all other kids at school at risk, especially those who can’t take vaccines for valid medical reasons.

It’s their decision, but the whole planet bears the consequences.

Yea nope. Iceland does not have roads passable through the center of the island in the winter.

There was one occasion when the ring road was closed because of extreme wind in one spot.

The only way of getting to our destination 50km away would have been the full round of about 2000km.

In the population centers at the coast tho the temperature does not go much below freezing during the year but also rarely rises much above +15C.

An interesting place to visit.

According to every source on the Internet, circumnavigating Iceland appears to be ~1300 kilometers. It would require impressive detours to make that 2000 kilometers.

Like I said, it is smaller than almost all US States. Iceland isn’t that large.

Fine 1300 instead of 2000. That is still an impressive detour for a road closure of any kind, no?

There is an extreme cold weather at the moment. This week I’ve taken 200km+ trips in a Model 3 in -20C weather and snow/ice. Besides needing to charge a little more it has been an unremarkable experience.

The convenience of being able to heat up the car before stepping out has been priceless though. I know some ICE cars have it but it’s pretty rare.

I don't believe you can heat an ICE in the garage prior to departure.

> I don’t understand what people expect to gain by antagonizing people that cannot drive an EV. It trains them to ignore or oppose

It is because people say weird things like...

> As long as significant parts of the US are not readily navigable by EVs 12 months out of the year, and that looks to remain the case for quite some time

Words like "significant" and "quite some time" are undefined here, but there are really quite few places that aren't navigable now. And even in the remaining ones, there's no reason that it has to stay that way more than a few years.

> As long as significant parts of the US are not readily navigable by EVs 12 months out of the year

While a BEV may not be on the cards for them, a PHEV running on biodiesel can be a perfect way to both cut emissions and fulfil their daily requirements. Even just plain biodiesel can be enormously helpful in farming and remote locations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com