Hacker News Reader

Comment by loudmax | Hacker News Reader

A point of anecdata: my 2010 Prius has nearly 200,000 miles on it and it's still going strong.

The Prius has a traditional lead acid battery for starting the engine that's been replaced a couple of times. The traction batteries (the ones that help push the car forward and are charged from regenerative braking) are the originals.

View on HN

The Priuses have a 12v AGM lead acid battery (about the size of a small motorcycle battery) to power the computers when you hit the power button. They don't have a starter. Instead, the 200v NiMH traction battery spins up the CVT, which spins the engine's crank shaft and to start it they simply apply spark to the plugs. The Prius Prime has the above batteries plus a separate Li-ion battery that can be charged overnight from an outlet at 120v or 240v.

I know two people who have had battery degradation in their Priuses, but in their case it was just 1 or 2 cells that crapped out, not the whole battery. They were able to fix it themselves, which sounded like the sort of thing that isn't too hard if you're moderately handy

Yes, I replaced one bad cell in my 2006 Prius. I got the cell on eBay for $20 and it took a few hours to remove the traction battery, replace the cell and put the traction battery back in. Add an hour if you clean the copper battery connectors. The battery has worked fine now for 10 months. Now my biggest problem is body rust.

2010 Prius traction batteries are NiMH whereas most EV batteries are Li Ion I believe.

Which might make a difference or might not, I don't know

Reminder that Chevron bought some key NiMH patents and used their ownership of those patents to prevent building batteries for cars.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_...

If those patents hadn't been, or had they been shorter lived, or if antitrust law was more robust, we might have seen a lot more investment in optimizations on and variations of the NiMH chemistry.

What a fascinating world I'll never live in.

I guess part of the reason is that the "M" in "NiMH" stands for Lanthanum - a rare earth element which happens to be used in catalysts facilitating oil refinement.

Of course catalysts are consumed slowly, but you still don't want any disturbances in the supply of a key element.

Toyota bet the farm on mature hybrid and ICE tech and got dismissed as some legacy boomer company for doing so.

Time will tell but I'm willing to bet they were right.

Dismissed by whom? They're the biggest automaker and until recently their lifetime shipments of batteries in cars had been larger than Tesla's.

By those living in the delusion that the US will be 100% EV production in the next few years when the charging infrastructure is woefully inadequate. No one is questioning EV drivetrains but there are very real logistical and electrical supply issues that are being ignored.

California can barely keep the lights on as it is. This doesn't even scratch the surface that most are not the privileged few with at-home charging.

Yes ICE seems to still be a requirement for not very well developed countries.

Nobody thinks EVs will replace 100% of vehicles in the next few years. This is the premise I constantly hear from people trying to argue that the power infrastructure isn't ready. EV ownership, charging availability, and per infrastructure are all growing slowly and in tandem and there's no reason to expect otherwise.

Nobody does, except some people. The belief that EVs will promptly replace the entire fleet is implicit in the claim that EVs can solve short-term greenhouse gas emissions goals by 2030, 2035 or 2040. Such claims are often used to naysay pedestrian, bicycle and transit projects that have a higher likelihood of achieving those greenhouse gas emissions goals. Obviously the belief is ridiculous because even if EVs were 100% of fleet sales today, they would not be 100% of the fleet on the road for a long time. And in America they are not remotely close to 100% of sales.

Are you sure you didn’t exaggerate? Any examples of those who believe EV will be 100% sales, or that EV can solve greenhouse gas emission goals in the next 15 years?

I’ve never heard of that, and even in countries like Norway where new car sales are predominantly EVs, it will be a long time until it can replace the entire fleet.

I am sure there are loads of people in America who say we don't need to do [thing] because EVs are coming. I don't press these people on their arithmetic because they aren't arguing in good faith, they just hate [thing].

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com