Hacker News Reader

Comment by snowwrestler | Hacker News Reader

That article seemed filled with anxiety to me.

I don't think anything will eliminate range anxiety other than time. As more people get electric cars and start to build their lives around them, their acquaintances will start to see it as more normal.

It's almost like the very early days of the automobile, when each driver had to carry a ton of extra gas, since fill stations were few and far between. Like any bootstrap, it took a long time to create the virtuous cycle that mutually reinforces the value of the customers and the infrastructure. Electric cars will need to go through the same thing.

The other big issue is the time to refill. 30 minute quick charge is incredibly fast for electricity, but still incredibly slow compared to filling a gas car.

View on HN

What I don't understand is why don't they put a small 20 kW 500 cc one cylinder generator in cars, at the same time they could reduce the battery size quite a lot and still most trips could be made purely electrically. Cost would be a lot lower as well.

The average power needed for driving is very low, only 10-20 kW and the battery handles the peaks like when you need to climb a hill or overtake. For example in this article they used 78.2 kWh in 5 h, meaning average 16 kW. The small generator could be called a spare energy source.

Instead, all plugin hybrids have big expensive heavy four cylinder engines which defeats the whole point of building a hybrid in the first place. For example 1.4 liters in the Chevrolet Volt / Opel Ampera.

And then Tesla has no high energy density backup source which again limits the usability of that car (and forces you to keep another car). And raises anxiety...

What you just described is basically the system in the Fisker Karma: http://onward.fiskerautomotive.com/en-us/karma/overview/

Nope, the Karma has a big four cylinder engine too, two liters of displacement.

"why don't they" -> Remembers me of a recent HN discussion ;)

But... Actually you are not far from something. This is actually an approach from Audi: http://green.autoblog.com/2010/03/01/geneva-preview-audi-a1-... From what I read though this approach was not approved in the mother company, VW. Let's see who wins at the end.

That's very interesting, what Audi was planning! The Wankel engines are quite expensive though.

>The other big issue is the time to refill

I think that will end up requiring both a social tweak and an infrastructure one. Once people are comfortable with the concept of an electric car, it will be only natural to start requesting (and the necessary civil authorities adding) charging ports in standard parking areas.

Imagine in NYC, a parking meter that also has a charging plug for the car. Raise the meter's rate just a bit and you can cover both the electricity and install costs.

Also: I'd be far more inclined to pay for a bit of electricity; rather than just paying for the privilege of leaving my box of steel in between two white lines.

I'd love to see something along the lines of Intel's Wireless Resonant Energy Link[1] used in conjunction with EV's so that the idea of "plugging them in" can be all but eliminated.

If you didn't even have to plug it in, just drive it to work, park it, drive it home, park it and it could charge automagically in both parking spots - its much more convenient than petroleum and would potentially be a big plus FOR getting an EV.

1 - http://software.intel.com/en-us/videos/channel/general/wirel...

>its much more convenient than petroleum and would potentially be a big plus FOR getting an EV.

Plugging in at home is already more convenient than petroleum.

It seems like using 40% more energy to charge your car is an inefficient way to avoid plugging in. Project Better Place is already working on robotic plugs that plug themselves in.

For commuting that would work fine. The issue, at least in the U.S., is the trip to Grandma's house or family vacation--which might involve driving more than 4-5 hours with kids in the car, to more rural destinations. Gas stations are fewer and far between, and the driver typically wants to get filled up and out of there ASAP.

So rent a gasoline powered car for the one a year family vacation. The other 358 days of the year you will be saving money and time.

I can't imagine NYC, but we already have some in SF: http://216.119.104.145/index.aspx?page=516 (yeah, I don't know what's up with the address--this is how it showed up in Google).

I'm not sure if you have to pay for it, but I've certainly seen people use them.

Agreed this is a big problem. If you could pull in, swap batteries, and be back on the road in 5 minutes, that is short enough that range isn't so much an issue. Having to wait for half an hour or more while the car charges is a very painful thing.

Perhaps self-driving cars are a solution: if the self-driving EV you're in runs out of power, you just jump out and grab another one. The transportation company worries about charging it.

I've driven more than 200 miles in a trip once in the past year. In that same amount of time I've spent upwards of 10 hours at gas stations filling up once a week, and another 2-3 hours getting oil changes because I don't have time to do it myself anymore.

Spending an extra hour per year at a Tesla SuperCharger represents a huge time-saver for me, and likely for the vast majority of folks who are complaining about it.

Quite, it's was filled to the brim with anxiety.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com