Hacker News Reader

Comment by SV_BubbleTime | Hacker News Reader

Wow.

Well, I like that the people that think like this also probably live I places where you are actually driving a coal powered car.

Like the clowns in Hawaii that have extra subsidies for EVs… their power comes directly from burning crude oil.

I’m an automotive EE, and and the truth about EVs is in a rush to push them out the door, the media and politicians have set the tech back at least a decade by pretending it is something it’s not.

EVs for most people outside of California. Make a great town vehicle or second vehicle.

A ban on ICE… wow.

View on HN

While I think there is some merit to what you're saying, you're forgetting two major diferences between driving am ICE car and an EV charged on fossil fuel electricity.

First, EV engines are far, far more energy efficient than ICEs. Secondly, fossil fuel power plants are far more efficient at converting fossil fuels to energy than ICEs are (since the energy efficiency of a thermal engine is proportional to its volume).

The result is that the EV car mileage you'll get by burning 1t of oil in an oil power plant is much, much higher than the mileage you'll get from that same 1t of oil in ICE cars. I'm not 100% sure if this holds true for coal based power plants, but those should be getting relatively rarer.

Not to mention, fossil fuel power plants can have much better filters and some CO2/CH4 capture technologies, so the mileage you get per ton of greenhouse gas emissions is even better than the energy per ton of fossil fuels.

I'll add that Hawaii currently generates 20%+ of their electricity from non-fossil fuels. Plus they are actively reducing fossil generation with a view to removing it completely.

Changes on this scale take time. But to make the islands much less dependent on fossil fuels, a two-pronged strategy is in play. Reduce fossil fuel generation, but also reduce the dependence on fossil fuel in transport.

As a long-term strategy, reducing the cost of importing all that fuel, over vast distances, seems to be a huge win for the islands. In every way (politically, economically, socially, environmentally) generating their own energy is a win.

Yes. Only 80% crude oil they pull a tanker up, fuel the plant directly on the tanker and roll another one right in.

Literally the most unrefined and dirty way to create power, as long as the tourists don’t see it, and the EV owners that think they’re making a different don’t know, g2g.

The choice is between EVs (20% green + 80% oil with extreme energy efficiency, pollution concentrated in industrial zone) vs ICEs (100% oil, extremely energy inefficient, pollution directly where people live).

Seems a pretty simple choice from my point of view.

> Well, I like that the people that think like this also probably live I places where you are actually driving a coal powered car.

That's still an improvement for both global and local emissions.

> Like the clowns in Hawaii that have extra subsidies for EVs… their power comes directly from burning crude oil.

If all their electricity comes from burning crude oil than they'd get about the same amount of miles in an ICE by refining that oil to gasoline for the cars and an EV by burning the crude oil for electricity, distributing that over the grid to drivers to charge their EVs.

However, about 22% of Hawaii's electricity comes from solar, so the EVs will come out ahead.

Even if we ignore solar and assume the EVs only use electricity from burning crude oil, the crude oil fueled generators should be cleaner than ICE engines, so there would be a significant reduction in total green house gases and particulates.

I don't agree with a ban, but burning crude oil (are you sure about that, it's usually refined at least a little?) can have centralised carbon capture and filtration, whereas cars pretty much just pump it straight out. Luckily they made the smoke invisible so it's ok, almost like it's not even there!

They don’t even unload it from the tankers. Absolute crude. Seen it with my own two.

Exactly, as long as no one sees it, it isn’t happening. Same with them burning plastic and trash.

There are more benefits to EV conversion in a community than the use of renewable energy, noise and roadside air quality being pretty big ones. Also... how do you know there aren't Hawaiians charging their EVs using rooftop solar? I hear they're known for being in the sun sometimes.

> Also... how do you know there aren't Hawaiians charging their EVs using rooftop solar?

Because of math.

A 6 kW house, to charge a 60 kW battery… so long as everyone with an electric vehicle is charging them at their house for 10 sunny hours to charge from empty, you’re right and I’m wrong.

Some people could get by, but it leaves the solar for nothing else. If you leave the house while the sun is up you better get back because you’re losing daylight!

If you don't use your solar, it is pushed to the grid (or batteries, if you have them), so really its about the collective solar that exists in the grid and not a house specific view. As solar rollout increases, the greenness of your EV increases even if you don't charge from your rooftop.

Dude...we are talking about Hawaii. The largest of the islands is just over 4000 square miles. None of the others are over 750 square miles. People drive a lot less in Hawaii than in most of the rest of the country.

The average is 8900 miles per year which is a little under 24 miles per day and a little under 750 miles a month.

If you can charge with solar at 6 kW on a typical EV that will give you about 20 miles per hour of charging. If you can do a little over an hour a day you will be covered.

If you find plugging in for an hour a day to much of a hassle it is under 9 hours a week or 37 hours a month.

Dude, literally every single EV-related number you’ve mentioned around here is so insanely off. Two hours at a charger, 20 minutes of charge just to get home, charging an EV 0 to 100 % and now again, charging a 60 kW battery every day. I don’t know what kind of terrible EVs you’ve seen, but they weren’t what normal people drive. Either get some real world experience with EVs or just stop posting about them.

Interesting… so, for reference I’m an automotive engineer and have worked one at least three EV platforms for big4.

Good to know how wrong I am on this topic. Let me guess, you own an EV? Well, that certain explains it everything.

You received some better corrections in earlier replies, which you've chosen to ignore... That's your prerogative of course, but there's no need to resort to "I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals"-style reverse ad hominem to make an argument.

You made some basic mistakes in your previous reply, such as confusing power (kW) and energy (kWh) and assuming that a typical driver in HI commutes something like 250mi each day. This isn't even typical for drivers on the mainland, where plenty of EV+solar owners manage to replenish most or all of their EV usage using rooftop solar generation just fine.

(If you're going to answer "well, I never said I was considering the median distance/day case - I was talking about the most extreme scenarios!" then I'd suggest at least bumping up the hypothetical solar installation to 10kW instead of going with the median.)

Well, most of us don't have a plan B if the Earth is wrecked by pollution, but I guess if you beg Musk hard enough, he might invite you to Mars.

We can either do drastic things now, or desperate things later.

Hyperbole like that doesn't help anyone.

Pollution and environmental destruction are big problems, but there are no remotely likely scenarios where the Earth "is wrecked by pollution" and a HN reader would need to question the viability of remaining on the planet.

I'm using sarcasm here, not hyperbole.

Automotive EE engineer? I'm sure everyone here would love your explanation of EV efficiencies vs ICE in different situations.

No they wouldn’t.

The all people here shitting on reality - are doing so because they’re defending their purchases.

Most people with EV as a primary vehicle were fooled into marketing that does not accurately reflect the product, and they don’t want to hear otherwise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com