Hacker News Reader

Comment by pclowes | Hacker News Reader

Everyone is saying EVs are the future but most EVs cannot compete with many of Honda’s offerings.

Eg. I need to move 6 people and significant gear (skiing, camping, biking etc) long remote distances.

There is no EV that can do that really. And the ones that come close are easily $20-30k higher than an Odyssey. Plus the durability of large EVs is far from proven while the 300k mile club of Odyssey owners is large.

I need Suburban/Minivan functionality out of a proven OEM at a competitive price point. (I also need to see my friends with Rivians etc not having to schedule their vacation around charger availability. Have seen this waste hours and hours of time)

View on HN

So an EV is not for you! You just might be one of the unlucky 1% for whom that is true.

Congratulate yourself on visiting nature while simultaneously messing it up. And enjoy the fuel prices.

If you are visiting nature in any vehicle you are messing it up.

Gas prices are pretty much trivial unless you: - drive a lot (which in that case you’re really messing up nature regardless of ICE vs EV) - own a fleet - are really tight on finances (not buying a new car anyway)

> So an EV is not for you! You just might be one of the unlucky 1% for whom that is true.

Given the data on the trend of EV sales (https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/global...) this is a pretty big claim to make.

I live in an old, pre-automobile neighborhood. Like other such old, walkable, sidewalk-and-park-and-corner-store neighborhoods in the US, it's one of the most attractive parts of my city.

However, almost nobody here could feasibly own a fully electric car. Most houses don't have driveways or garages. People park ad-hoc on the street. Most families own one car, and that car needs to be able to go long distances because it's both the local vehicle and the road tripper.

My wife and I would buy an EV if we could. We know the exact one. But it's not feasible for us, or for our neighbors. Far from being "1%" this situation is quite common. So we have a Honda hybrid instead.

The Toyota strategy from 2022 has aged brilliantly: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/29/toyota-ceo-stands-by-electri...

However, the EV maximalist strategy from the same era has aged like milk.

In a lot of places, most of your electricity is generated by burning coal and gas.

Which are a lot more efficient than an ICE.

Is burning the coal, delivering the electricity, and storing it in a battery that's then converted to mechanical motion more efficient than an ICE? What are the losses in delivery and storage?

there are yes, but it is still more efficient than an ICE engine. Not going to enumerate that here because that was a discussion to be had in 2010 and I am bloody tired of it.

Yes they are, but it's still messing up nature. Was just to give some pushback to the venomous parent comment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com