this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
1104 points (96.4% liked)

xkcd

8761 readers
6 users here now

A community for a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Alt text:

An idling gas engine may be annoyingly loud, but that's the price you pay for having WAY less torque available at a standstill.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Are those two things actually important?

Electric motors are a lot more efficient, and battery technology is quickly approaching the place where you can get the same range with an electric motor as with an ICE.

As for refuel rate, I spend no time waiting for my car to charge because it charges at home while I'm sleeping, so the refuel rate doesn't matter.

Plus the technology to battery swap is well in use for electric vehicles (see Nio, who have thousands of battery swap stations in China and some in Europe too). 3 mins and you have a full battery.

[–] Michal 11 points 4 months ago (3 children)

It matters to people who drive more during the day than their range allows. They don't want to wait 20 minutes for the car to charge every time they venture 300km out and back /s

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Why do people still pretend it takes longer than 20 minutes to get a 50% charge increase?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Because it's currently easier to find a gas station than a charger that will do that performance. Now I'm willing to wait 8 hrs for 10%, but others certainly aren't.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

You must live in a red state or the middle of nowhere. It's easy to find chargers everywhere I've been.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes, my point. I have to charge my car at home because of charging stations are either far, or Tesla owners park in them to do shopping.

Saying I live somewhere shit doesn't disprove my point that gas is more readily available.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

Yeah because the conservative government of those areas is actively suppressing them from being built.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

My parents live in the sticks, in a red state, and I have no problem finding charging stations within twenty miles from them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Wait, I'm confused (out of date??) I thought it took hours to charge. Has that changed?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago
  1. I don't have enough charge for my trip. I'm also thirsty.

  2. I go to a grocery store with a fast charger.

  3. I buy a drink.

  4. I have enough charge.

If it's a long trip where I need more charge, I choose a car snack, and I'll have enough.

If I'm on an actual long car trip and I want to charge all the way from the warning light to 100%, I will need to eat a meal anyway. I just find a McDonald's/cafe,/restaurant/whatever with a fast charger, and it'll be full before I'm done.

But finding a store/eating place with a fast charger is still waaaay less convenient than just finding a place where I can get diesel in seconds, and find a different place to get drinks/food/snacks.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Fast chargers can fully charge my car (range ~400mi) in about an hour

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

Most cars will charge to 80% pretty fast. 20%-70% is really fast on most.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

fast charging on modern HV battery packs will get you to 80% from 0 in like 15-20 minutes. I've seen lower, but it's really fucking usable now.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Why /s? Road trips are a thing, and you'd be hard pressed to find a combo restaurant/charging station that's along your path.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

restaurant/charging station combo

The people providing the charging infrastructure here haven't figured out this important point yet. Gas stations are a terrible place to put chargers, no one wants to stop at a gas station for fifteen minutes to an hour at a time. Charging stations need to be in places people will be stopping anyway, or at the very least places that provide something to do while waiting. Restaurants, shopping centres, tourist traps, whatever.

Here it's exacerbated by the fact that the fastest chargers we have only deliver about 60kW. Not even close to the 200+ some EVs need to get the fast charging times they advertise. But that 60kW would be perfectly fine if I could spend the time in a restaurant instead of standing around at a gas bar in the middle of nowhere.

Hell, even cheap (or free) "level 2" chargers outside restaurants and shopping malls would be a huge help.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I live in Denmark, here the chargers are placed where people park anyway. Grocery stores, parking lots, rest stops...

It's getting so easy to find a fast charger/resto combo, that we don't even plan it from home.

I've seen few 200+ watts chargers without looking for them, but the car is ready faster than I am anyway.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

As it should be, and I agree that those crazy fast 200+ kW chargers are rarely necessary.

It's kind of a weird reaction to consumer hesitation and people complaining that they don't want to wait for charge times as compared to the time it takes to fill a tank. Making charging as fast as possible to address the complaint (while still being one or two orders of magnitude slower at best), because that's easier than getting people to change their driving habits, or making them realise that they're always going to start the day with a full charge at home.

Even if all you have is relatively paltry north american 110V at home you need to drive way more than average per day for that not to keep up.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Road trips are a tiny fraction of all vehicle use, it's fine to relegate them to specialty vehicles.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Quick Google says a great majority of Americans take road trips. Even though it's a tiny fraction of their driving, it's still a deciding factor for many when choosing a car. Not all people have the luxury of affording a second car just for road trips.

Public transportation would be good, but there's less flexibility to it. For example, just yesterday, on a return from a roadtrip, I got stomach sick and had to request frequent stops. That wouldn't fly on a train.

I'd love it if we had affordable and flexible public transport for getting all across the country, though.

[–] nemith 8 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I take road trips in my EV. It’s fine. You get to pee and walk the dog. The extra time isn’t much and it’s actually way more relaxing

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It’s weird how defensive people get over their cannonball road trips. It’s great to take a few minutes on a break while taking a long trip.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Hell, my ICE car warns me when I’ve been driving for too long. Taking a break mid-trip isn’t isolated to EVs

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

That sounds good.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Unless you're taking road trips literally every other week you could just rent a gas vehicle when it's time for a road trip. Rather than make the decision of the car you're going to drive every single day based on something you only do maybe once a year.

It's why I don't own a pickup truck, I actually do haul cars, help people move and all that shit that people say is why they need a pickup truck but I just go to fucking U-Haul and rent either the Sprinter van or the pickup truck for 30 bucks plus mileage when I need one. And I do actually keep track of my financial records with a double Ledger Finance app I just went and looked and I'm still nowhere near the cost of a used pickup truck from all of that renting

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Good idea. I hadn't thought of that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Take road trips how often? Once a year? Maybe twice?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, but road trips can be expensive. Suppose you want to go from Harrisburg PA to Rockford IL with 2 adults and 1 teenager from November 15 to 22.

  • By car that's about 1500 miles. An average car gets 21 mpg, so that's about 71 gallons. Gas is around $3.5 per gallon, so the trip costs about $250 in gas. You'll need a hotel. I picked a random one in Ohio. $110 for the way up, $185 for the way back. I guess that's a Thanksgiving price hike. $545 total.
  • By train, let's say Amtrak because that came up first. $438 up, and that includes boarding a train at midnight and sleeping on the train, and then riding a bus from Chicago to Rockford for 2 hours. $483 back down, and this time when you sleep on the train you have to wake up by 5 AM to get off. Also this is coach class, and those seats aren't great for sleeping. At least you don't need a hotel. $921 total.
  • By plane, it's $650 round trip, simple as, but you have to leave at 6 AM on the way up and 5 AM on the way back. It can cost $200 more to get a more convenient time, but let's assume you're going for economy alone. $650 total.

That's not accounting for food prices along the way. That could bring the car ride up to the same price as the plane if you don't pack food, but if you're spending extra on convenience there, you're probably willing to spend extra for convenience on the plane too.

So it's probably safe to say that, for this group, the car saves about $100 per year, but helping to protect the environment is worth that price. On the other hand, there's something to be said for the flexibility and ease of planning on a car. For a bigger family, cars would be a way better option, and for a family without kids or a lone traveler, planes are the way better option. Trains are right out.

[–] Michal 4 points 4 months ago

I'd also add time to the comparison. Time isn't free, and if you spend 2 solid days driving, you might reconsider flying and renting a car at the destination even if it's more expensive. If you use an ev and have to take a few stops extra that might tip the scale.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

I’m so glad here in Germany they do that more often now. We have a quite a few large charging parks next to restaurants and bakeries. I just made a 9 hour trip to Denmark and it was a pretty nice experience overall. Only downside is you have to plan ahead if you want this convenience because the majority is still spots with 1-2 occupied chargers at some ugly, smelly Autobahn rest area.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Although own an electric car, I believe range is still an issue. I was specifically addressing fuel density and charging time. EVs have their issues, but I believe they will be solved over time even though they are unlikely to beat an ICE in fuel density or charge rate for a long time. But I don't think those things are actually important, because the problem is solved in a different way.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Yes, for people who can't charge at home. I'd love to swap to electric, but 1 hour trip to go charge the car at the nearest charging station is not realistic - especially since I'd need to do it twice as often as 10min trip to refuel.

Also there's the EV prices, starting at 2-3 times more than my current whip lol

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

This is exacerbated by that battery technology is at its limit, and the battery companies are unwilling to drop the battery price.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

My point is that we should be focused on the outcomes we want. It isn't really important that fossil fuels are a lot more energy dense if the electric cars can travel twice as far. They can't, but I'd be willing to bet we will get to that point with fossil fuels still being more energy dense.

But also as I mentioned in the comment you relied to, Nio have a vast network of battery swap stations where you can get a full charge in a couple of minutes, the same as filling up at a gas station.

The price of EVs are a problem, and not the only problem, but my point was that the specific things mentioned don't stop us having better EVs than ICEs, because we will get the same outcome in a different way.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I absolutely agree that we should work on improving EVs, charging network and whatever technologies makes it better and more suitable for more people. But every person in need of a car has unique hard requirements for the car that can't be ignored as "inconvenience" - and many of those people have to drive with fossil fuels still.

Also, battery swap stations being available in X location doesn't matter to people living in Y location, nor should people in Y location buy EV in hopes that it will be better in Z years

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I agree completely. I am not trying to argue that everyone can or should go out and buy an EV.

I was specifically addressing the points that seemed to be claiming EVs are not the right direction for cars or engines to be advancing towarda, by pointing out that the barriers aren't blocking all paths.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

I honestly believe the person starting the thread was on the same wavelength, just pointing out the reason so many still choose ice

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Are those two things actually important?

For some people? Absolutely.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Yes, somewhat.

Not as much, to most people, as most people think though.