Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?
-
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
The scenario I've come up with is most people's everyday life. Not sure what your gripe is with the realism of it.
Your scenario is often told something like, "95% of trips are under x miles." To which I say, "95% of my trips to the bathroom are just pee breaks, and the waterless urinal would work just fine. But for that other 5%, I really need the full flushing toilet."
Other issues like the expense and delicate nature of the batteries also give me a huge pause regarding going electric.
-
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
I grew up near LA
#MeToo
I remember many days where it literally hurt to take a deep breath.
And the burning eyes. NOx + H2O —> HNOx. Fun when there's enough NOx in the air to form (very small but) noticeable amounts of nitr{ous|ic} acids in your tears.
-
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@GOG said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Do you mean "capable of competing with what real existing ICEs are theoretically capable of" or "capable of competing with what real existing ICEs are actually used for"? If the task at hand is "go from Canada to Argentina with all of your earthly belongings in tow and without more than a pee break", the answer is "definitely not". If it's "carry a person and their lunch for an average commute of 60 km a day plus the occasional trip to the grocery and movies", it's "something should have been coming to mind for at least the last couple of years and that something is called a BEV".
It's not merely a question of whether there exists an alternative, but whether the alternative is - if not better - then at least not obviously worse.
In terms of the sort of personal transportation a car (as opposed to, say, a bicycle) affords, a BEV - to these eyes - looks strictly worse on just about every metric: range, time to recharge v. refill, reliability across a variety of environmental conditions, mass of batteries v. fuel tank, safety, and so on.
According to insurers, safety is not significantly different, so that's a non-issue. But why are things like "mass of batteries v. fuel tank" even relevant metrics, especially when it's about realism? Who cares about that? You might worry about "mass of vehicle vs. passenger" but if you look at the development of SUV sales it should be obvious hardly anyone cares. Those who care should be riding bikes anyway.
Because increasing the weight of every car on the road by 1/3 or 1/2 will cause the roads to deteriorate a lot faster, and will have to be repaved a lot more. Those things are neither free, nor without environmental consequence. And increased mass also increases the kinetic energy, so accidents will get worse.
And, increasing the base weight of the vehicle will increase the need for heavier duty brakes, suspension, tires and so on, all which is a needless increase in use of resources.
And that is without even getting into the fun aspect.
-
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Other issues like the expense and delicate nature of the batteries also give me a huge pause regarding going electric.
That’s a deal breaker for me. It still gets cold in PA and cold damages these batteries. Plus, as much as everybody loves to throw away their $1000 iPhones every other year (just because LOL), I’d hope they’d think twice about their $75K EV.
What do they expect to do 3-4 years out when a “full” charge only gets them halfway to work or to Target but not back? I have a 30 year old ICE that I don’t have to worry about in that context. Both the engine and transmission could fall out one day and still not cost a third of what a new EV battery would.
That’s assuming replacement batteries are even available. Are there any standards in that area? Or just another nasty surprise waiting for EV proponents long after their money (and choice) has been taken?
At least with hydrogen, it seemed like the fuel was going to be standardized.
-
@Carnage said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@GOG said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Do you mean "capable of competing with what real existing ICEs are theoretically capable of" or "capable of competing with what real existing ICEs are actually used for"? If the task at hand is "go from Canada to Argentina with all of your earthly belongings in tow and without more than a pee break", the answer is "definitely not". If it's "carry a person and their lunch for an average commute of 60 km a day plus the occasional trip to the grocery and movies", it's "something should have been coming to mind for at least the last couple of years and that something is called a BEV".
It's not merely a question of whether there exists an alternative, but whether the alternative is - if not better - then at least not obviously worse.
In terms of the sort of personal transportation a car (as opposed to, say, a bicycle) affords, a BEV - to these eyes - looks strictly worse on just about every metric: range, time to recharge v. refill, reliability across a variety of environmental conditions, mass of batteries v. fuel tank, safety, and so on.
According to insurers, safety is not significantly different, so that's a non-issue. But why are things like "mass of batteries v. fuel tank" even relevant metrics, especially when it's about realism? Who cares about that? You might worry about "mass of vehicle vs. passenger" but if you look at the development of SUV sales it should be obvious hardly anyone cares. Those who care should be riding bikes anyway.
Because increasing the weight of every car on the road by 1/3 or 1/2 will cause the roads to deteriorate a lot faster, and will have to be repaved a lot more. Those things are neither free, nor without environmental consequence. And increased mass also increases the kinetic energy, so accidents will get worse.
And, increasing the base weight of the vehicle will increase the need for heavier duty brakes, suspension, tires and so on, all which is a needless increase in use of resources.
And that is without even getting into the fun aspect.There
'veof been stories lately about the pollution from the tires, too. They're not normal tires.
-
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Carnage said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@GOG said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Do you mean "capable of competing with what real existing ICEs are theoretically capable of" or "capable of competing with what real existing ICEs are actually used for"? If the task at hand is "go from Canada to Argentina with all of your earthly belongings in tow and without more than a pee break", the answer is "definitely not". If it's "carry a person and their lunch for an average commute of 60 km a day plus the occasional trip to the grocery and movies", it's "something should have been coming to mind for at least the last couple of years and that something is called a BEV".
It's not merely a question of whether there exists an alternative, but whether the alternative is - if not better - then at least not obviously worse.
In terms of the sort of personal transportation a car (as opposed to, say, a bicycle) affords, a BEV - to these eyes - looks strictly worse on just about every metric: range, time to recharge v. refill, reliability across a variety of environmental conditions, mass of batteries v. fuel tank, safety, and so on.
According to insurers, safety is not significantly different, so that's a non-issue. But why are things like "mass of batteries v. fuel tank" even relevant metrics, especially when it's about realism? Who cares about that? You might worry about "mass of vehicle vs. passenger" but if you look at the development of SUV sales it should be obvious hardly anyone cares. Those who care should be riding bikes anyway.
Because increasing the weight of every car on the road by 1/3 or 1/2 will cause the roads to deteriorate a lot faster, and will have to be repaved a lot more. Those things are neither free, nor without environmental consequence. And increased mass also increases the kinetic energy, so accidents will get worse.
And, increasing the base weight of the vehicle will increase the need for heavier duty brakes, suspension, tires and so on, all which is a needless increase in use of resources.
And that is without even getting into the fun aspect.There
'veof been stories lately about the pollution from the tires, too. They're not normal tires.Oh, we've had that discussion about how wheels on roads cause particulate pollution in Sweden for a long time now. And how it's dangerous, cause cancer and will eat your babies.
If you don't want pollution, don't live in large cities.
-
@GOG said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
why are things like "mass of batteries v. fuel tank" even relevant metrics
Because F = ma.
True. And? That's about as far from actual people's metrics for selecting a vehicle as you get. It holds just as true for SUVs and they don't care there so whey would they care now?
@Carnage said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@GOG said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Do you mean "capable of competing with what real existing ICEs are theoretically capable of" or "capable of competing with what real existing ICEs are actually used for"? If the task at hand is "go from Canada to Argentina with all of your earthly belongings in tow and without more than a pee break", the answer is "definitely not". If it's "carry a person and their lunch for an average commute of 60 km a day plus the occasional trip to the grocery and movies", it's "something should have been coming to mind for at least the last couple of years and that something is called a BEV".
It's not merely a question of whether there exists an alternative, but whether the alternative is - if not better - then at least not obviously worse.
In terms of the sort of personal transportation a car (as opposed to, say, a bicycle) affords, a BEV - to these eyes - looks strictly worse on just about every metric: range, time to recharge v. refill, reliability across a variety of environmental conditions, mass of batteries v. fuel tank, safety, and so on.
According to insurers, safety is not significantly different, so that's a non-issue. But why are things like "mass of batteries v. fuel tank" even relevant metrics, especially when it's about realism? Who cares about that? You might worry about "mass of vehicle vs. passenger" but if you look at the development of SUV sales it should be obvious hardly anyone cares. Those who care should be riding bikes anyway.
Because increasing the weight of every car on the road by 1/3 or 1/2 will cause the roads to deteriorate a lot faster, and will have to be repaved a lot more. Those things are neither free, nor without environmental consequence.
Remember your baseline in the US is about 80% of car sales being SUVs. Most of which never get anywhere near a place where your regular BEV can't go, so replacing those with reasonably sized BEVs is still a net gain.
And increased mass also increases the kinetic energy, so accidents will get worse.
Insurers don't see that, and if there's anyone who would notice, it's they.
And, increasing the base weight of the vehicle will increase the need for heavier duty brakes, suspension, tires and so on, all which is a needless increase in use of resources.
Oh pu-leeeze. I'd take that argument from someone who cycles everywhere but not from someone who argues
the fun aspect.
-
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
The scenario I've come up with is most people's everyday life. Not sure what your gripe is with the realism of it.
Your scenario is often told something like, "95% of trips are under x miles." To which I say, "95% of my trips to the bathroom are just pee breaks, and the waterless urinal would work just fine. But for that other 5%, I really need the full flushing toilet."
Unfortunately, your flushing toilet has been leaking nasty shit even when you just use it to pee. Your wife is unhappy, and it's leaking into the neighbors' apartments. Despite you trying to tell them gthat the shit in the walls doesn't exist, that the shit in the walls is the work of God, or that a bit of shit in the walls is good for them, all of them know it's your old shitter that's doing it and it's nasty.
You could use the shared one down the hall where the janitor takes care of it once a week, but that's slightly inconvenient for you.Other issues like the expense and delicate nature of the batteries also give me a huge pause regarding going electric.
Are you renting instead of buying a place? Upfront expense bad.
-
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@GOG said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
why are things like "mass of batteries v. fuel tank" even relevant metrics
Because F = ma.
True. And? That's about as far from actual people's metrics for selecting a vehicle as you get. It holds just as true for SUVs and they don't care there so whey would they care now?
@Carnage said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@GOG said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Do you mean "capable of competing with what real existing ICEs are theoretically capable of" or "capable of competing with what real existing ICEs are actually used for"? If the task at hand is "go from Canada to Argentina with all of your earthly belongings in tow and without more than a pee break", the answer is "definitely not". If it's "carry a person and their lunch for an average commute of 60 km a day plus the occasional trip to the grocery and movies", it's "something should have been coming to mind for at least the last couple of years and that something is called a BEV".
It's not merely a question of whether there exists an alternative, but whether the alternative is - if not better - then at least not obviously worse.
In terms of the sort of personal transportation a car (as opposed to, say, a bicycle) affords, a BEV - to these eyes - looks strictly worse on just about every metric: range, time to recharge v. refill, reliability across a variety of environmental conditions, mass of batteries v. fuel tank, safety, and so on.
According to insurers, safety is not significantly different, so that's a non-issue. But why are things like "mass of batteries v. fuel tank" even relevant metrics, especially when it's about realism? Who cares about that? You might worry about "mass of vehicle vs. passenger" but if you look at the development of SUV sales it should be obvious hardly anyone cares. Those who care should be riding bikes anyway.
Because increasing the weight of every car on the road by 1/3 or 1/2 will cause the roads to deteriorate a lot faster, and will have to be repaved a lot more. Those things are neither free, nor without environmental consequence.
Remember your baseline in the US is about 80% of car sales being SUVs. Most of which never get anywhere near a place where your regular BEV can't go, so replacing those with reasonably sized BEVs is still a net gain.
Why should I care about the US?
And BEV SUVs are still equally more heavy than ICE SUVs, so I have no idea what you are on about here, because you don't think that a population that go for ICE SUVs will go for hatchback BEVs, I hope.
If you are gonna argue that people should swap type entirely, just go straight for banning cars and only having public transit instead.And increased mass also increases the kinetic energy, so accidents will get worse.
Insurers don't see that, and if there's anyone who would notice, it's they.
Indeed?
EVs are getting too heavy and too powerful, safety chief says
NTSB chief warns that heavier vehicles mean more severe injuries and deaths.
And, increasing the base weight of the vehicle will increase the need for heavier duty brakes, suspension, tires and so on, all which is a needless increase in use of resources.
Oh pu-leeeze. I'd take that argument from someone who cycles everywhere but not from someone who argues
the fun aspect.
Ah, I forgot, you are of the NO FUN ALLOWED persuasion... I didn't even argue the fun aspect, so you're even wrong about that.
Let's not come up with a single actual argument, but rather just blow hot air. Fine, fine, you're welcome to do so.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
I remember many days where it literally hurt to take a deep breath.
And the burning eyes. NOx + H2O —> HNOx. Fun when there's enough NOx in the air to form (very small but) noticeable amounts of nitr{ous|ic} acids in your tears.
Remember the fits thrown by die-hard ICE fans how forcing them to pump unleaded was unconscionable because it would ruin the engines and catalytic converters were expensive and useless and would just cost them the horsepowers they'd paid for with their hard-earned cash?
I do.
-
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
The scenario I've come up with is most people's everyday life. Not sure what your gripe is with the realism of it.
Your scenario is often told something like, "95% of trips are under x miles." To which I say, "95% of my trips to the bathroom are just pee breaks, and the waterless urinal would work just fine. But for that other 5%, I really need the full flushing toilet."
Unfortunately, your flushing toilet has been leaking nasty shit even when you just use it to pee. Your wife is unhappy, and it's leaking into the neighbors' apartments. Despite you trying to tell them gthat the shit in the walls doesn't exist, that the shit in the walls is the work of God, or that a bit of shit in the walls is good for them, all of them know it's your old shitter that's doing it and it's nasty.
You could use the shared one down the hall where the janitor takes care of it once a week, but that's slightly inconvenient for you.But now you've completely abandoned the electric care analogy.
Other issues like the expense and delicate nature of the batteries also give me a huge pause regarding going electric.
Are you renting instead of buying a place? Upfront expense bad.
Sorry, you've lost me here.
-
@Carnage said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@GOG said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
why are things like "mass of batteries v. fuel tank" even relevant metrics
Because F = ma.
True. And? That's about as far from actual people's metrics for selecting a vehicle as you get. It holds just as true for SUVs and they don't care there so whey would they care now?
@Carnage said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@GOG said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Do you mean "capable of competing with what real existing ICEs are theoretically capable of" or "capable of competing with what real existing ICEs are actually used for"? If the task at hand is "go from Canada to Argentina with all of your earthly belongings in tow and without more than a pee break", the answer is "definitely not". If it's "carry a person and their lunch for an average commute of 60 km a day plus the occasional trip to the grocery and movies", it's "something should have been coming to mind for at least the last couple of years and that something is called a BEV".
It's not merely a question of whether there exists an alternative, but whether the alternative is - if not better - then at least not obviously worse.
In terms of the sort of personal transportation a car (as opposed to, say, a bicycle) affords, a BEV - to these eyes - looks strictly worse on just about every metric: range, time to recharge v. refill, reliability across a variety of environmental conditions, mass of batteries v. fuel tank, safety, and so on.
According to insurers, safety is not significantly different, so that's a non-issue. But why are things like "mass of batteries v. fuel tank" even relevant metrics, especially when it's about realism? Who cares about that? You might worry about "mass of vehicle vs. passenger" but if you look at the development of SUV sales it should be obvious hardly anyone cares. Those who care should be riding bikes anyway.
Because increasing the weight of every car on the road by 1/3 or 1/2 will cause the roads to deteriorate a lot faster, and will have to be repaved a lot more. Those things are neither free, nor without environmental consequence.
Remember your baseline in the US is about 80% of car sales being SUVs. Most of which never get anywhere near a place where your regular BEV can't go, so replacing those with reasonably sized BEVs is still a net gain.
Why should I care about the US?
And BEV SUVs are still equally more heavy than ICE SUVs, so I have no idea what you are on about here, because you don't think that a population that go for ICE SUVs will go for hatchback BEVs, I hope.
If you are gonna argue that people should swap type entirely, just go straight for banning cars and only having public transit instead.And increased mass also increases the kinetic energy, so accidents will get worse.
Insurers don't see that, and if there's anyone who would notice, it's they.
Indeed?
EVs are getting too heavy and too powerful, safety chief says
NTSB chief warns that heavier vehicles mean more severe injuries and deaths.
- [the] increasing size, power, and performance of vehicles on our roads, including electric vehicles,*
It's not like it had started with EVs, is it?
To offset the long charging times of an EV versus the rapid refueling of a car powered by liquid hydrocarbons, automakers are cramming massive batteries into their EVs—the assumption is that you have to offer at least 300 miles (483 km) of range to get people to part with their money. [...]
When you combine that with America's appetite for unaerodynamic pickups, the result is enormous battery packs.
Growing a brain doesn't seem to be an option.
-
@Zenith said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Other issues like the expense and delicate nature of the batteries also give me a huge pause regarding going electric.
That’s a deal breaker for me. It still gets cold in PA and cold damages these batteries. Plus, as much as everybody loves to throw away their $1000 iPhones every other year (just because LOL), I’d hope they’d think twice about their $75K EV.
Somebody should tell the Norwegians their BEVs don't work in in the cold.
-
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Sorry, you've lost me here.
I'm pretty sure he's lost even himself somewhere along the line.
-
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Zenith said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Other issues like the expense and delicate nature of the batteries also give me a huge pause regarding going electric.
That’s a deal breaker for me. It still gets cold in PA and cold damages these batteries. Plus, as much as everybody loves to throw away their $1000 iPhones every other year (just because LOL), I’d hope they’d think twice about their $75K EV.
Somebody should tell the Norwegians their BEVs don't work in in the cold.
As usual, you “forgot” how highly subsidized they are. What happens when those end? A 46% drop in range may not be so tolerated. Most of the articles I’ve found conveniently talk around long term degradation by saying won’t affect daily needs. If you ever need to drive farther, for any reason, or don’t have an hour to wait for a half hour’s charge, fuck you. It’s Jeff “you don’t need…” Atwood all over again.
It sure seems like EV proponents can’t A) conceive of more than a single use case or B) conceive of life outside of their highly-paid main-character bubble. You make six figures, have everything delivered by Amazon and DoorDash, and occasionally putter down to your neighborhood co-op in the city? Good for you. Now here’s a shock. The rest of us, including the Amazon and DoorDash drivers and co-op suppliers, don’t live exactly like you. Buying an expensive toy isn’t feasible, useful, or both, regardless of how warm and fuzzy dictating to us makes you feel.
So get bent with your “one world, one people, one thought, one choice” cultist bullshit.
-
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Somebody should tell the Norwegians their BEVs don't work in in the cold.
BEVs sold in Norway come with additional climate control for the batteries that isn't standard in the US. To get it is usuriously expensive if it's even available because that configuration is never stocked by dealerships here.
@Zenith said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
If you ever need to drive farther, for any reason, or don’t have an hour to wait for a half hour’s charge
... there's supposed to be courier or for-hire services. Or mass transit. Or vehicle rental. Or specialty vehicle rental (UHaul, but also for extended range vehicles). Unfortunately, none of them are anticipated to materialize in uneconomical areas such as "almost all of the United States", despite EV proponents presupposing their existence. ( @LaoC, the shared toilet isn't down the hall. It's all the way across town under the sign "Seedy John's Port-o-Johns" and is perpetually empty of blue water and full of shit. Maybe if it was just down the hall we could use it, but it just isn't.)
-
@TwelveBaud said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Or vehicle rental.
Doesn't help if all ICE are banned.
-
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Are you renting instead of buying a place? Upfront expense bad.
The main difference (at least in the US) between renting and buying a place is that you're renting from a real person or company who has at least some obligation to maintain the place and the rent usually includes that maintenance in the upfront cost. Whereas when you
buy a placerent from the bank you're on the hook for any unforeseens, or even the foreseen maintenance costs that you maybe didn't really budget for because you bought the payment and didn't think about the difference in what's included in real rental prices.Also the raw availability of the two -- there's just not enough places to rent from the bank for all of the US population, since a substantial number of true rentals are multi-family complexes and not something you even have the option to rent from the bank.
-
@izzion Also, when you
buyrent from the bank, the up-front cost is huge. Even in the state with the lowest median home prices (WV, $108k in 2020), 20% down is nearly 5x the median savings balance (and that median is nationwide; presumably it's lower, and thus the multiplier even higher, in the low-income, low-cost state of WV).To buy a house in my neighborhood in TX, using the price of a house just down the street that sold in the last month or so, I'd have to put down 22x the median savings balance and 12x my current savings balance. (And my monthly payment would be $200 more than my current rent. However, I think it may be a bigger house, so not an apples-to-apples comparison.) A lot of people don't have the up-front money to buy. That's using a bog-standard 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, and I'll most likely be dead, and certainly retired on an income too small to afford those payments, before it would be paid off.
-
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
True. And?
And it means that everything about your car's performance went down, because you're carting around the equivalent of a family of five Americans for no reason whatsoever.
It's not something that most people think about, true, but it's another shitty thing on top of all the other shitty things about BEVs, which is the reason you literally have to ban the alternatives in order to get people to switch.
This idea isn't new - we've been building battery-powered electric cars since the late XIX century. Tesla's first Roadster came out fifteen years ago (if you think that a century's worth of technological development changed any of the fundamentals). BEVs never took off not because of some grand conspiracy, but because, compared to ICE-powered cars, they suck huge donkey's balls.
-
@Zenith said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Zenith said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Other issues like the expense and delicate nature of the batteries also give me a huge pause regarding going electric.
That’s a deal breaker for me. It still gets cold in PA and cold damages these batteries. Plus, as much as everybody loves to throw away their $1000 iPhones every other year (just because LOL), I’d hope they’d think twice about their $75K EV.
Somebody should tell the Norwegians their BEVs don't work in in the cold.
As usual, you “forgot” how highly subsidized they are. What happens when those end? A 46% drop in range may not be so tolerated.
I don't see how subsidies change the usable distance. If the average Norwegian EV has anything like the average US EV's range (414 km as per @Carnage's article) you can tolerate an over 75% drop in range before it comes close to not fulfilling most people's daily needs any more. This doesn't happen. They're not your 90s NiCd batteries, you know.
I'm not sure what kind of BEVs are usually bought in your bubble but $75k is not a usual price. Here's iea on what an average BEV costs:
And here's Statista on what an average vehicle (most of which are obviously still ICE) goes for in the US:
$36900 for an average BEV vs. $36820 for an average vehicle of any kind. In 2019 that is—there's no reason to believe the ratio hasn't continued to shift the way it has shifted for the last decade, i.e. in favor of BEV.
Most of the articles I’ve found conveniently talk around long term degradation by saying won’t affect daily needs.
I.e. you didn't find massive complaints from Norwegians about how the cold has damaged their batteries?
It sure seems like EV proponents can’t A) conceive of more than a single use case or B) conceive of life outside of their highly-paid main-character bubble. You make six figures, have everything delivered by Amazon and DoorDash, and occasionally putter down to your neighborhood co-op in the city? Good for you. Now here’s a shock. The rest of us, including the Amazon and DoorDash drivers and co-op suppliers, don’t live exactly like you. Buying an expensive toy isn’t feasible, useful, or both, regardless of how warm and fuzzy dictating to us makes you feel.
I bet if you held a poll here, more ICE fans would be from that highly-paid six-figure bubble than from the EV camp. Poor people are more likely to commute by public transport than by car. If that was the topic here, I'd have told you improving that needs to be first priority.
You need to make up your mind though: am I this rich, coddled, powerful elitist who doesn't give a shit about the poor people's daily toil, or I'm the riffraff who wants to fleece the Creators™ to give free stuff to the lazy fuckers who whine about being poor while living in a system where everybody gets what they deserve? It's one or the other.
So get bent with your “one world, one people, one thought, one choice” cultist bullshit.
You're so sweet, but I'm worried about your blood pressure.
-
@GOG said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
True. And?
And it means that everything about your car's performance went down, because you're carting around the equivalent of a family of five Americans for no reason whatsoever.
Remember your baseline in the US is about 80% of car sales being SUVs. Most of which never get anywhere near a place where your regular BEV can't go, so replacing those with reasonably sized BEVs is still a net gain.
But I repeat myself.
-
@LaoC But why would you want to replace something with something obviously shittier? It's like @boomzilla said: the difference doesn't matter right up until it suddenly does, and you're fucked.
-
@GOG said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC But why would you want to replace something with something obviously shittier?
That's not what "net gain" means.
-
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Poor people are more likely to commute by public transport than by car.
Maybe in your neck of the woods. In Appalachia, where the poorest of the poor are, there is no public transport, and with the distances involved walking and biking are unfeasable.
-
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Somebody should tell the Norwegians their BEVs don't work in in the cold.
Coastal Norway (where most of the people are) mostly doesn't really get very cold in the winter. Snow yes, but not like New England (let alone the Midwest).
I've no idea what that means for your argument.
-
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Remember your baseline in the US is about 80% of car sales being SUVs. Most of which never get anywhere near a place where your regular BEV can't go, so replacing those with reasonably sized BEVs is still a net gain.
For whom?
-
@dkf said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Somebody should tell the Norwegians their BEVs don't work in in the cold.
Coastal Norway (where most of the people are) mostly doesn't really get very cold in the winter. Snow yes, but not like New England (let alone the Midwest).
I've no idea what that means for your argument.
The argument was about Pennsylvania. Half of PA is subtropical, the colder parts have the same Köppen climate type as Oslo, which is certainly not considered unsuitable for BEV. It's not a technical problem if US dealers don't provide models that exist and would work.
-
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@dkf said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Somebody should tell the Norwegians their BEVs don't work in in the cold.
Coastal Norway (where most of the people are) mostly doesn't really get very cold in the winter. Snow yes, but not like New England (let alone the Midwest).
I've no idea what that means for your argument.
The argument was about Pennsylvania. Half of PA is subtropical, the colder parts have the same Köppen climate type as Oslo, which is certainly not considered unsuitable for BEV. It's not a technical problem if US dealers don't provide models that exist and would work.
Except Pennsylvanians would tell you that BEVs are already unsuitable without the cold. Just because Norwegians are willing to put up with inferior technology doesn't mean that anyone else should.
-
@TwelveBaud said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Poor people are more likely to commute by public transport than by car.
Maybe in your neck of the woods. In Appalachia, where the poorest of the poor are, there is no public transport, and with the distances involved walking and biking are unfeasable.
My neck of the woods is currently in Africa where the only way to both own a car and be considered poor is to be an unsuccessful taxi driver. Everybody else who can even afford a car is at least middle class.
Thankfully, the Appalachian Regional Commission has put together a few number on public transport and vehicle use: public transport use is extremely low in the Appalachians, but people below the poverty line are more than twice as likely than the average (2.8 vs. 1.2%) use use it, and less likely to go by car. "more likely to commute by public transport than by car" is only true for most countries, not the US, but the trend of "the poorer, the less likely to have a car" is unsurprisingly the same.
-
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Remember your baseline in the US is about 80% of car sales being SUVs. Most of which never get anywhere near a place where your regular BEV can't go, so replacing those with reasonably sized BEVs is still a net gain.
For whom?
All the kids mining lithium in third-world countries. Without BEVs, there'd be much less demand for lithium, they'd lose their jobs, and they might even be forced to go to school and learn something.
Filed under: Won't someone think of the children?
-
@HardwareGeek
I think they're mining cobalt for the batteries.
-
@boomzilla Tomaytoes, potahtoes, close enough.
-
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
The argument was about Pennsylvania. Half of PA is subtropical, the colder parts have the same Köppen climate type as Oslo, which is certainly not considered unsuitable for BEV. It's not a technical problem if US dealers don't provide models that exist and would work.
Köppen climate types aren't the whole story. They claim that places have equivalent climates when they don't really; we don't have the same climate as the Carolinas, whatever Köppen says. Reality has more dimensions...
-
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Except Pennsylvanians would tell you that BEVs are already unsuitable without the cold.
We would, but that's largely because just about ANY vehicle is unsuitable for our roads and how fast they fuggin disintegrate
-
@e4tmyl33t said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Except Pennsylvanians would tell you that BEVs are already unsuitable without the cold.
We would, but that's largely because just about ANY vehicle is unsuitable for our roads and how fast they fuggin disintegrate
-
@dkf said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
The argument was about Pennsylvania. Half of PA is subtropical, the colder parts have the same Köppen climate type as Oslo, which is certainly not considered unsuitable for BEV. It's not a technical problem if US dealers don't provide models that exist and would work.
Köppen climate types aren't the whole story. They claim that places have equivalent climates when they don't really; we don't have the same climate as the Carolinas, whatever Köppen says. Reality has more dimensions...
It's the other way around: the Köppen type has more dimensions than the simple scalar we're interested in here. Hence there's obviously some binning imprecision, but if you want to argue the intra-type differences are large enough to make and break EV technology, something more substantial than "I'm telling you" would be nice.
In Oslo, a typical January has 26 days with freezing temperatures, 7 that go below -10°C, and on 4 of these, the average daily temperature is below -10°C. Maybe you can find a colder place in Pennsylvania? Maybe even a place where people actually live, as long as we're comparing it to where most people live in Norway?
-
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@GOG said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC But why would you want to replace something with something obviously shittier?
That's not what "net gain" means.
Exactly.
-
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
but if you want to argue the intra-type differences are large enough to make and break EV technology
The argument is that Norwegian climate makes the poor choice of EV cars worse. It's true that many Norwegians have reduced expectations and appear to be happy with their inferior cars, just like many Americans have. But not everyone is wealthy enough for that "luxury." I'm certainly not.
Occasionally I'll go fill up the car on a Sunday afternoon at a local station that has a bunch of Tesla chargers. This seems to be the time that many Tesla owners charge their cars. It's pretty amusing to see 5 or six cars with owners sitting there. It's also not rare to see a few passengers. What a life!
-
@boomzilla said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@LaoC said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
but if you want to argue the intra-type differences are large enough to make and break EV technology
The argument is that Norwegian climate makes the poor choice of EV cars worse. It's true that many Norwegians have reduced expectations and appear to be happy with their inferior cars, just like many Americans have. But not everyone is wealthy enough for that "luxury." I'm certainly not.
Occasionally I'll go fill up the car on a Sunday afternoon at a local station that has a bunch of Tesla chargers. This seems to be the time that many Tesla owners charge their cars. It's pretty amusing to see 5 or six cars with owners sitting there. It's also not rare to see a few passengers. What a life!
The biker forum I have out on has a couple of Tesla evangelists that gave on more than one occasion explained to us unwashed masses that the long charge times is not av issue. Just take advantage of then to take a shit at the same time!
He also cannot understand that since people drive 600km, get fuel and take a quick piss during a 5 minute stop, get in the car and drive another 600 km to get to the destination as far as possible.
I wouldn't mind synthetic fuels replacing the dino juice for ICE, with some development and optimization of the process it has a far greater chance of matching Dino juice than battery Shelly tripling energy density to match Dino juice.
There might be some hope for hydrogen fluids as well, I suppose. But hydrogen gas seems about as reasonable as batteries
-
@Carnage said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
the long charge times is not av issue. Just take advantage of then to take a shit at the same time!
If it takes you that long to take a shit, you really need to see a doctor.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
@Carnage said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
the long charge times is not av issue. Just take advantage of then to take a shit at the same time!
If it takes you that long to take a shit, you really need to see a doctor.
Maybe they’re also calling one of the numbers on the stall to fully utilize their break time.
-
@Carnage said in Hydrogen Vehicles - Truly Beneficial?:
Just take advantage of then to take a shit at the same time!
