15 ms·

Blockchain-Enabled Electric Car Charging Comes to California

58 points by noomerikal 9y ago

jstanley 9y ago
Cryptocurrency enthusiast here. This is exactly the sort of nonsense that people are doing that makes other people think the entire cryptocurrency community is a joke. Obviously there is no benefit to having this on a blockchain here. You can just pay the charging station. I made a comment the other day that there is very little overlap between cryptocurrency enthusiasts and people who want to blockchain-all-the-things. It was heavily downvoted and I suspect people didn't believe me, so I'm going to keep repeating it until people believe me :) Don't write off cryptocurrency just because of nonsense like this. Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Monero (and a small handful of other coins) are genuinely worthwhile projects.
- spraak 9y ago
  Edit: I was mistaken
  - jstanley 9y ago
    If it's literally just "use cryptocurrency to pay for car charging", I don't think that counts as "blockchain-enabled" any more than, say, accepting Visa payments makes you "database-enabled". (I've read it now) EDIT: Not that the misleading headline makes it a worse project. I actually think "use cryptocurrency to pay for anything" is a good project. But it's not blockchain-enabled. And that's a good thing.
    - 0x006A 9y ago
      ... uses the Share&Charge platform developed by MotionWerk. Share&Charge harnesses the Ethereum blockchain to track the charging transactions and exchange payment between customer and host. https://shareandcharge.com/ https://shareandcharge.com/ Money can be cashed-in to your Share&Charge wallet by using credit card, PayPal... In addition to the Blockchain technology we developed our Share&Charge App, which builds the point of intersection between the users and the Blockchain. https://blog.slock.it/share-charge-launches-its-app-on-boards-over-1-000-charging-stations-on-the-blockchain-ba8275390309 https://blog.slock.it/share-charge-launches-its-app-on-board... At the moment, this token cannot be traded and is reserved for use exclusively within the Share&Charge project, however, an e-money license being sought by the payment provider xtech of the project could see its use extended to it to other fields.
      - amluto 9y ago
        As far as I can tell, the only thing blockchainy about this is "Share&Charge and Slock.it are working hard in surfacing the blockchain aspects of the application for our more technical users. For example, we hope to eventually be able to load separately generated private keys within the apps." That's all?
- Cut_N_Paste 9y ago
  I actually made it to "The peer-to-peer concept relies on blockchain, one of today's hottest trends in energy..." before I laughed and closed the tab. Can I just use my 2% cash-back credit card instead?
- iMuzz 9y ago
  > Obviously there is no benefit to having this on a blockchain here. - Minuscule transaction fees as opposed to 3% banking fees. - Less necessary server infrastructure to manage identity/payments Would these not be benefits or am I missing something?
  - jstanley 9y ago
    Those are properties of using cryptocurrency for payment, they're not properties of putting car charging on a blockchain. I think that's what this project does, and the headline is simply misleading. It's not really "blockchain-enabled", it just uses Ethereum for payment.
    - laydn 9y ago
      When I read the headline, I immediately thought that it meant I could pay for charging with Bitcoin and/or Ethereum. What else can be inferred from the headline? What would it mean to "put car charging on a blockchain"? Can you explain for the rest of us ?
    - IanCal 9y ago
      The bit that might take it further is > the blockchain verifies how much the driver owes Maybe there's something here where it's pulling external data (e.g. set price/unit or a trusted source that says how much was taken) to decide the price?
  - krschultz 9y ago
    Think through the 3% bit a little bit. Do you think that the banks charge 3% because their settlement software is that much less efficient than a blockchain? Of course not. You're paying for customer service, marketing, fraud protection & settlement, and a host of other things with that 3%. It's not 3% because that's what it costs to run a computer to figure out payment processing, it's 3% because that's what the banks can charge to run their business. In effect most people pay 2% or less because of credit card points, so really it's just a forced discount on retailers. Again, because the banks can.
- davidgerard 9y ago
  > I made a comment the other day that there is very little overlap between cryptocurrency enthusiasts and people who want to blockchain-all-the-things. It was heavily downvoted and I suspect people didn't believe me, so I'm going to keep repeating it until people believe me :) Probably because: 1. you're making a historically false claim. Pushing "blockchain" to business is quite well documented (Digital Gold, contemporary press) as being something that was pushed by the Bitcoin fans at the time - late 2014, when the bitcoin price was cratering - as a way to keep interest up. 2. the claims for "Blockchain" (and even the further euphemism, "Digital Ledger Technology") are blatantly the most fantastic claims for Bitcoin, with only the buzzword changed. 3. the bitcoin blog press can't get enough of these "blockchain" initiatives. Clearly their readers think it's all much the same thing.
kaishiro 9y ago
Christ. This is one of those titles I read and go "am I the crazy one or are they? .....ok, it's them."
tlb 9y ago
I'd love to have an alternative to ChargePoint for charging my Tesla at airports. It takes multiple minutes of diddling around with their app to make their charger's relay contacts close. They have reviews within their app, wherein people report which of their chargers usually work, which sometimes work, and which never work. In no case is the actual power faulty -- it's their monetization strategy that fails to tough-luck. Back in the early 80s, I spent part of a summer in a slate-roofed cottage in Wales. The cottage had a box in which you had to insert a coin to turn on the electricity. Like, if you wanted to cook or watch TV that night you had to insert a shilling coin and turn a knob and --- kerchunk --- you'd have electricity until you'd used up your 1d worth of kilowatt-hours and then --- kerchunk --- you were a savage again. Somehow, paying for electricity at each act of consumption feels bad. Like paying for toilets. Tesla got it right. I paid $100,000 for the car -- I want hassle-free electricity, thanks.
- thinkmassive 9y ago
  I'm not familiar with how billing for Tesla's chargers work, except that some of the high end models include free charging (or at least they used to). Are you saying the electricity should be free, or simply that you prefer to pay monthly based on usage? This startup seems like a stepping stone to me. Eventually you should be able to define limits (max $/kWh, min charge rate, min time available, max distance) and the app should just show you available stations. Billing can happen automatically.
  - tlb 9y ago
    My Tesla is an early model, so charging at their stations is free. Paying a monthly usage bill would fine too. The bad thing is having to use a flaky UI every time I need to charge remotely (which is only every month or two). I think ChargePoint's fundamental problem is in order for their app to enable charging: - the app must be installed and updated - it must get an accurate location from GPS to look up the ID number of closest station (and often they're adjacent, so the next one is 12' away). - my cellular data, and the base station's cellular data have to work - all inside a concrete parking garage. so it only works 3/4 of the time.
bpodgursky 9y ago
Perfect! Put a few tons of carbon in the air pointlessly calculating hashes to mine *coins, and then use those e-coins to charge your electric car. This uses Ethereum so when they eventually move to proof-of-stake I'll mostly retract my scorn, but for now I stand by this being counterproductive and dumb.
- mrb 9y ago
  "Put a few tons of carbon in the air pointlessly calculating hashes to mine coins" It's not pointless. Have you read the arguments in http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-mining-is-not-wasteful/ http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-mining-is-not-wasteful/ ? It's not Ethereum-specific but the same logic applies. I feel I post that link too frequently, but people get too often mentally blocked on one technical detail (hashing) and fail to think about the big picture (renewables, jobs created, real utility of cryptos, etc). If cars with internal combustion engines were introduced today, would HNers complain its a dumb tech because it wastes 97% of the fuel's energy?[1] [1] 90% wasted moving 1.5 tons of metal and only 150 kg of useful cargo/passengers, and remaining 7% wasted mostly as heat/friction.
  - jstanley 9y ago
    Thanks for writing this. I've been looking for a decent article to send people who argue that mining is a waste of energy, and this is that.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    I'd like to ask more about Proof of Stake's flaws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-stake#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-stake#Criticism These problems seem fairly significant and unresolved. Thoughts? Statistical simulations have shown that simultaneous forging on several chains is possible, even profitable. But Proof of Stake advocates believe most described attack scenarios are impossible or so unpredictable that they are only theoretical. Any system that will eventually attain a $1T market cap probably can't have theoretical issues like this.
    - 9y ago
stale2002 9y ago
But why is there a blockchain? Why not just charge people? Crytocurrencies both have large advantages AND disadvantages. The advantage is that it is a decentralized, censorship resist currency. But if you don't care about the decentralized part of it, then there is no point. Just use a credit card.
- jstanley 9y ago
  It doesn't use a blockchain, the headline is misleading. It's just car charging where you pay using Ethereum.
- waltero 9y ago
  Because it seems these days projects tend to attract funds just because of mentioning the word 'blockchain'.
  - cr0sh 9y ago
    I need to pitch to YC my idea of a blockchain-enabled, cloud-hosted deep-learning platform based on TensorFlow. /probably needs more buzzwords //probably has been done ///probably already funded by YC...meh
- mkagenius 9y ago
  And the credit card charges. I am sure people driving uber would not mind keeping the 3% to themselves.
  - mark_edward 9y ago
    Are we still pretending transactions are free and instant like crypto enthusiasts used to claim 2-3 years ago?
    - biggerbistro 9y ago
      Outside of the mess that is Bitcoin they are much cheaper than what credit/debit cards charge. More advanced coins like Ethereum take under a minute for an appropriate number of confirmations.
0x006A 9y ago
https://blog.slock.it/share-charge-smart-contracts-the-technical-angle-58b93ce80f15 https://blog.slock.it/share-charge-smart-contracts-the-techn... has some details on how Share&Charge uses Ethereum blockchain as a transaction layer
0x006A 9y ago
Brought to you by Slock.it, the company that built the DAO, what could possibly go wrong.
xurukefi 9y ago
http://doyouneedablockchain.com/ http://doyouneedablockchain.com/
xurukefi 9y ago
http://doyouneedablockchain.com/ http://doyouneedablockchain.com/
xg15 9y ago
OT, can anyone explain this idiom to me? > The peer-to-peer concept relies on blockchain, one of today's hottest trends [...] Note the missing article. Not "relies on the blockchain" or "relies on a blockchain" but "relies on blockchain" as if that were some kind of new elemental resource like water or electricity. I've noticed that expression in quite a few articles. DOes anyone know where it comes from?
- davidgerard 9y ago
  It's the 100% certain tell of a bad article. Worse if they capitalise it.
  - xg15 9y ago
    That was my suspicion. Reminds me of "one internet please"...
bosslevel 9y ago
As someone associated with this project, I can inform you that the reason the words "blockchain enabled" are used is because the Share and Charge platform enables peer-to-peer payments between car charger and private (not commercial) charging pole owner via the blockchain. As it happens however, as this is a pilot in a new country (US) with new compliance requirements, there are no actual cash payments taking place for now. And as for the electricity cost of Proof of Work, we're actually looking to move to a special purpose chain using Proof of Authority in the near future.
alistproducer2 9y ago
I read the article and no where does it make a case for why a blockchain makes any sense in the application. I read a comment by a person claiming to be associated with the project saying that "blockchain enabled" makes sense because the payment are p2p but that doesn't make sense either. Blockchains are good for pretty much one thing: a distributed ledger that parties can trust to be immutable. I can confidently say they're only inserting a blockchain here because it gets the idea more buzz. Side note: I had no idea people paid so much to charge they're EVs. the article mentioned that a electric bill in Cali can be upwards of $1000/yr. Edit for clarity: the $1000/yr figure is the marginal cost of charging the EV, not the entire bill
- rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
  I fill up my Jeep about once a week. At an average cost of $25 to fill over the course of 52 weeks, that's $1,300. Of course I don't have the added bonus of being able to charge from solar power, but at least that shows that the cost of electricity isn't prohibitive versus the cost of gasoline.
  - lettergram 9y ago
    > Of course I don't have the added bonus of being able to charge from solar power Ugh, you also don't have the added bonus with an EV to just fill up when necessary.
  - cr0sh 9y ago
    As a fellow Jeep owner (2004 TJ, {waves - lol}), I was sitting here wondering how you "fill up" a Jeep with only $25.00 (@ approx $2.00 per gallon - that'd be 12.5 gallons of gas per fill up). So I googled things - found this: http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f9/gas-tank-size-249444/ http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f9/gas-tank-size-249444/ Of course, that whole discussion just throws a bunch of wrenches into the works; maybe you do have the 15 gallon tank on a older model (newer JKs have much larger tanks supposedly)? And apparently there's still more in the tank even once the light comes on (a few gallons reserve)? I've never "buried the needle" on my Jeep yet, so I have no idea what size tank I have.
TheSpecialist 9y ago
"If bitcoin is digital gold then Ethereum is digital oil" analogy taken too seriously.

58 points by noomerikal 9y ago

Cryptocurrency enthusiast here. This is exactly the sort of nonsense that people are doing that makes other people think the entire cryptocurrency community is a joke. Obviously there is no benefit to having this on a blockchain here. You can just pay the charging station. I made a comment the other day that there is very little overlap between cryptocurrency enthusiasts and people who want to blockchain-all-the-things. It was heavily downvoted and I suspect people didn't believe me, so I'm going to keep repeating it until people believe me :) Don't write off cryptocurrency just because of nonsense like this. Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Monero (and a small handful of other coins) are genuinely worthwhile projects.

spraak 9y ago
Edit: I was mistaken
- jstanley 9y ago
  If it's literally just "use cryptocurrency to pay for car charging", I don't think that counts as "blockchain-enabled" any more than, say, accepting Visa payments makes you "database-enabled". (I've read it now) EDIT: Not that the misleading headline makes it a worse project. I actually think "use cryptocurrency to pay for anything" is a good project. But it's not blockchain-enabled. And that's a good thing.
  - 0x006A 9y ago
    ... uses the Share&Charge platform developed by MotionWerk. Share&Charge harnesses the Ethereum blockchain to track the charging transactions and exchange payment between customer and host. https://shareandcharge.com/ https://shareandcharge.com/ Money can be cashed-in to your Share&Charge wallet by using credit card, PayPal... In addition to the Blockchain technology we developed our Share&Charge App, which builds the point of intersection between the users and the Blockchain. https://blog.slock.it/share-charge-launches-its-app-on-boards-over-1-000-charging-stations-on-the-blockchain-ba8275390309 https://blog.slock.it/share-charge-launches-its-app-on-board... At the moment, this token cannot be traded and is reserved for use exclusively within the Share&Charge project, however, an e-money license being sought by the payment provider xtech of the project could see its use extended to it to other fields.
    - amluto 9y ago
      As far as I can tell, the only thing blockchainy about this is "Share&Charge and Slock.it are working hard in surfacing the blockchain aspects of the application for our more technical users. For example, we hope to eventually be able to load separately generated private keys within the apps." That's all?
Cut_N_Paste 9y ago
I actually made it to "The peer-to-peer concept relies on blockchain, one of today's hottest trends in energy..." before I laughed and closed the tab. Can I just use my 2% cash-back credit card instead?
iMuzz 9y ago
> Obviously there is no benefit to having this on a blockchain here. - Minuscule transaction fees as opposed to 3% banking fees. - Less necessary server infrastructure to manage identity/payments Would these not be benefits or am I missing something?
- jstanley 9y ago
  Those are properties of using cryptocurrency for payment, they're not properties of putting car charging on a blockchain. I think that's what this project does, and the headline is simply misleading. It's not really "blockchain-enabled", it just uses Ethereum for payment.
  - laydn 9y ago
    When I read the headline, I immediately thought that it meant I could pay for charging with Bitcoin and/or Ethereum. What else can be inferred from the headline? What would it mean to "put car charging on a blockchain"? Can you explain for the rest of us ?
  - IanCal 9y ago
    The bit that might take it further is > the blockchain verifies how much the driver owes Maybe there's something here where it's pulling external data (e.g. set price/unit or a trusted source that says how much was taken) to decide the price?
- krschultz 9y ago
  Think through the 3% bit a little bit. Do you think that the banks charge 3% because their settlement software is that much less efficient than a blockchain? Of course not. You're paying for customer service, marketing, fraud protection & settlement, and a host of other things with that 3%. It's not 3% because that's what it costs to run a computer to figure out payment processing, it's 3% because that's what the banks can charge to run their business. In effect most people pay 2% or less because of credit card points, so really it's just a forced discount on retailers. Again, because the banks can.
davidgerard 9y ago
> I made a comment the other day that there is very little overlap between cryptocurrency enthusiasts and people who want to blockchain-all-the-things. It was heavily downvoted and I suspect people didn't believe me, so I'm going to keep repeating it until people believe me :) Probably because: 1. you're making a historically false claim. Pushing "blockchain" to business is quite well documented (Digital Gold, contemporary press) as being something that was pushed by the Bitcoin fans at the time - late 2014, when the bitcoin price was cratering - as a way to keep interest up. 2. the claims for "Blockchain" (and even the further euphemism, "Digital Ledger Technology") are blatantly the most fantastic claims for Bitcoin, with only the buzzword changed. 3. the bitcoin blog press can't get enough of these "blockchain" initiatives. Clearly their readers think it's all much the same thing.

kaishiro 9y ago

Christ. This is one of those titles I read and go "am I the crazy one or are they? .....ok, it's them."

tlb 9y ago

I'd love to have an alternative to ChargePoint for charging my Tesla at airports. It takes multiple minutes of diddling around with their app to make their charger's relay contacts close. They have reviews within their app, wherein people report which of their chargers usually work, which sometimes work, and which never work. In no case is the actual power faulty -- it's their monetization strategy that fails to tough-luck. Back in the early 80s, I spent part of a summer in a slate-roofed cottage in Wales. The cottage had a box in which you had to insert a coin to turn on the electricity. Like, if you wanted to cook or watch TV that night you had to insert a shilling coin and turn a knob and --- kerchunk --- you'd have electricity until you'd used up your 1d worth of kilowatt-hours and then --- kerchunk --- you were a savage again. Somehow, paying for electricity at each act of consumption feels bad. Like paying for toilets. Tesla got it right. I paid $100,000 for the car -- I want hassle-free electricity, thanks.

thinkmassive 9y ago
I'm not familiar with how billing for Tesla's chargers work, except that some of the high end models include free charging (or at least they used to). Are you saying the electricity should be free, or simply that you prefer to pay monthly based on usage? This startup seems like a stepping stone to me. Eventually you should be able to define limits (max $/kWh, min charge rate, min time available, max distance) and the app should just show you available stations. Billing can happen automatically.
- tlb 9y ago
  My Tesla is an early model, so charging at their stations is free. Paying a monthly usage bill would fine too. The bad thing is having to use a flaky UI every time I need to charge remotely (which is only every month or two). I think ChargePoint's fundamental problem is in order for their app to enable charging: - the app must be installed and updated - it must get an accurate location from GPS to look up the ID number of closest station (and often they're adjacent, so the next one is 12' away). - my cellular data, and the base station's cellular data have to work - all inside a concrete parking garage. so it only works 3/4 of the time.

bpodgursky 9y ago

Perfect! Put a few tons of carbon in the air pointlessly calculating hashes to mine *coins, and then use those e-coins to charge your electric car. This uses Ethereum so when they eventually move to proof-of-stake I'll mostly retract my scorn, but for now I stand by this being counterproductive and dumb.

mrb 9y ago
"Put a few tons of carbon in the air pointlessly calculating hashes to mine coins" It's not pointless. Have you read the arguments in http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-mining-is-not-wasteful/ http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-mining-is-not-wasteful/ ? It's not Ethereum-specific but the same logic applies. I feel I post that link too frequently, but people get too often mentally blocked on one technical detail (hashing) and fail to think about the big picture (renewables, jobs created, real utility of cryptos, etc). If cars with internal combustion engines were introduced today, would HNers complain its a dumb tech because it wastes 97% of the fuel's energy?[1] [1] 90% wasted moving 1.5 tons of metal and only 150 kg of useful cargo/passengers, and remaining 7% wasted mostly as heat/friction.
- jstanley 9y ago
  Thanks for writing this. I've been looking for a decent article to send people who argue that mining is a waste of energy, and this is that.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  I'd like to ask more about Proof of Stake's flaws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-stake#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-stake#Criticism These problems seem fairly significant and unresolved. Thoughts? Statistical simulations have shown that simultaneous forging on several chains is possible, even profitable. But Proof of Stake advocates believe most described attack scenarios are impossible or so unpredictable that they are only theoretical. Any system that will eventually attain a $1T market cap probably can't have theoretical issues like this.
  - 9y ago

stale2002 9y ago

But why is there a blockchain? Why not just charge people? Crytocurrencies both have large advantages AND disadvantages. The advantage is that it is a decentralized, censorship resist currency. But if you don't care about the decentralized part of it, then there is no point. Just use a credit card.

jstanley 9y ago
It doesn't use a blockchain, the headline is misleading. It's just car charging where you pay using Ethereum.
waltero 9y ago
Because it seems these days projects tend to attract funds just because of mentioning the word 'blockchain'.
- cr0sh 9y ago
  I need to pitch to YC my idea of a blockchain-enabled, cloud-hosted deep-learning platform based on TensorFlow. /probably needs more buzzwords //probably has been done ///probably already funded by YC...meh
mkagenius 9y ago
And the credit card charges. I am sure people driving uber would not mind keeping the 3% to themselves.
- mark_edward 9y ago
  Are we still pretending transactions are free and instant like crypto enthusiasts used to claim 2-3 years ago?
  - biggerbistro 9y ago
    Outside of the mess that is Bitcoin they are much cheaper than what credit/debit cards charge. More advanced coins like Ethereum take under a minute for an appropriate number of confirmations.

0x006A 9y ago

https://blog.slock.it/share-charge-smart-contracts-the-technical-angle-58b93ce80f15 https://blog.slock.it/share-charge-smart-contracts-the-techn... has some details on how Share&Charge uses Ethereum blockchain as a transaction layer

0x006A 9y ago

Brought to you by Slock.it, the company that built the DAO, what could possibly go wrong.

xurukefi 9y ago

http://doyouneedablockchain.com/ http://doyouneedablockchain.com/

xurukefi 9y ago

http://doyouneedablockchain.com/ http://doyouneedablockchain.com/

xg15 9y ago

OT, can anyone explain this idiom to me? > The peer-to-peer concept relies on blockchain, one of today's hottest trends [...] Note the missing article. Not "relies on the blockchain" or "relies on a blockchain" but "relies on blockchain" as if that were some kind of new elemental resource like water or electricity. I've noticed that expression in quite a few articles. DOes anyone know where it comes from?

davidgerard 9y ago
It's the 100% certain tell of a bad article. Worse if they capitalise it.
- xg15 9y ago
  That was my suspicion. Reminds me of "one internet please"...

bosslevel 9y ago

As someone associated with this project, I can inform you that the reason the words "blockchain enabled" are used is because the Share and Charge platform enables peer-to-peer payments between car charger and private (not commercial) charging pole owner via the blockchain. As it happens however, as this is a pilot in a new country (US) with new compliance requirements, there are no actual cash payments taking place for now. And as for the electricity cost of Proof of Work, we're actually looking to move to a special purpose chain using Proof of Authority in the near future.

alistproducer2 9y ago

I read the article and no where does it make a case for why a blockchain makes any sense in the application. I read a comment by a person claiming to be associated with the project saying that "blockchain enabled" makes sense because the payment are p2p but that doesn't make sense either. Blockchains are good for pretty much one thing: a distributed ledger that parties can trust to be immutable. I can confidently say they're only inserting a blockchain here because it gets the idea more buzz. Side note: I had no idea people paid so much to charge they're EVs. the article mentioned that a electric bill in Cali can be upwards of $1000/yr. Edit for clarity: the $1000/yr figure is the marginal cost of charging the EV, not the entire bill

rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
I fill up my Jeep about once a week. At an average cost of $25 to fill over the course of 52 weeks, that's $1,300. Of course I don't have the added bonus of being able to charge from solar power, but at least that shows that the cost of electricity isn't prohibitive versus the cost of gasoline.
- lettergram 9y ago
  > Of course I don't have the added bonus of being able to charge from solar power Ugh, you also don't have the added bonus with an EV to just fill up when necessary.
- cr0sh 9y ago
  As a fellow Jeep owner (2004 TJ, {waves - lol}), I was sitting here wondering how you "fill up" a Jeep with only $25.00 (@ approx $2.00 per gallon - that'd be 12.5 gallons of gas per fill up). So I googled things - found this: http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f9/gas-tank-size-249444/ http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f9/gas-tank-size-249444/ Of course, that whole discussion just throws a bunch of wrenches into the works; maybe you do have the 15 gallon tank on a older model (newer JKs have much larger tanks supposedly)? And apparently there's still more in the tank even once the light comes on (a few gallons reserve)? I've never "buried the needle" on my Jeep yet, so I have no idea what size tank I have.

TheSpecialist 9y ago

"If bitcoin is digital gold then Ethereum is digital oil" analogy taken too seriously.