6 ms·
At the beginning of the 20th century something around 40% American cars was electric, same with 20% of the Berlin taxis. There's a wonderful book "The Shock of
by r41nbowdash 9y ago
At the beginning of the 20th century something around 40% American cars was electric, same with 20% of the Berlin taxis.
There's a wonderful book "The Shock of the Old" about the meandering ways innovation takes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_of_the_Old https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_of_the_Old
- cornholio 9y agoSo much for the "big oil killed the electric car" conspiracies. The electric cars were always a contender, and the companies producing them would have loved to kill petrol cars. They were simply unable to compete with the high energy density of dead dinosaurs gushing out of the ground to be burned carefreely.
- crx087 9y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...
- sharpercoder 9y agohttp://documentaryheaven.com/who-killed-the-electric-car/ http://documentaryheaven.com/who-killed-the-electric-car/
- WorldMaker 9y agoI recommend the follow up film as well, Revenge of the Electric Car. (It follows the launches of the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf, as well as the first production run of the Tesla Roadster.)
- _red 9y agoMy good friend is a material scientist for Exxon. He is employed to find "the next oil". As he says, its all about "joules of energy per $1 landed cost" everything else is just noise. Currently, $1 (retail price) of gasoline delivers more joules of energy than any of the competition. The rise of fracking has made nat gas a contender, but gasoline is still dominates. Most comparisons to electric vehicles are actually a comparison of a car that runs on gas vs a car that runs on coal, guess which one wins?
- interfixus 9y agoThe missing second part of that exposition: The $1 gasoline is poured into a horrendously complex, noisy, brittle, contrived piece of technological megadebt. Electricity goes to one motor per wheel it needs to drive. In 1912 and in 2018.
- rdtsc 9y agoSo why didn't the clean and efficient design dominate then?
- jandrese 9y agoBecause the batteries sucked. They take too long to recharge, don't hold enough charge, are heavy, are bulky, and cost too much. As ugly as a gas engine is it does offer quick refueling, long range, and low cost. It's just more practical, especially with turn of the century technology.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago>. It's just more practical, especially with turn of the century technology. Both 19th/20th and 20th/21st according to the sales numbers
- jandrese 9y agoYep. Fast charging is still an unsolved problem for electric cars (15 minutes for a 85 miles is not fast enough IMHO) although some electric scooters have swappable battery packs which do fit the bill. I do fully expect we will have these problems licked before the next turn of the century.
- mr_overalls 9y agoAlthough Tesla abandoned the idea because of lack of interest (which I do find strange), a swapping station solves this problem. A depleted battery can be swapped for a fresh one in less time than a gasoline fillup requires.
- vvanders 9y agoCoal? Please get out of here. 70k of the EV miles I've put on have been with 93.3% non-fossil fuel based sources[1]. If you're in the PNW EVs are a clear win both from fuel sources and the fact that it costs me $6/300mi at $0.07/kWh. [1] https://www.cowlitzpud.org/fuel-mix https://www.cowlitzpud.org/fuel-mix
- dorfsmay 9y agoSomebody once pointed to me that the reason internal combustion engines vehicle require so little gas is because half of the energy in the combustion comes from the air around it, and therefore does not need to transport it. One of the few times I felt "mind blown".