3 ms·

What the parent thread suggests is that if you EV range continues to increase, access to convenient charging becomes less relevant. I think the parallel here i

What the parent thread suggests is that if you EV range continues to increase, access to convenient charging becomes less relevant. I think the parallel here is to cell phones. If you cell phone battery sucks, you're probably carrying around a portable charger, and a usb+wall charger. However if your phone normally goes ~2 days without a charge then you can simply charge nightly at home without carrying a portable battery and/or cable + wall plug everywhere you go.

Barrin92 8y ago
the range can be as high as it wants, if you're living in an apartment without access to a personal charger you need public infrastructure because at some point you'll need to charge your car somewhere.
- ghouse 8y ago
  And if your apartment doesn't have a washer and dryer, at some point you'll need clean clothes. My point is why should I subsidize your charger?
  - Barrin92 8y ago
    Because electric cars provide positive externalities for a city such as reduced pollution. Which is an especially big issue in densely populated cities. Vehicle emissions contributes to as much as 50k premature deaths each year, tax dollars have been spent on worse things. http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829 http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-e...
    - ghouse 8y ago
      I understand and agree with these facts. And as a society we can choose to either increase the cost of the negative externality (like the vehicle emissions), or decrease the cost of the positive externality (emission-free vehicles). However, in this case, the "apartment" example is a transfer of wealth from people who have access to chargers (homes, apartments which chargers, workplaces with chargers) to people who don't have such access. Sure, HN has a San Francisco bias in its readership, but some places apartment owners compete for tenants. And to differentiate themselves, they'll add chargers.

Barrin92 8y ago

the range can be as high as it wants, if you're living in an apartment without access to a personal charger you need public infrastructure because at some point you'll need to charge your car somewhere.

ghouse 8y ago
And if your apartment doesn't have a washer and dryer, at some point you'll need clean clothes. My point is why should I subsidize your charger?
- Barrin92 8y ago
  Because electric cars provide positive externalities for a city such as reduced pollution. Which is an especially big issue in densely populated cities. Vehicle emissions contributes to as much as 50k premature deaths each year, tax dollars have been spent on worse things. http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829 http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-e...
  - ghouse 8y ago
    I understand and agree with these facts. And as a society we can choose to either increase the cost of the negative externality (like the vehicle emissions), or decrease the cost of the positive externality (emission-free vehicles). However, in this case, the "apartment" example is a transfer of wealth from people who have access to chargers (homes, apartments which chargers, workplaces with chargers) to people who don't have such access. Sure, HN has a San Francisco bias in its readership, but some places apartment owners compete for tenants. And to differentiate themselves, they'll add chargers.