4 ms·

> "The weighted average trip distance is 9.4 miles. Vehicles owned by urban households averaged 8.5 miles and rural vehicles averaged 12.1 miles." [0] In the U

> "The weighted average trip distance is 9.4 miles. Vehicles owned by urban households averaged 8.5 miles and rural vehicles averaged 12.1 miles." [0] In the U.S, a considerably larger country than Ireland, greater-than-EV-range journeys are outliers. The same purchasing decisions that are applied to vehicle capacity will get applied to range. People don't own large vans for the once-in-a-decade they move house with all their furniture. Owning an EV that can do 200 miles might be the norm, but the regular journeys are <10% of that. [0] http://www.solarjourneyusa.com/EVdistanceAnalysis7.php http://www.solarjourneyusa.com/EVdistanceAnalysis7.php

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
wongarsu 7y ago
Average journeys are incredibly short, but also not really relevant. If I get a car that can only travel my mean trip distance, half of my trips can't be traveled without refueling during the trip. Even the 95th percentile, as analysed by the linked article, isn't very useful. A car covering 95% of trips still can't make 1/20 trips. The car needs to cover at least 99% of trips, making me refuel only during 1 out of 100 trips. Some people will even demand covering 99.9% of trips. The borders of an island simply cutting off the long tail of trip distances does a lot to reduce required range.
- erik_seaberg 7y ago
  It's not the length of a single trip, it's total travel between chargers. Even if you're lucky enough to have a locked private garage, that might be a full day of commuting and errands.
  - afarrell 7y ago
    Not if electric recharging stations are common because businesses expect large numbers of people to have electric cars.
    - xxs 7y ago
      Charging still takes time, a lot more time than putting the hose in. With the current lithium-ion technology, high speed charging (over-volting) causes battery degradation due to extra heat. I suppose batteries can be actively cooled to mitigate the process.
      - adrianN 7y ago
        Cars spend more than twenty hours a day parked. If most parking spots had a charger, keeping the car full wouldn't be a problem.
        xxs 7y ago
        the amount of power lines needed would be quite astounding; say - 30A at 230V (or 3x 16A for 3 phase) per parking slot. Also it'd require to hide them under + a way to pay for (but that's trivial compared to the power lines). Yet, all cars would need standardized plugs too. It's doable but I'd consider it a futuristic idea. -- Again, it doesn't solve the issue with long trips. Last summer my family took a trip through Europe (central/west), often driving 600-800km a day. The range would have not been sufficient, esp. with the high speed German highways.
        adrianN 7y ago
        Saving the climate requires quite ambitious plans, but for normal parking spots you don't need fast charging. You need just enough power to recharge typical usage over night. For long trips Tesla's supercharger network seems to work okay.
        Reason077 7y ago
        > "the amount of power lines needed would be quite astounding; say - 30A at 230V (or 3x 16A for 3 phase) per parking slot." Not really, because not all parking spots would be charging at full capacity simultaneously. For that reason you can have a lot more charging-enabled parking spots than you have electrical supply for: in the event of unusually high demand, the outlets can throttle themselves to ensure that breakers aren't tripped, etc. Norway has some experience building these sorts of facilities already: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktNKWLwjQJM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktNKWLwjQJM > "Last summer my family took a trip through Europe (central/west), often driving 600-800km a day. The range would have not been sufficient" That's where high speed charging comes in. The new charging networks currently being built by Ionity (in Europe) and Electrify America, for example, are capable of 150-350kW charging. At those speeds, you only need one charging stop - of under 30 minutes - to complete that 600-800km day of driving. We've all got to eat and take toilet breaks, so few people would drive that far without stopping even if they could!
  - benjymo 7y ago
    Around here, quite a few employers also provide charging stations at work.
- adrianN 7y ago
  You can always rent a car with a higher range for long distance trips. We could build much more efficient cars if we optimized for normal usage, that is, 1.1 people in the car, short trips, city speeds and moderate acceleration, instead of building 250HP monsters that can tow a house and using them to sit alone in traffic jams. If you have exceptional needs, rent something for the day.
  - COGlory 7y ago
    Huge swaths of America never encounter cities when driving, particularly out west. The population density of states like Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho are so far from solvable with electric vehicles that it's honestly funny to see this topic discussed as if there's some feasible path there. And other western states aren't far behind. Nevada, Utah, Colorado, the Dakotas, they're all extremely sparse. 100+ mile trips aren't uncommon and are rarely pre-planned for. The other half of the equation is that many people have trucks as a dual purpose vehicle: work and every day use. People need to get grain buckets out to cows, or tow back hay on a trailer. People need to get down the street when it's snowing from October to June. Probably 20% of the roads aren't even paved. Any kind of sweeping legislation like has been discussed in these comments would basically grind life out here to a halt. Which wouldn't be good considering how much food comes from this area.
    - adrianN 7y ago
      I'm in favor of a steep carbon tax. That would allow people who currently have no alternatives to still do whatever they need to do, but provide a strong incentive for finding alternatives.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    You can rent a cruise ship if you want. If you are only going to own one of something it makes more sense to go for the Swiss army knife approach, hence the proliferation of crew cab pickups and crossovers. Also, 250hp really isn't that much in this day and age. As someone who rents various kinds of trucks and trailers every month or so I have plenty of sympathy for people who's use case is narrow enough that they can fill it with a single vehicle, even if it is a crew cab F150. Yes, it's a luxury but it's a luxury a lot of people can afford and justify. Renting equipment is a massive hassle and nobody is going to do it to pick up plywood or furniture if they have any other option. You're basically complaining about people rationally choosing to spend their extra income on a luxury that has a big impact on their day to day lives.
- throw0101a 7y ago
  > The car needs to cover at least 99% of trips, making me refuel only during 1 out of 100 trips. Some people will even demand covering 99.9% of trips. Most households have multiple cars, and most (90%) of people's commutes are less than 50 miles (75 km). So for most households, having one car that is EV with a range of (say) 150 miles will cover your most common situation: getting to work and back. It would also probably cover a good portion of errand running on weekends. The second car can either be full-ICE, or a hybrid. If the latter, if it has a 100 mile battery range, it would also basically be EV-only for commuting. Personally I'm off the opinion that all vehicles should be full-EV by default, and have an option for a range extender (small generator) for those that need extra distance.
sn_master 7y ago
"In the U.S, a considerably larger country than Ireland, greater-than-EV-range journeys are outliers." Well, for me thats nearly every weekend in the Summer where I go hiking and I need 300-400 miles roundtrip.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

wongarsu 7y ago

Average journeys are incredibly short, but also not really relevant. If I get a car that can only travel my mean trip distance, half of my trips can't be traveled without refueling during the trip. Even the 95th percentile, as analysed by the linked article, isn't very useful. A car covering 95% of trips still can't make 1/20 trips. The car needs to cover at least 99% of trips, making me refuel only during 1 out of 100 trips. Some people will even demand covering 99.9% of trips. The borders of an island simply cutting off the long tail of trip distances does a lot to reduce required range.

erik_seaberg 7y ago
It's not the length of a single trip, it's total travel between chargers. Even if you're lucky enough to have a locked private garage, that might be a full day of commuting and errands.
- afarrell 7y ago
  Not if electric recharging stations are common because businesses expect large numbers of people to have electric cars.
  - xxs 7y ago
    Charging still takes time, a lot more time than putting the hose in. With the current lithium-ion technology, high speed charging (over-volting) causes battery degradation due to extra heat. I suppose batteries can be actively cooled to mitigate the process.
    - adrianN 7y ago
      Cars spend more than twenty hours a day parked. If most parking spots had a charger, keeping the car full wouldn't be a problem.
      - xxs 7y ago
        the amount of power lines needed would be quite astounding; say - 30A at 230V (or 3x 16A for 3 phase) per parking slot. Also it'd require to hide them under + a way to pay for (but that's trivial compared to the power lines). Yet, all cars would need standardized plugs too. It's doable but I'd consider it a futuristic idea. -- Again, it doesn't solve the issue with long trips. Last summer my family took a trip through Europe (central/west), often driving 600-800km a day. The range would have not been sufficient, esp. with the high speed German highways.
        adrianN 7y ago
        Saving the climate requires quite ambitious plans, but for normal parking spots you don't need fast charging. You need just enough power to recharge typical usage over night. For long trips Tesla's supercharger network seems to work okay.
        Reason077 7y ago
        > "the amount of power lines needed would be quite astounding; say - 30A at 230V (or 3x 16A for 3 phase) per parking slot." Not really, because not all parking spots would be charging at full capacity simultaneously. For that reason you can have a lot more charging-enabled parking spots than you have electrical supply for: in the event of unusually high demand, the outlets can throttle themselves to ensure that breakers aren't tripped, etc. Norway has some experience building these sorts of facilities already: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktNKWLwjQJM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktNKWLwjQJM > "Last summer my family took a trip through Europe (central/west), often driving 600-800km a day. The range would have not been sufficient" That's where high speed charging comes in. The new charging networks currently being built by Ionity (in Europe) and Electrify America, for example, are capable of 150-350kW charging. At those speeds, you only need one charging stop - of under 30 minutes - to complete that 600-800km day of driving. We've all got to eat and take toilet breaks, so few people would drive that far without stopping even if they could!
- benjymo 7y ago
  Around here, quite a few employers also provide charging stations at work.
adrianN 7y ago
You can always rent a car with a higher range for long distance trips. We could build much more efficient cars if we optimized for normal usage, that is, 1.1 people in the car, short trips, city speeds and moderate acceleration, instead of building 250HP monsters that can tow a house and using them to sit alone in traffic jams. If you have exceptional needs, rent something for the day.
- COGlory 7y ago
  Huge swaths of America never encounter cities when driving, particularly out west. The population density of states like Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho are so far from solvable with electric vehicles that it's honestly funny to see this topic discussed as if there's some feasible path there. And other western states aren't far behind. Nevada, Utah, Colorado, the Dakotas, they're all extremely sparse. 100+ mile trips aren't uncommon and are rarely pre-planned for. The other half of the equation is that many people have trucks as a dual purpose vehicle: work and every day use. People need to get grain buckets out to cows, or tow back hay on a trailer. People need to get down the street when it's snowing from October to June. Probably 20% of the roads aren't even paved. Any kind of sweeping legislation like has been discussed in these comments would basically grind life out here to a halt. Which wouldn't be good considering how much food comes from this area.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    I'm in favor of a steep carbon tax. That would allow people who currently have no alternatives to still do whatever they need to do, but provide a strong incentive for finding alternatives.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  You can rent a cruise ship if you want. If you are only going to own one of something it makes more sense to go for the Swiss army knife approach, hence the proliferation of crew cab pickups and crossovers. Also, 250hp really isn't that much in this day and age. As someone who rents various kinds of trucks and trailers every month or so I have plenty of sympathy for people who's use case is narrow enough that they can fill it with a single vehicle, even if it is a crew cab F150. Yes, it's a luxury but it's a luxury a lot of people can afford and justify. Renting equipment is a massive hassle and nobody is going to do it to pick up plywood or furniture if they have any other option. You're basically complaining about people rationally choosing to spend their extra income on a luxury that has a big impact on their day to day lives.
throw0101a 7y ago
> The car needs to cover at least 99% of trips, making me refuel only during 1 out of 100 trips. Some people will even demand covering 99.9% of trips. Most households have multiple cars, and most (90%) of people's commutes are less than 50 miles (75 km). So for most households, having one car that is EV with a range of (say) 150 miles will cover your most common situation: getting to work and back. It would also probably cover a good portion of errand running on weekends. The second car can either be full-ICE, or a hybrid. If the latter, if it has a 100 mile battery range, it would also basically be EV-only for commuting. Personally I'm off the opinion that all vehicles should be full-EV by default, and have an option for a range extender (small generator) for those that need extra distance.

sn_master 7y ago

"In the U.S, a considerably larger country than Ireland, greater-than-EV-range journeys are outliers." Well, for me thats nearly every weekend in the Summer where I go hiking and I need 300-400 miles roundtrip.