3 ms·
And you get navigation, playing music and telephone integration. What a jump in technology. The one thing that would have mattered would be a dependable autopil
by raxxorraxor 3y ago
And you get navigation, playing music and telephone integration. What a jump in technology. The one thing that would have mattered would be a dependable autopilot. In the absence of that the rest is pretty much crap.
And the systems often aren't too advanced either. Sure, there are some sensors. Often very low tech as well. But the car industry also build in DRM for single components, so you cannot register parts by third parties. They will be rejected.
I wouldn't be surprised if electric vehicles have a much worse co2 footprint in its life cycle than your average 10 year old car, just because the new cars will quickly be dismantled when repairs aren't economically viable anymore. Although that is as true for modern combustion cars as well.
The article just looks at crash repairs. But much more important is the maintainability towards the end of a cars life cycle. The data doesn't really exist yet though. That aside, I disagree that new cars offer too many benefits. Navigation, music, telephone. Security might be better, but I don't believe there were huge jumps as the article advertised.
- coldtea 3y ago>I wouldn't be surprised if electric vehicles have a much worse co2 footprint in its life cycle than your average 10 year old car I'd bet they do. A lot of it is hand-waved away as externality.
- 1970-01-01 3y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36468353 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36468353
- raxxorraxor 3y agoPolestar is a car I thought about buying actually, but this data isn't really extensive. And increasing the life expectation of a car by 3x would still form the largest position here.
- hotpotamus 3y agoThis sounds a bit like the "windmills cause cancer" or whatever conspiracy FUD people who are resistant to change would like to believe. A lifetime of dumping carbon out of the tail pipe and into the atmosphere is such a handicap to a gas car that it's hard to get much worse. And sure the electricity that moves an electric car around isn't carbon-free, but it's not like the production of an ICE car is carbon-free either. Moreover, electricity can in theory come from wind, solar, or nuclear (don't wait up on that one), so it could be much better in the future.
- coldtea 3y ago>people who are resistant to change Wasn't acceptance of change - and coal, and increased industrial production, and cars for everybody, and such, that brought the climate change?
- hotpotamus 3y agoI didn't accept coal or any of the rest of that.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- raxxorraxor 3y agoSome might bring up the idea that to care about emissions is FUD as well, so maybe use a better argument.
- 1970-01-01 3y ago>The data doesn't really exist yet though It certainly does. The problem with that is the lies attached to it. Ask a big oil executive and a Tesla engineer for an EV life cycle analysis and they arrive at opposite conclusions. Big oil will declare most EVs 'charge dirty' and were never meant to last beyond 10 years. Tesla will conveniently leave out statistics on their early Model S cars. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
- raxxorraxor 3y agoI was thinking about the real life cycle. A maintainable car can live up to 30 years and longer. They are shipped to third world countries where they are repaired extensively. But that isn't possible with new cars that put DRM in their components so third parties cannot supply parts. The economics of repairs change and that causes a massive increase in emissions since a lot more cars must be build in the first place and they must be replaced more often. Most EV aren't that old yet, so data beyond the leasing lifetime isn't to readily available.