2 ms·

The electric cars of the late 19th century were extremely slow and limited in their abilities. Of course, gas cars were too, but they advanced quickly, because

The electric cars of the late 19th century were extremely slow and limited in their abilities. Of course, gas cars were too, but they advanced quickly, because there's SO much energy stored in gasoline and diesel fuels. Electric cars, I don't think, could ever have progressed that far until recent times, because batteries just didn't have enough energy density to make them practical (in the way that cars of, say, the 1970s-90s were practica), until Lithium-ion batteries because cheap and commonplace, which was only in the last 20 years.

mschuster91 3y ago
> The electric cars of the late 19th century were extremely slow and limited in their abilities. Agreed on the speed, but 100 miles range on a single charge? That's more than enough to account for the needs of the vast majority of commuters. > until Lithium-ion batteries because cheap and commonplace, which was only in the last 20 years. I wonder how that one would have played out if we didn't have oil. The abundance of cheap fossil fuels didn't make it exactly worthwhile to invest in battery R&D.
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  >Agreed on the speed, but 100 miles range on a single charge? That's more than enough to account for the needs of the vast majority of commuters. 1. If that were true, EVs would have been much more successful in America. They haven't been. The Nissan Leaf was around long before Tesla and it never went far, because the range sucks. 2. Back in 1900, 100 miles would have been great. In 2000, it's not sufficient at all for most car-owning Americans. 3. You can't have the same range at higher speeds: energy usage goes up dramatically with speed. So you need much more energy storage, and the battery tech of the time just wasn't sufficient. >I wonder how that one would have played out if we didn't have oil. The abundance of cheap fossil fuels didn't make it exactly worthwhile to invest in battery R&D. That's a very good point. It would be interesting to see an alternate universe where this was the case.
- rtkwe 3y ago
  100 miles is good for commutes but commutes aren't the only use people have for cars. Vacations are something that even if the US doesn't get to take as often as we should people still aspire to them and the further you move up the income ladder the more they happen. 100 miles isn't enough for that, so you'd have to either have a second car that's gasoline powered, a more capable long range vehicle, or rent a car for those trips.
  - shiroiuma 3y ago
    100 miles is not sufficient for commutes in America these days. Many people drive more than 100 miles in a day. Even if they don't do it every day, the drive to/from work plus an extra shopping or social trip in the evening could easily put them over 100 miles. The problem is that, because of cars, they built everything farther apart, and people willingly chose places to live farther away from work. Just look at a map of the city of Phoenix AZ for instance: 100 miles' range won't cover a trip from one side of the city to the other side and back. However, for vacations, a rental car is absolutely the right idea. That's what people here in Tokyo do: there's lots of convenient places to rent a car for shopping trips to Costco, or a trip to the mountains, etc., because so many people don't own cars.

mschuster91 3y ago

> The electric cars of the late 19th century were extremely slow and limited in their abilities. Agreed on the speed, but 100 miles range on a single charge? That's more than enough to account for the needs of the vast majority of commuters. > until Lithium-ion batteries because cheap and commonplace, which was only in the last 20 years. I wonder how that one would have played out if we didn't have oil. The abundance of cheap fossil fuels didn't make it exactly worthwhile to invest in battery R&D.

shiroiuma 3y ago
>Agreed on the speed, but 100 miles range on a single charge? That's more than enough to account for the needs of the vast majority of commuters. 1. If that were true, EVs would have been much more successful in America. They haven't been. The Nissan Leaf was around long before Tesla and it never went far, because the range sucks. 2. Back in 1900, 100 miles would have been great. In 2000, it's not sufficient at all for most car-owning Americans. 3. You can't have the same range at higher speeds: energy usage goes up dramatically with speed. So you need much more energy storage, and the battery tech of the time just wasn't sufficient. >I wonder how that one would have played out if we didn't have oil. The abundance of cheap fossil fuels didn't make it exactly worthwhile to invest in battery R&D. That's a very good point. It would be interesting to see an alternate universe where this was the case.
rtkwe 3y ago
100 miles is good for commutes but commutes aren't the only use people have for cars. Vacations are something that even if the US doesn't get to take as often as we should people still aspire to them and the further you move up the income ladder the more they happen. 100 miles isn't enough for that, so you'd have to either have a second car that's gasoline powered, a more capable long range vehicle, or rent a car for those trips.
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  100 miles is not sufficient for commutes in America these days. Many people drive more than 100 miles in a day. Even if they don't do it every day, the drive to/from work plus an extra shopping or social trip in the evening could easily put them over 100 miles. The problem is that, because of cars, they built everything farther apart, and people willingly chose places to live farther away from work. Just look at a map of the city of Phoenix AZ for instance: 100 miles' range won't cover a trip from one side of the city to the other side and back. However, for vacations, a rental car is absolutely the right idea. That's what people here in Tokyo do: there's lots of convenient places to rent a car for shopping trips to Costco, or a trip to the mountains, etc., because so many people don't own cars.