5 ms·

No. EV adoption is an important goal for the car industry's survival. If we're talking about the species' survival, I sure hope we can adopt a broader vision t

No. EV adoption is an important goal for the car industry's survival. If we're talking about the species' survival, I sure hope we can adopt a broader vision than taking a land-hungry and energy-intensive mode of transport, and changing nothing about it except for making it run on batteries.

threeseed 2y ago
At this point I am not sure EVs are the best option in short to medium term. Outside of the US there is still a legitimate fear of range anxiety made worse by Musk's announcement. It seems to me that widespread deployment of hybrids where 95% of daily driving is done on batteries is a more workable approach.
- haileys 2y ago
  Yes, a smarter mix of options is the way to go. Cars are a one-size-fits-all approach that can't hope to achieve what we need for a sustainable future. In Perth, Australia, two thirds of all car trips are for distances of less than 5 kilometers. Using cars for these trips is both irrational and a hopelessly profligate use of resources, regardless of how they're powered. 5 kilometers is the kind of distance where even pedal bicycles are competitive with cars in terms of trip time, especially once you factor in traffic. And e-bikes are only getting cheaper and more accessible too.
- dgoldstein0 2y ago
  Inside the us there's also quite a bit of range anxiety. It's one of the larger adoption hold ups. That and price.
imperialdrive 2y ago
Thank you for raising that, we need less cars! (More bicycles and related infrastructure would be nice) :D
- hehdhdjehehegwv 2y ago
  Less cars is a worthy goal for some people in some places for some activities, and works in tandem with making the cars we do have better.
  - sumeno 2y ago
    83% of the US lives in urban areas and the US has the highest transport emissions in the world. "This doesn't work for literally everyone so let's do this other thing that isn't as good"
    - hehdhdjehehegwv 2y ago
      [flagged]
- ta_1138 2y ago
  Bicycles win when the level of density is still relatively low. If we are serious about efficiency, bikes don't make that more sense. Sufficient density so that most activity can be done on foot, and the rest is mass transit.
financetechbro 2y ago
Patiently waiting for a train revolution
- hehdhdjehehegwv 2y ago
  California high speed is happening slowly but surely. I think by 2030 the Central Valley will have a real HS line, and while that leaves out SFB/LA, Central Valley is fastest growing population. Likewise the LA/Vegas line looks like a real money maker on paper.
hehdhdjehehegwv 2y ago
Tell it to the large percentage of humanity who doesn’t live in a city; many of whom grow the food you eat, and ship it to your local shop in a truck. There is no one-shot solution, motorized vehicles are not going away, but switching to EV is an absolute must.

threeseed 2y ago

At this point I am not sure EVs are the best option in short to medium term. Outside of the US there is still a legitimate fear of range anxiety made worse by Musk's announcement. It seems to me that widespread deployment of hybrids where 95% of daily driving is done on batteries is a more workable approach.

haileys 2y ago
Yes, a smarter mix of options is the way to go. Cars are a one-size-fits-all approach that can't hope to achieve what we need for a sustainable future. In Perth, Australia, two thirds of all car trips are for distances of less than 5 kilometers. Using cars for these trips is both irrational and a hopelessly profligate use of resources, regardless of how they're powered. 5 kilometers is the kind of distance where even pedal bicycles are competitive with cars in terms of trip time, especially once you factor in traffic. And e-bikes are only getting cheaper and more accessible too.
dgoldstein0 2y ago
Inside the us there's also quite a bit of range anxiety. It's one of the larger adoption hold ups. That and price.

imperialdrive 2y ago

Thank you for raising that, we need less cars! (More bicycles and related infrastructure would be nice) :D

hehdhdjehehegwv 2y ago
Less cars is a worthy goal for some people in some places for some activities, and works in tandem with making the cars we do have better.
- sumeno 2y ago
  83% of the US lives in urban areas and the US has the highest transport emissions in the world. "This doesn't work for literally everyone so let's do this other thing that isn't as good"
  - hehdhdjehehegwv 2y ago
    [flagged]
ta_1138 2y ago
Bicycles win when the level of density is still relatively low. If we are serious about efficiency, bikes don't make that more sense. Sufficient density so that most activity can be done on foot, and the rest is mass transit.

financetechbro 2y ago

Patiently waiting for a train revolution

hehdhdjehehegwv 2y ago
California high speed is happening slowly but surely. I think by 2030 the Central Valley will have a real HS line, and while that leaves out SFB/LA, Central Valley is fastest growing population. Likewise the LA/Vegas line looks like a real money maker on paper.

hehdhdjehehegwv 2y ago

Tell it to the large percentage of humanity who doesn’t live in a city; many of whom grow the food you eat, and ship it to your local shop in a truck. There is no one-shot solution, motorized vehicles are not going away, but switching to EV is an absolute must.