3 ms·

Chargers don't have to have higher amps for larger batteries. It's nice to have, but not necessary, and nothing gets worse with a bigger capacity. Rate of char

by pornel 2y ago

Chargers don't have to have higher amps for larger batteries. It's nice to have, but not necessary, and nothing gets worse with a bigger capacity. Rate of charging can stay the same, and it will add about the same range in the same amount of time.

akira2501 2y ago
> and it will add about the same range in the same amount of time. So the spots get used more, or the drivers charge at more stations along the way, meaning "some cars only need to charge once" is not a consequence free conclusion.
- pornel 2y ago
  It is possible to split one long charge into two charging stops that take half of the time, but that doesn't increase overall utilization of chargers. EVs are not filled up to full like gas tanks, so a larger "tank" doesn't make people stay for longer. Charging to full is slow and unhealthy for the battery. EVs charge what is minimum required for the next leg of the journey, and leave with the rest of the battery empty.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    > EVs charge what is minimum required for the next leg of the journey If you put the route in there and it has access to the weather. I imagine this is a standard feature on a few luxury models but my guess it's not in most of the EVs sold on the market. It also requires the user to know this and to remember to do this on long journeys when they're likely not in the habit of it on short ones. > and leave with the rest of the battery empty. This compromise does not exist in current fueling stations. I can get a full 300 miles in my 30mpg vehicle in 60 seconds. You've very effectively summed up "range anxiety" in two sentences. I mean.. I get that people want EV infrastructure to replace petroleum infrastructure. I am one of those people. I simply think it's unrealistic to expect this hyper fast infrastructure change and I think it's bad practice to ignore the obvious factors or user experience when plotting out the roadmap of the future. I would personally plan on a 25 to 50 year cycle for complete replacement of petroleum. In the scale of human ventures, this is a heartbeat, and I genuinely don't understand the reluctance to simply admit it and be a small part of it. The only reason to broadcast a "revolution" prematurely is to profit off of peoples ignorance. It's nice to believe /we/ could be a part of that revolution but I honestly think it sets the whole market back. It's far more successful and ethical to make the small incremental steps towards a true progress that you may never witness (or profit from) in your lifetime.

by pornel 2y ago

akira2501 2y ago

> and it will add about the same range in the same amount of time. So the spots get used more, or the drivers charge at more stations along the way, meaning "some cars only need to charge once" is not a consequence free conclusion.

pornel 2y ago
It is possible to split one long charge into two charging stops that take half of the time, but that doesn't increase overall utilization of chargers. EVs are not filled up to full like gas tanks, so a larger "tank" doesn't make people stay for longer. Charging to full is slow and unhealthy for the battery. EVs charge what is minimum required for the next leg of the journey, and leave with the rest of the battery empty.
- akira2501 2y ago
  > EVs charge what is minimum required for the next leg of the journey If you put the route in there and it has access to the weather. I imagine this is a standard feature on a few luxury models but my guess it's not in most of the EVs sold on the market. It also requires the user to know this and to remember to do this on long journeys when they're likely not in the habit of it on short ones. > and leave with the rest of the battery empty. This compromise does not exist in current fueling stations. I can get a full 300 miles in my 30mpg vehicle in 60 seconds. You've very effectively summed up "range anxiety" in two sentences. I mean.. I get that people want EV infrastructure to replace petroleum infrastructure. I am one of those people. I simply think it's unrealistic to expect this hyper fast infrastructure change and I think it's bad practice to ignore the obvious factors or user experience when plotting out the roadmap of the future. I would personally plan on a 25 to 50 year cycle for complete replacement of petroleum. In the scale of human ventures, this is a heartbeat, and I genuinely don't understand the reluctance to simply admit it and be a small part of it. The only reason to broadcast a "revolution" prematurely is to profit off of peoples ignorance. It's nice to believe /we/ could be a part of that revolution but I honestly think it sets the whole market back. It's far more successful and ethical to make the small incremental steps towards a true progress that you may never witness (or profit from) in your lifetime.