• Brawler Yukon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The only benefit of ICE over BEV is quick refueling, and that only matters if you’re roadtripping.

    The solution is fast-charging BEVs. Edmunds just released a roundup of EV charging times, and showed that with some Hyundais/Kias, you can get 100 miles of range juiced up in 7-8 minutes. Obviously, yes, that’s still slower than dumping some dead dinos in your gashole and taking off, but it’s still pretty quick.

    With further technological refinements over time and infrastructure built to give you something to do during 15-20 minute charges, road trips will be perfectly feasible without ICE and will actually probably be more pleasant.

    • Hypx@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Except fast charging quickly degrades the battery. For people without home charging access, this is the key issue. In reality, BEVs won’t catch on. Between the cost, weight, and other problems of the battery, it is a doomed idea and a repeat of the early 20th century. The future of transportation will involve a chemical fuel, whether it’s ICE or fuel cell powered or whatever. It has to mirror the functionality of existing cars completely, or it won’t work.

      • Brawler Yukon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Terrible take.

        Solid state batteries will get figured out well before useful non-polluting chemical fuels, rocketing BEVs beyond ICE’s wildest dreams.

        • Hypx@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Solid state batteries don’t exist yet. It’s the classic “magic batteries from the future will solve everything” argument. Meanwhile, a sensible path to zero emissions exist now, provide you accept that we should making zero emissions chemical fuels. At some point, refusal to accept this option is its own form of climate change denial.

          • Brawler Yukon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Solid state batteries don’t exist yet.

            So you start with this, but then…

            provide you accept that we should making zero emissions chemical fuels

            Why do you think we’re magically going to find zero emission chemical fuels but aren’t going to make solid state batteries? I mean, aside from your being a pretty obvious fossil fuel stooge?

            • Hypx@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              We already have that ability. In particular, we can now make hydrogen from electrolysis at vast scale. Derivative fuels, such as ammonia, are also doable.

              Your problem is that you are being brainwashed by the battery companies. You think magical batteries exist when they do not, but are stuck in the early 2000s when it comes to competing technologies.