this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
1103 points (96.3% liked)
xkcd
8862 readers
64 users here now
A community for a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My point is that we should be focused on the outcomes we want. It isn't really important that fossil fuels are a lot more energy dense if the electric cars can travel twice as far. They can't, but I'd be willing to bet we will get to that point with fossil fuels still being more energy dense.
But also as I mentioned in the comment you relied to, Nio have a vast network of battery swap stations where you can get a full charge in a couple of minutes, the same as filling up at a gas station.
The price of EVs are a problem, and not the only problem, but my point was that the specific things mentioned don't stop us having better EVs than ICEs, because we will get the same outcome in a different way.
I absolutely agree that we should work on improving EVs, charging network and whatever technologies makes it better and more suitable for more people. But every person in need of a car has unique hard requirements for the car that can't be ignored as "inconvenience" - and many of those people have to drive with fossil fuels still.
Also, battery swap stations being available in X location doesn't matter to people living in Y location, nor should people in Y location buy EV in hopes that it will be better in Z years
I agree completely. I am not trying to argue that everyone can or should go out and buy an EV.
I was specifically addressing the points that seemed to be claiming EVs are not the right direction for cars or engines to be advancing towarda, by pointing out that the barriers aren't blocking all paths.
I honestly believe the person starting the thread was on the same wavelength, just pointing out the reason so many still choose ice