[Dormant] Electric Vehicles

3201 readers

2 users here now

We have moved to:

[email protected]

A community for the sharing of links, news, and discussion related to Electric Vehicles.

Rules

No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, casteism, speciesism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
No self-promotion.
No irrelevant content. All posts must be relevant and related to plug-in electric vehicles — BEVs or PHEVs.
No trolling.
Policy, not politics. Submissions and comments about effective policymaking are allowed and encouraged in the community, however conversations and submissions about parties, politicians, and those devolving into general tribalism will be removed.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

You Need Way Less EV Range Than You Think: Study (insideevs.com)

submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

146 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Data from thousands of EVs shows the average daily driving distance is a small percentage of the EPA range of most EVs.

For years, range anxiety has been a major barrier to wider EV adoption in the U.S. It's a common fear: imagine being in the middle of nowhere, with 5% juice remaining in your battery, and nowhere to charge. A nightmare nobody ever wants to experience, right? But a new study proves that in the real world, that's a highly improbable scenario.

After analyzing information from 18,000 EVs across all 50 U.S. states, battery health and data start-up Recurrent found something we sort of knew but took for granted. The average distance Americans cover daily constitutes only a small percentage of what EVs are capable of covering thanks to modern-day battery and powertrain systems.

The study revealed that depending on the state, the average daily driving distance for EVs was between 20 and 45 miles, consuming only 8 to 16% of a battery’s EPA-rated range. Most EVs on sale today in the U.S. offer around 250 miles of range, and many models are capable of covering over 300 miles.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Using fossil fuels in ICE is a waste of resources

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Agreed.

Which is why converting 100-million ICE cars to 100-million Hybrids is our best chance for reducing our fossil fuel consumption.

We are Li-ion limited right now, and will continue to be Li-ion limited for the near future. Hybrids are magic technology because not only is Li-ion chemistry available, but also cheaper/easier to manufacture NiMH (Nickle Metal Hydride), which grossly reduces fossil fuel consumption on the order of 30% to 40%. (50mpg vs 30mpg is 40% savings).

You wish to deny the intermediate step just because... of your weird obsessive compulsive desire of perfection? We all know that 100-million EVs is out of the picture, even on the scale of 10 years of progress and production. We're literally going to run out of Lithium by 2025 and become production constrained.

When the battery tech is ready. Sodium-Batteries are coming as are Silicon-Lithium, both of which will improve our chances. There's also recycling centers that aren't functional yet before Li-ion is a truly green solution.

How many EVs do you think can be made in the next 10 years? Now multiply that by 5 to 20 (because PHEVs / Hybrids use 5x to 20x fewer batteries than a pure EV). How much fossil fuel savings do we get from 20x more Hybrids (or 5x more PHEVs) ??

Its an intermediate step, but economically speaking its a necessary economic step because its more efficient to transition from ICE -> Hybrid/PHEV -> EV, than to not do so. Especially given the economic realities of spinning up Li-ion production.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Lmayo converting 100 M cars is not realistic either

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

There exists a Hybrid in every vehicle segment, and its technology available to Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Ford, GM, Stellanis, BMW and more.

The only reason we're not converting to Hybrids is because online idiots have decided to kill the idea and never give them a proper try. But the market is healing, people are realizing how reliable and practical they are today.

EVs should continue developing of course. But the immediate best move for our society is to immediately move to hybrids and off of traditional ICE. And the technology is in fact, available today... and at cheap prices... to allow for such a move.

What we need is EV fans to get off the backs of people buying a $23,000 Corolla Hybrid or $25,000 Ford Maverick. They need to congratulate these car drivers for making a better environmental choice and something that fit their budget. Trying to get the poor or middle class to buy $40,000+ class EVs is insane. It feels even more insane to fund that through $7500 tax credits, but even with that tax credit the Hybrids are still winning out.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The US has a deeper systemical issue of corruption regarding energy sources and pricing, I'll agree that hybrids are the better solution when ICE fuels pay carry their costs.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Another EV fanboy complaining about corrupt taxes and policies who likely benefits from $7500 direct handouts as well as pays $0 in gas tax aka how most states pay for Road Infrastructure.

Politics is shit. Let's not go there. There's black marks everywhere.

Btw. I support EV subsidies. But I admit that they are in fact, one of those subsidies you are complaining about. I feel like the subsidy regime favors EVs and therefore we EV fans should celebrate it... not bite the hand that feeds us.

We aren't going to reach widespread adoption of electrified transit unless we have large scale subsidies like this.