373
Tesla owners are typically white men earning six figures
(www.businessinsider.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2023
373 points (90.3% liked)
Technology
59118 readers
3081 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is why BEVs are fundamentally just a fad. It is a toy for rich white men and little else. It is fundamentally too expensive for normal people. There not even the most important car in the household, and is usually just the second car.
There's plenty of BEVs that are competitively priced to any other new car: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g32463239/new-ev-models-us/
They might not be the car you choose to take on a road trip, but most days, I only need to drive less than 20 miles anyway.
You're joking? The first one on that list is literally the Hummer EV. Completely unaffordable for most people. This is just more evidence that BEVs are a fad, not the other way around.
And there are 5 other cars below $40k. Just because 1 car is expensive doesn't mean others are.
The list is dominated by SUVs and pick-up trucks. The "below $40k" market is all subcompacts or compacts and are the equivalent of $20k ICE cars. It is not a competitive technology. If anything, it just proves how underwhelming BEVs actually are.
https://www.caranddriver.com/chevrolet/bolt-euv
So you just have a hydrogen full cell manufacturer's name as your username and post extensively in https://kbin.social/m/Hydrogen for fun or do you think you maybe have a conflict of interest here and are being disingenuous?
Because I want to tell the truth, not swallow marketing propaganda from Tesla. In reality, BEVs are a fad and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.
The name is a coincidence. I've used this name for a long time (from elsewhere to be clear).
Maybe you should visit some poorer countries. BEVs are incredibly far away from being mainstream. Not to mention how much of the “success” of BEVs is due to subsidies. It is not an organic market.
The point is that you cannot compare BEVs to computers. And certainly not the period from the 1990s. BEVs are improving at a slow rate and will have major physical limitations preventing them from going beyond a certain level. That is the point.
And because of that, they are going to end up being a fad. By the time they are “ready” to take over, technology will have moved on and BEVs will be obsolete.
Yes, that is the argument. If it is a very expensive technology, it will only be for rich people. It could never be viable for poorer countries. Hence why it is a fad.
Last I checked, almost no human beings go into space. It is not at the level of “fad” because it is basically pure science and not a real market.
And please don’t use the word “EV” for this conversation. I’m talking about BEVs specifically. There are other types of EVs out there. Ones that will be much cheaper in the long-run. In fact, this is why I am 100% confident that BEVs are a fad. People who disagree with me simply aren’t aware that there are EVs that are not BEVs.
Yep, technology sure doesn't start out expensive then get cheaper later. If only that were the case.
Lol, "People who disagree with me simply aren’t aware that there are EVs that are not BEVs." Oh, no, we can read. We just think you're wrong.
Let me throw out a guess, you think it'll be the hydrogen FCEV's that will take over? Those can be pretty expensive right now though. Do you think the technology will improve and get cheaper over time by any chance?
Sure. In fact, FCEVs can be as cheap as ICE cars. They completely avoid the problem of needing giant batteries. As a result, their cost floor is the same as conventional cars today.
Can you really argue that BEVs will survive if you knew that? The better question is why would we even need BEVs if hydrogen cars prove to be far cheaper?
The irony is completely lost on you, eh?
I don't think he's intelligent enough to understand irony
Unlike you, I actually know something about the subject. BEVs are never going to be particular cheap cars. The only exceptions are things like neighborhood cars. Basically, the only make a BEV cheap is by not giving it any range.
In reality, it will be something else like FCEVs. And you should be more open to this possibility, not closemindedly think that it can only be the BEV.
Could have fooled me.
PS: You do know all favorites/boosts/reduces are public right? Like I can see that you are reducing all my posts. I'd prefer it if you don't carry over this bit of Redditism.
LOL you're such a loser.
Oh, I'm reducing you because you are wrong or are arguing in bad faith. Both good reasons to hit the down arrow.
Again, we can all see your votes!
If it makes you feel any better, I'm downvoting you because you are acting like a dickhead, not because I disagree.
Good
So basically downvote = disagree again.
Again, acting like you're on Reddit just makes you a loser.
Are you going to reduce this post too? Is this post just another example of bad faith posting? Are you really that shallow?
In the 90's you could've written an equally true headline replacing "Tesla owners" with "PC owners". It's not an indication that BEV's are a fad, it's an indication that wealth inequality and sexism continues to this day.
There is no Moore's law of batteries. BEVs are always going to be fairly expensive compared to other types of cars. They will not magically improve like PCs have.
Not to mention BEVs are old technology. They literally pre-date internal combustion cars.
@Hypx There's no Moore's Law for batteries because they're a different technology. Transistors today are still fundamentally the same as the first transistor, made in 1947. Batteries, on the other hand, are constantly evolving. The first LiPo battery wasn't invented until 1997, and there are multiple new battery technologies currently being studied, like solid state batteries.
@L4s @Catch42
Are you seriously joking? A transistor today is much smaller and faster than what existed in 1947. That is what is driving Moore's law.
Batteries evolve only very slowly, and run into hard physical limits at every step. As a result, BEVs are very expensive and have major downsides like weight, long recharge times, etc.
@Hypx Yes transistors are smaller and faster, that's the literal definition of Moore's Law. But a transistor today is a smaller, faster version of the exact same technology as the first transistor, applying a small signal to pass current between doped semiconductor junctions, the only major difference being changing the semiconductor from germanium to silicon.
Batteries, however, are fundamentally different from when they were first invented. Yes, it's still storing electrical energy as chemical energy, but the chemistry has changed so much since the first batteries. The word "polymer" wouldn't even exist for another 20 odd years. And new technology is constantly being discovered, such as solid state batteries or supercapacitors.
And if you want to talk about physical limits, Moore's Law is essentially dead. We're nearing a point where you'd have to split atoms to make a smaller transistor. Batteries are limited by their chemical makeup, transistors are limited by the laws of physics.
@L4s @Catch42
That’s ridiculous. You basically admitted that we switched from germanium to silicon, but that this apparently doesn’t count as a difference.
Not to mention that this is massively off-topic. The point is that batteries do not improve as fast as transistors did in the 1990s. Hence why an analogy is wrong.
And if you are aware that Moore’s law is (more or less) dead today, then you should understand the problem that batteries are facing. They too are hitting hard physical limits. You talk of solid state batteries but they are nowhere to be found right now. Clearly, this is a hard problem and future batteries will not magically be far superior.
But ultimately, there are other green ideas not called the BEV. Including other types of EVs. This is why I try to make it clear that I am talking about BEVs specific. Not EVs in general. Once other people become aware of this fact, it will become much clearer that the BEV is a fad. It is an expensive and very limited idea. It is arguably an idea stuck in the mid-2000s, and its advocates have simply failed to move on.
I think the point that is counter to yours is that we are nowhere near the fundamental limits of energy density for batteries. It's probable we are near a fundamental limit for LiPo, but the point is that battery tech improves by changing technologies/chemistries. BEVs couldn't exist at all when the best rechargeable battery tech was lead-acid, but were enabled by LiPo. Theres most likely a type of battery you can't even imagine that has yet to be invented that could store >10x or more energy than current LiPo per unit cost or mass.
I would say that's pretty unlikely there will be a 10x improvement in battery chemistry. At some point, we will have to deal with the fundamental limitations of the technology. That will likely imply a different kind of EV. Other conversations in this thread have brought up the FCEV, which is honestly the mostly likely guess for what comes after the BEV. In other words, the solution is to move beyond batteries, not pretend we can just improve batteries ad absurdum.
Also, this is basically the point of the book The Innovator's Dilemma. Technology does not improve linearly exclusively. At some point, major shifts in the market will have to happen. If you think about this problem honestly, you probably have to conclude that the limitations of the BEV must be solved by a big leap forward, not incremental improvements in batteries. And if you can reach that conclusion, then you must realize that the BEV has to be a transitional technology. Perhaps, even a fad.
If we're talking approaching fundamental limits, Hydrogen fuel cell is not a great comparison. A high pressure tank can only get so light, even with linerless ultra high strength carbon fiber pressure vessels, the mass of the vessel is maybe 6-10x the mass of the hydrogen it carries. To increase specific energy there you need to go to cryogenics which is a whole technology leap and has its own set of challenges.
Battery tech has been improving more than you have seen, clearly. Since '08, lithium batteries have increased energy density by 8x (https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1234-april-18-2022-volumetric-energy-density-lithium-ion-batteries). The best LiPo batteries are around 0.9MJ/kg right now, but there's no fundamental reason a battery couldn't achieve 9MJ/kg. Lithium-air batteries could theoretically achieve way higher energy density than that even (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium%E2%80%93air_battery), and have already been demonstrated in a lab to achieve more than 5x what current commercial automotive batteries are doing.
Except those fundamentally limits are far higher. The fact is that hydrogen stores energy at 120 MJ/kg. Even at 5% weight efficiency, that's 6 MJ/kg. Or 1,666 Wh/kg. Far beyond any battery.
Your link is seriously lying. 8x is the gap between lead-acid and li-ion batteries. The claims are simply impossible. The author must be unknowingly comparing lead-acid battery powered cars to li-ion battery powered cars. I cannot see any other way his claim is true.
A lithium-air battery is literally a fuel cell. In fact, what did you think hydrogen fuel cells were this entire time?
Driving with something that power dense is incredibly dangerous. You're literally driving a bomb, dynamite is 4.6 MJ/kg
Gasoline is 46 MJ/kg
On one had we've got links to the department of energy and to Wikipedia. And just some hand waving on the other hand.
It's wrong because li-ion batteries at the time were way better than what it claims:
https://news.panasonic.com/global/press/en091218-2
This is from 2009, and already we reached 675 Wh/L. So there's no way the DoE link is true.
Calling them BEVs is misleading and damaging to EVs as a whole, because you're right, batteries do have their limitations, at least today's batteries. The proper industry term is FEV, fully electric vehicle. Choosing to limit EVs to only batteries is an arbitrary decision made for argument's sake, but instead of looking at how they can be improved, you're just focusing on why it'll fail. A "battery" is anything that stores energy, not just the traditional battery, and once EVs are the norm, they probably won't be using LiPos, they'll be using something that hasn't been invented yet.
Are you talking about FCEVs? You can also include directly electrified vehicles, but that is mostly mass transit.
And yes, electrification as a whole will succeed. But BEVs probably are not. I call them fads because they are just toys for the rich and they are unlikely to be affordable for most people.
Do you have anything to support this? EVs are increasing share of the market so when do you estimate that will end? Do you also think EVs are a fad in China?
Do you work in the fossil fuel or hydrogen industry?