[wongarsu]

Average journeys are incredibly short, but also not really relevant. If I get a car that can only travel my mean trip distance, half of my trips can't be traveled without refueling during the trip. Even the 95th percentile, as analysed by the linked article, isn't very useful. A car covering 95% of trips still can't make 1/20 trips. The car needs to cover at least 99% of trips, making me refuel only during 1 out of 100 trips. Some people will even demand covering 99.9% of trips.

The borders of an island simply cutting off the long tail of trip distances does a lot to reduce required range.

[erik_seaberg]

It's not the length of a single trip, it's total travel between chargers. Even if you're lucky enough to have a locked private garage, that might be a full day of commuting and errands.

[afarrell]

Not if electric recharging stations are common because businesses expect large numbers of people to have electric cars.

[xxs]

Charging still takes time, a lot more time than putting the hose in.

With the current lithium-ion technology, high speed charging (over-volting) causes battery degradation due to extra heat. I suppose batteries can be actively cooled to mitigate the process.

[WorldMaker]

> Charging still takes time, a lot more time than putting the hose in.

But not a lot more time than the average stop already, accounting for human necessities such as stretching, restrooms, food, etc. Full 30 minute or so breaks every 4-6 hours are good for the humans doing the driving, and would reduce some forms of road rage among other psychological benefits.

[adrianN]

Cars spend more than twenty hours a day parked. If most parking spots had a charger, keeping the car full wouldn't be a problem.

[xxs]

the amount of power lines needed would be quite astounding; say - 30A at 230V (or 3x 16A for 3 phase) per parking slot.

Also it'd require to hide them under + a way to pay for (but that's trivial compared to the power lines).

Yet, all cars would need standardized plugs too.

It's doable but I'd consider it a futuristic idea. --

Again, it doesn't solve the issue with long trips. Last summer my family took a trip through Europe (central/west), often driving 600-800km a day. The range would have not been sufficient, esp. with the high speed German highways.

[Reason077]

> "the amount of power lines needed would be quite astounding; say - 30A at 230V (or 3x 16A for 3 phase) per parking slot."

Not really, because not all parking spots would be charging at full capacity simultaneously. For that reason you can have a lot more charging-enabled parking spots than you have electrical supply for: in the event of unusually high demand, the outlets can throttle themselves to ensure that breakers aren't tripped, etc.

Norway has some experience building these sorts of facilities already: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktNKWLwjQJM

> "Last summer my family took a trip through Europe (central/west), often driving 600-800km a day. The range would have not been sufficient"

That's where high speed charging comes in. The new charging networks currently being built by Ionity (in Europe) and Electrify America, for example, are capable of 150-350kW charging. At those speeds, you only need one charging stop - of under 30 minutes - to complete that 600-800km day of driving.

We've all got to eat and take toilet breaks, so few people would drive that far without stopping even if they could!

[adrianN]

Saving the climate requires quite ambitious plans, but for normal parking spots you don't need fast charging. You need just enough power to recharge typical usage over night.

For long trips Tesla's supercharger network seems to work okay.

[benjymo]

Around here, quite a few employers also provide charging stations at work.

[adrianN]

You can always rent a car with a higher range for long distance trips. We could build much more efficient cars if we optimized for normal usage, that is, 1.1 people in the car, short trips, city speeds and moderate acceleration, instead of building 250HP monsters that can tow a house and using them to sit alone in traffic jams. If you have exceptional needs, rent something for the day.

[CapricornNoble]

I just have to laugh at putting "250HP" and "monster" together....

I'm a gearhead, I daily drive a ~320HP car and am building a 600HP car, so I realize I'm a statistical outlier when most people just wanna sit in their appliance and commute to work as cheaply and safely as possible. A future of nothing but minimum-range electric toasters on wheels is probably resource-efficient, but definitely sounds depressing and boring to me.

[fizgig]

Different strokes for different folks, and all that.

My sole car is a Prius C, which I think is in the neighborhood of combined gas/electric 100HP. A co-worker of mine has a Charger with a ridiculous amount of HP and a large SUV. He likes to tease me about my the hamster under my car's hood, and I like to remind him I've spent less than $500 in gas in the past 24 months.

I don't need a fun car to get to work, and I can rent trucks for hauling. To each their own.

[throw0101a]

I would think that a gearhead would love e-motors given their torque and general performance.

Telsas generally trounce all other cars off the line. The (still vaporware) Rivian has a 200hp e-motor at each wheel.

Most folks won't ever use this type of performance, and most folks won't buy high-spec EVs, but to write them off as an entire class seems silly IMHO.

[CapricornNoble]

I have nothing negative to say about the raw performance of electric motors. As you've said, the torque delivery is simply insane, there are very clever applications of using them to cover the "low points" in the torque curves of turbo-charged petrol engines and whatnot. Putting an electric motor in each wheel gives independent torque vectoring with probably less complexity than a traditional AWD system. From a competitive racing standpoint they have value and very interesting applications.

But from a driver experience/driver engagement standpoint....they are lacking. Same reason why car enthusiasts would rather have a manual transmission than an objectively faster-shifting dual-clutch trans. It's about how your interaction with the machine makes you FEEL.

[COGlory]

Huge swaths of America never encounter cities when driving, particularly out west. The population density of states like Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho are so far from solvable with electric vehicles that it's honestly funny to see this topic discussed as if there's some feasible path there. And other western states aren't far behind. Nevada, Utah, Colorado, the Dakotas, they're all extremely sparse. 100+ mile trips aren't uncommon and are rarely pre-planned for.

The other half of the equation is that many people have trucks as a dual purpose vehicle: work and every day use. People need to get grain buckets out to cows, or tow back hay on a trailer. People need to get down the street when it's snowing from October to June. Probably 20% of the roads aren't even paved.

Any kind of sweeping legislation like has been discussed in these comments would basically grind life out here to a halt. Which wouldn't be good considering how much food comes from this area.

[adrianN]

I'm in favor of a steep carbon tax. That would allow people who currently have no alternatives to still do whatever they need to do, but provide a strong incentive for finding alternatives.

[dsfyu404ed]

You can rent a cruise ship if you want. If you are only going to own one of something it makes more sense to go for the Swiss army knife approach, hence the proliferation of crew cab pickups and crossovers. Also, 250hp really isn't that much in this day and age. As someone who rents various kinds of trucks and trailers every month or so I have plenty of sympathy for people who's use case is narrow enough that they can fill it with a single vehicle, even if it is a crew cab F150. Yes, it's a luxury but it's a luxury a lot of people can afford and justify. Renting equipment is a massive hassle and nobody is going to do it to pick up plywood or furniture if they have any other option. You're basically complaining about people rationally choosing to spend their extra income on a luxury that has a big impact on their day to day lives.

[adrianN]

It's a luxury many people can afford because they don't pay for the externalities.

[throw0101a]

> The car needs to cover at least 99% of trips, making me refuel only during 1 out of 100 trips. Some people will even demand covering 99.9% of trips.

Most households have multiple cars, and most (90%) of people's commutes are less than 50 miles (75 km). So for most households, having one car that is EV with a range of (say) 150 miles will cover your most common situation: getting to work and back. It would also probably cover a good portion of errand running on weekends.

The second car can either be full-ICE, or a hybrid. If the latter, if it has a 100 mile battery range, it would also basically be EV-only for commuting.

Personally I'm off the opinion that all vehicles should be full-EV by default, and have an option for a range extender (small generator) for those that need extra distance.