• @BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    14
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    IMO the simplest answer is L2 charging everywhere, DCFC on highways, both with reliable uptime and repair windows.

    If one could charge at home, work, the grocery store, the bank, the mall, the theater or everywhere else they might run an errand from time to time, the chargers don’t need to be that fast or expensive, EV batteries don’t need to be as big, and L2 chargers are a fraction of the installation and upkeep cost of DCFC with minimal wear on battery life. This also means EVs could be lighter and cheaper with smaller batteries.

    DCFC makes sense every 50 miles or so on freeways to more than cover anyone looking to road trip.

    Ubiquity and SLA’s are the two biggest areas functionally holding back our infrastructure.

    It annoys me to no end when you see a mall advertising EV charging and it’s like 2 plugs that work maybe half the year for their parking lot with like 1k spaces.

    The problem isn’t range or speeds. It’s availability and reliability. That’s it. Not all chargers need to be DCFC, we just need more of them with reliable uptime

    Source: EV driving apartment-dweller who’s never been able to enjoy charging at home and lives this daily.

    • @riodoro1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      95 months ago

      Now lets build those things and expand the grid without emitting a shit ton of co2 and a bunch of toxic shit. Maybe it’s time to rethink that whole „car” idea.

      • @GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        45 months ago

        If you just burned fossil fuel to generate electricity instead of using gas or diesel, you would still have a net reduction in emissions simply due to the net efficiency difference between large power generators and ICEs. Also, much of that pollution wouldn’t be where as many people are living, which would have health benefits. All this ignores cleaner power generation options.

        Sure non-car options are superior where they’re feasible and should definitely be looked at. But for a lot of places and people, that isn’t an option now, and won’t be for another 10 years. So maybe we should think about ways to get there without literally setting the world on fire.

      • @BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        25 months ago

        I mean yeah ideally we would instead improve our infrastructure to not be so car reliant. But that’s sadly much less likely to happen and much more disruptive and costly.

        At least with the infrastructure we have now and the way our cities are laid out, we should make what cars we do have as efficient and clean as possible.

        Fuck cars, but we’re not gonna get totally rid of them any time soon. Might as well mitigate in the meantime as best we can.

          • @Halosheep@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            45 months ago

            Lol I don’t know what weird reality you live in but it ain’t this one. The homes close enough to my job are literally 5x the price of the one I live now.

            • @riodoro1@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              25 months ago

              Another artifact produced by the stupid system we live in that you use as an argument for proliferation of the system.

              Fixing climate change would require us rethinking how we live in general, the housing and transportation is just a tiny aspect of that.

              I know it’s basically unimaginable right now, but the industrial revolution happened less than 300 years ago and the society then was also unimaginable to us today. We need to backtrack a lot of choices we made since then because it turns out the world does not really have infinite resources. And yes, we can also do nothing at all or fund carbon capture projects or other bullshit until the earth will no longer sustain us. We’ll end up in a different civilization either way, but one will be a bit more drastic.