OEM volume pricing is $20 USD or so for system builders like Dell, HP, etc last time I saw it, but that was a long time ago. So technically yes it was purchased if you bought a system, it was just built into the price.
I'd call the that country that adopted EV's first and gasoline second... extinct after WW2. If nothing because the country wouldn't be able to launch an airforce to counter the bombers hitting your power plants. If not that then there's the constant contention of having to pull power lines forward and leaving them vulnerable to artillery fire while the petrol tank hit and run with impunity.
Plus now you have problems moving tonnes of food, water, ammunition on BEV vehicles that no longer have reliable charging access. Being unable to supply your military is more or less a death knell for any fighting force.
Even setting aviation aside, a lot of the reason why gas engines were adopted was because agriculture was among the first to do so, they were less finicky then ox and horses. Rural areas didn't have access to electricity like cities did at the time though; It was a lot easier to have a tin of whatever liquid fuel (gasoline was a byproduct of kerosone production at the time).
I didn’t say EVs would be used for military vehicles. It’s more like a scenario where 80% are buying EVs and 20% are buying ICE.
Again the hypothetical was modern EVs with modern infrastructure.
And this hypothetical isn’t that crazy. Many Chinese car buyers’ first vehicles are electric, and many of those people buying cars are quite used to electric scooters as their transportation method.
Speaking of wars, how many wars for oil would be avoided if there wasn’t a widespread dependency on cheap oil? If the gas price ever goes above $5-7/gallon in America it basically triggers a recession.
>Really step back and imagine a world where the modern EV [1] was first to market and a gasoline combustion engine was second.
.... you worded that extremely poorly. Being first to market is completely different then someone's personal first experience. Between that first sentence and the follow post, it's like reading the question what if the smartphone came out before the electric telegraph.
If you're trying to say like a future time when we've got fast chargers everwhere with no need for an app, and at home charging is common which makes BEV's 80% of the market? Sure that makes sense. Probably it's going reality by 2040 or so.
But for me right now, as is, I'd probably still sticking to ICE, or MHEV engines for a while. No easy access to home charging, and I don't have data on my phone which makes fast charging way more complicated. And I don't drive enough KM in a year to make break even point in costs reasonable.
And I've test driven BEVs and I could afford to buy a BEV. The advantages don't outweigh the drawbacks in my situation at least, and there wasn't enough there for me to want to just put objectivity aside.
Per your third paragraph, that’s exactly what I’m saying. If BEVs of modern capability were either first to market and/or the first car-buying experience, those network effects and preconceptions/biases wouldn’t be a big buying hurdle like they are today.
I did mention the three major drawbacks: fueling time on long trips, extra curb weight, and cost. But I also mentioned that even in the non-hypothetical status quo, these issues are almost certainly going to be solved soon (let’s say by 2040 like you picked out). In a world where BEVs came first, these issues would likely already be solved. Automakers weren’t really investing any development money before the 1990s, so our current BEVs are like owning a gasoline car from the 1950s in terms of time spent in the development oven. Now you have every battery technology company on the planet in an arms race to deliver the next big thing for automotive applications.
Remember that gas stations weren’t on very corner when the gasoline car was invented, either.
Don’t read what I said as some kind of exact computer science logical language-qualified statement where I must say the exact correct parameters, you understand my general point.
I also think your use of your personal anecdote isn’t a very convincing argument by itself. BEVs aren’t right for you as of today, in a world which isn’t a part of this hypothetical. You also pointed out that you are a minority outlier by having odd requirements like “I don’t have data on my smartphone.” Do you think that’s common? I think most people even un in developing countries have smartphone data access. Isn’t this argument kind of like saying gasoline pumps need to take cash to become popular? Of course they took cash in 1990 since most of their users still primarily used cash. In today’s status quo, most EV owers are the kind of person to own a smartphone. (And of course, this is already a non-issue for Tesla owners, and increasingly a non-issue for other manufacturers who are adding the ability to “just plug in” to major charging networks, something that would obviously not be an issue if BEVs came first)
The USA should be an ideal EV market but there are consumer perceptions that are barriers.
Over half of homes in US housing stock are single family houses with implicit access to charging. Daily commutes are around 40 miles. I argue that we should logically see ~50% of new vehicles being EVs but we are way below that number and I put that on customer familiarities and preconceptions.
> Remember that gas stations weren’t on very corner when the gasoline car was invented, either.
Yeah but gotta keep in mind when the first gas cars as tools came out, you didn't need a gas station on every corner either. You bought your fuel from the drug store. Even then a lot of early 'gas' cars were readily modified to be multifuel; kerosene (which was available everywhere due to use of for lighting), naptha, coal gas, mineral spirits, but you could modify the car to run off moonshine if need be.
But okay, let's just say for a second that there were no world wars, and in this universe petroleum wasn't discovered until a good chunk of electric infrastructure was built out.
I'd probably wager that liquid fuel engines would probably catch up to the electric vehicles pretty fast and likely surpass it in popularity in 30 or 40 years. You can pack a gas motor that outputs 20x more power into a package that's the same size as a DC motor. For farmer's that's a vehicle that can till deeper or a larger piece of land in a single pass, for merchants that means more goods you can carry in a single run.
For the wealthier class probably the electric would've been attractive but keep in mind that one of the biggest reasons wealthy urbanites owned cars at the time was for racing. Electrics in the original timeline were considered to be more ladylike because you didn't need the muscles to manually crank the engine (and risk punching yourself in the face when it turned unexpectedly). Probably in this timeline though, because electric motors are more advanced, you bypass that problem much more quickly and now you've got a vehicle that's only slightly more maintenance, but way more capable. And when the first times when a gas car out runs electrics of that era and makes said wealthy BEV owners look slower... yeah.
Yeah I'd assume that BEV's would advance more but ultimately they'd probably just hit the plateau of what battery chemistry and DC motor design can with pure analog systems, probably with either NiCD or NiMH chemistry. The next big leap with chemistry from those to lithium didn't really hit mainstream until the advent of extremely battery management circuits came about. And without WW2 in this universe driving the need for transistors...
>I also think your use of your personal anecdote isn’t a very convincing argument by itself. BEVs aren’t right for you as of today, in a world which isn’t a part of this hypothetical. You also pointed out that you are a minority outlier by having odd requirements like “I don’t have data on my smartphone.” Do you think that’s common? I think most people even un in developing countries have smartphone data access.
Last I checked, it was about 15% to 20% of Canadians that don't have a data plan on their phone, so that's 1 in 5 to 7 Canadians. So you're not wrong, but in a city of 1 million, that's close to 150,000 to 200,000 people. Minority yeah but not exactly one that can be readily ignored, that's still a lot of people.
Granted though, Canada has public WiFi access points basically everywhere so it's not too hard to get away with it.
>Over half of homes in US housing stock are single family houses with implicit access to charging. Daily commutes are around 40 miles. I argue that we should logically see ~50% of new vehicles being EVs but we are way below that number and I put that on customer familiarities and preconceptions.
I'm Canadian, and hypothetically that's true here too. In practice it's not as clear cut as that.
Detached garages here for the most part are built with only a single 15A circuit running to it, so even a full level 1 charging working it can cause the breaker to trip when someone turns on the lights or runs the garage door opener. Upgrading it needs permitting to be filed and signed off by a master electrician, and typically also involves trenching and replacing of conduit, even if all you want to do is just add in one additional 15A circuit. And detached style garages were the norm for housing builds until around I wanna say 2000 to 2005 ish, when attached garages started becoming more the trend.
If I had to guess, I'd say that's about roughly half of the single family homes in that situation here, so chances are that if the family wanted a BEV with a detached garage, you're spending $1800 to $2500 on top of the cost of the materials and labour for the EVSE install itself. Most electricians last I asked were charging roughly $2000 parts and labour included (which is really high, most because AFAIK because the moment the word EVSE leaves the client's mouth, electricians add the Rich-Person-Tax onto their quotes). $4500 extra on top of an already more expensive car is a tall order.
The other half of houses circa 2005 to 2018 are probably in better shape but those typically only have 100A panels so... if they don't have additional equipment outside of stove, dryer, etc then they're probably okay to install a level 2 charger. How many of those can or can't, I don't know. But for me at least it does complicate the math quite a bit because I'm somewhat more partial to getting a heat pump over at home BEV charging if I had to chose.
The other issue that spans all wealth levels is households that for whatever use their garages for storing junk instead of their cars. I don't understand it but it's, remarkably common to see. And the city I live in makes it illegal to pull charging cables across or over sidewalks so that makes that bit of a issue.
That being said that's me commenting on the Canadian side. I don't know how much of an issue it is for Americans in general. US households AFAIK adopted 200 amp panels as standard 20 years ago so that shouldn't be as much of a problem.
>Honestly I can't comprehend Americans thinking their constitution is some holy grail. It's old and has been written centuries ago without all the experience we have in modern democracies. Eastern Europe too has made very bad choices with similar setups and democratically elected presidents.
I don't think it's the Constitution in of itself that's a holy grail. Just look at how hotly debated the 2nd Amendment is, especially among Americans.
I think the true holy grail is the process to amend it, because that requires a relatively clear majority of Americans to agree to change it; well beyond 50% if I remember American civics correctly. It's a living document, changed as needed. It just hasn't as of late because the process is arduous on purpose to prevent heated decisions from being rushed through.
Part of it being that a lot of ISP's don't have static prefixes, they do get rotated pretty often and have no guarantee of CIDR size that you're going to get. By default my ISP will only give a single /64. You have to go out of your way to request more subnets and there's no guarantee that the ISP will honor that request.
It's really problematic to try and base a non trivial network setup, when you have no guarantee of how many subnets you can run. Today I've got 256. Tomorrow it might be 16. Or 2. Maybe just 1 again. ISP's can be weird when they smell monetization dollars in the water.
So I have to run a ULA in parallel to the publicly accessible networks specifically for internal routing, and then use a DNS server to try and correct it. Which works great! ...except when you run into this little niche operating system called Android. Which by default doesn't obey a network provided DNS server if you've got privacy DNS enabled. So if I've got guests over and I want them on a network in my place to access some sort of internal resource, then I've got to walk them through disabling privacy DNS.
Either that or I need to go out and buy a domain... for my internal network...and then get a TLS certification for my private internal domain.
I get how IPv6 can be great. But a lot of the advantages are also overhead I don't want to deal with.
Short hand is a good example; I've lost count at the number of times I've typo'd short hand addresses because my eyes skip over a colon. At this point I've gotten into the habit of just writing out the whole address, leading 0's included because the time saved from not making a mistake reading the address often faster overall then making mistakes with shorthand.
> So I have to run a ULA in parallel to the publicly accessible networks specifically for internal routing, and then use a DNS server to try and correct it. Which works great! ...except when you run into this little niche operating system called Android. Which by default doesn't obey a network provided DNS server if you've got privacy DNS enabled. So if I've got guests over and I want them on a network in my place to access some sort of internal resource, then I've got to walk them through disabling privacy DNS.
This also sounds like it would be a problem for v4? I'm not clear on how this is a v6 problem. If I'm picturing it correctly, it's a difference of handing the guests a local v4 address vs disabling privacy DNS and handing them a DNS name. I'd think the latter would be easier
Using a public domain for TLS certs for private networking is pretty standard in /r/selfhosted and /r/homelab at least.
Fair point on ISPs handing out /64 prefixes, but this is the first I've heard of them varying the prefix length once you know what you've got. I don't doubt it though
> Either that or I need to go out and buy a domain... for my internal network...and then get a TLS certification for my private internal domain.
TBF, if you are on HN that should be extremely simple for you. I use a subdomain of my primary email domain I own, and use LetsEncrypt to issue TLS certs on my internal network. Well beyond the means of my mom and sister, but probably pretty easy for most people here.
They shine best I think as alternatives to the 50cc segment; 60kph max with round trip taking 5km to 10km. At that point the limitations aren't a big deal. Anything beyond that's... iffy.
UN Regulation No. 155, and 156, and the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) are requiring car manufacturers to implement cryptographic validation that allows only authorized software from the manufacturer to be run.
What I meant more is that you need more and more specialized tools (according to the manufacturers). My previous ford needed a special (expensive!) bracket to keep the drivetrain in place if you want to do anything on the engine which makes home service less likely.
These regulations do not mean you need 25k in tooling, but that is what it has come to. And thus there is a blooming (mostly Chinese/Russian) aftermarket tooling business with sketchy software you want to run in a VM.
This is just signing, nothing cutting edge. Verification of signatures is a fairly old tech. What is the exact problem here? Is it that manufacturers do not publish the signed binaries or is it that you want to run something on your car compiled by you?
Authorized software means authorized for that car's VIN number. Basically it's the same issue with parts in Apple products that are serial number locked.
If for instance if you damaged a headlamp, and then went to an authorized BMW dealer, bought the correct brand new OEM BMW head lamp assembly from the parts department of an authorized BMW dealer, and followed the replacement procedure to the letter in the BMW service website... it won't work. The headlamp assembly is not authorized to talk to the rest of the car even though it's OEM, untampered, with stock firmware.
The headlamp has to be reprogrammed with the correct VIN number in order for the rest of the ECU's in that particular car to recognize it as authorized.
Just my sense as an outsider, but a lot of interest in voluntary reunification got chilled after seeing China's actions in Hong Kong. A lot of it stems from lack of trust for the CCP to honor it's idea of a one county two systems form of governence.
I don't know how much the Taiwanese would be willing to fight and die in a military invasion though.
They already are investing in the JSDF. The JS Chokai is in San Diego right now being equipped with Tomahawk cruise missles, but AFAIK the plan is to equipped all 8 Kongo class destroyers with those missles.
And that's just one part of the expansion. But the short version is that the JSDF isn't staying a defensive only institution.
The large ships are well-protected. A “small unmanned underwater ship” has been a primary threat model for a century e.g. heavy torpedoes. These already have very long range and sophisticated sensors that allow them to hunt targets autonomously.
The other side of this is that modern large military ships are almost literally unsinkable. It is very difficult to get enough explosive on target due to their extreme damage resistance.
When the military does live fire exercises where they attack obsolete military vessels with no active defenses using torpedos, missiles, bombs, etc, they usually don’t manage to sink it. They have to send a specialized demolition crew afterward to actually scuttle the damaged ship and turn it into an artificial reef.
An operational large military vessel will have layers of substantial active defenses that make this even more difficult.
The whole point of the navy is to be able to control waterways. The whole point of being able to control waterways is to be able to economically ship large amounts of material and people; in the case of warfare, soldiers, bullets, food, water, fuel, etc.
An unmanned fast attack sub is going to be useless for defending your logistics fleet from strike fighters and anti ship missles. Even a dingy that has a guy in it with a rocket propelled grenade can send a cargo ship to it's grave. You have to have a surface ships with powerful defenses to protect them.
reply