I’m not sure I understand what is being said here. In a disaster situation, EVs are a risk because infrastructure is impacted? Is the same not true for petrol cars?
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
17 points (62.0% liked)
Technology
59300 readers
4699 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
I think the point is that we need to continue improving our infrastructure.
Not a point against EVs, but rather about the need to build out the network even more
I think infrastructure is still relevant (we need battery technologies so that power loss to a region doesn't shut down all charging stations), but the other point here is that the network is still very sporadic in BC. So when a part of the network is blocked off, because of closed roads, it might leave people stranded.
There's also this other point which is important outside of disaster situations, but probably made worse during a disaster with limited support for vulnerable people:
Hardly unusual, she said, as she often finds EV chargers located in inconvenient places, such as the edges of town or behind buildings. “If I was travelling as a single woman, I would have found myself missing the comfort of a brightly lit gas station on a lonely stretch of highway.”
This article is brought to you by the fine people at British Petroleum and Shell.
Yeah, what is it with people renting EVs for the one thing they're comparatively still not amazing at, then writing a whining article about how they didn't do any research and set off on a cross country trip?
AKA how to stoke fear based propaganda
Fun fact: individuals with a measured heightened fear response tend to have conservative viewpoints
EVs are great in 999 ways out of 1000, but let's find one extreme example of how they may not work perfectly in extreme conditions that won't happen to the majority of people. There are obvious bias things in the article, as with many anti-EV articles as gas companies pour millions every year into anti-EV articles. Do they mention gas stations are turned off around fires for obvious reasons so gas vehicles also have issues - nope. There are simple obvious solutions around this that are simply not presented.
It just reminds me of an article that I read everywhere about how a tesla blew up. Nearly every article talked about it like it just spontaneously blew up. Nearly no article mentioned that it blew up after it collided into a huge boulder on the road. Nor did they mention that the driver was totally fine as it caught fire half an hour after the accident. Or the obvious, that gas cars can also blow up but they slam into a boulder at high speeds.
I didn't really see it as a knock against EVs, but the need to expand the network and make it more robust, specifically paying attention to regional challenges that could impact the network.
It's about some of the existing issues that we need to address in order to make the system better, not that we should stay with gas cars. I'm all for EVs, but we can't make the system better without talking about where we can improve it
Yes and no. It is not in your face anti EV, that would be too obvious and it does not need to be. Answer a few questions for yourself (don't worry answering them to me).
Will this article make people want to buy a EV as their only car?
Is this article mostly for or against EVs? Would you say it's 80 or 90 percent about the problems of owning a EV?
Does this article have fair criticism of gas cars and gas Infrastructure in wild fires? Do they even mention the issues with gas cars and fires?
Will people question the safety of a EV after reading this?
They address peoples personal safety while charging, specifically for woman (the most likely buyer of a EV). They talk about back areas, poorly lit places where you are alone and they could be dangerous. How will this make women feel when considering their next car purchase?
The US like everywhere has a history of nearly 100% gas cars and gas car infrastructure. To have a article pointing out that gas car infrastructure is better than electric vehicles infrastructure is shortly said as no shit, how is that not obvious? So then what's the point of pointing out the obvious? More importantly what's the cause of pointing this out? More people will consider not buying a EV. When less people buy a EV there will be less infrastructure for them. See where this is going?
I get it, you feel like we need to talk about the problem to fix them. But do we? Is this not obvious already? Do we all not know that taking a EV into remote areas and wildfires may not the the best of ideas?
I'm conflicted because this is true, the article might discourage someone that was thinking of buying an EV.
At the same time, it's valuable to hear from people's experiences. Many regional governments want to transition to EVs. Hearing a detailed personal account of the different places this person went, and the issues they faced, is very valuable to addressing the issues. If you want to encourage EVs, and someone shares an experience about the issues they had, you're more likely to address them.
It would be nice to also have an article analyzing the issues around ICE vehicles in a forest fire, and if there's a good one, then I'll edit it in to the post. However, I don't think that's the only content we should be able to share. Sometimes people want to share a personal account, and I think it's nice that there's a column for that.
First Person columns are personal stories and experiences of Canadians, in their own words. This is intended to showcase a more intimate storytelling perspective, and allow people from across the country to share what they have lived through.
This article was undoubtedly sponsored by Shell...
Ev's get more and more range, they drive considerably better than the biggest gas guzzler and YES even if you take the lithium into account AND the production, they have considerable less emissions than the traditional car.
Now move on.
We took my Lightning on a 500 mile trip. Stopped twice to charge. Both times were at Walmarts (not my favorite but for charging stopes they work). We did a walk through the store, bio break, got something to drink, and charging complete. Even in a gas vehicle i have to get out every 2 hrs so it wasn’t a problem at all and it’s only going to get better.
Have your car plugged in at home. When you need to leave it’s a full battery. That’s much better. Than a 1/4 tank in my car. Also I love EV because it’s quiet. Not because it’s green.
Can't electric cars also charge, slowly, at any random power outlet? While gas cars need an actual gas station?
Very slowly from a normal outlet - like over a day to fully charge the battery
A few days, even. My Bolt's battery isn't huge and holds about 60kwh, and a normal outlet only gives about a kilowatt (so you'd be looking at about 60 hours of charging). Granted, you don't have to go from 0 to 100 if you only need (for example) 30% to get to a fast charger a few towns over, and you can maybe get by on even less if there's a level 2 (220V) in between, but level 1 (normal outlet) is really meant for people who don't drive that much and/or are often home. Not road trips.
But to a normal outlet's credit, you can easily get about 40 miles of charging overnight on a smaller car. That's over 14,000 miles per year, which is a little above average for most drivers
It's 2-4 miles charged per hour on a 15 A circuit, so several days for a full charge.
When I first got mine charging equipment was out of stock, so I used this method. It was plenty sufficient for my daily needs.
Personally I wouldn't want to wait that long while there's an active wildfire. You'd need hours to go even a few miles and a day+ for a full charge. Not arguing against EVs, just saying regular outlets are not the fix in this situation.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
I didn't know anyone who lost a home but watching all of Yellowknife evacuate and parts of Hay River, N.W.T., burn showed northerners like myself that fires are now an ongoing reality for us.
After our flight landed in Vancouver and we started driving north under smoke-filled skies in Grant's new Rivian, we were forced to change our plans yet again because a fire had jumped the Stewart-Cassiar highway near the Yukon border.
In a mild panic, I posted to the Yukon EV Facebook group, asking for information on where to charge knowing we would soon lose cell service on the upcoming stretch of the highway.
We gratefully slept while our truck charged, only to find at lunchtime the next day that the Fort Nelson level 2 charger was the slowest yet, and we would have to spend another night after only travelling 381 kilometres.
In addition to realizing the infrastructure of charging stations in the north was not as robust, I was also surprised to find EV chargers often located in inconvenient places, such as the edges of town, behind buildings, or at the far side of box store parking lots.
On our final day of travel, eager to get home, I watched as the northern Rockies and fast green rivers gave way to low forested hills of the Yukon.
The original article contains 1,431 words, the summary contains 220 words. Saved 85%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Saved 85%.
This is actually amazing. And a bad journalist.
I would not be surprised if (on a data science level) this means something about the true intentions and validity of the article.
Good bot!