Except that cars are heavy, so multi-level parking is prohibitively expensive.

Well let me clarify a bit why I think they are the worst.

They have the full complexity an an ICE car, with the added difficulties that arise in a full EV

You need to build and design a car that has all of the downsides of ICE cars. Complicated engine, emissions management, fuel, air intakes.

With a lot of the downsides of an ev. Large heavy, expensive batteries.

Meanwhile you get limited upsides. Evs get lower maintenance and transport costs and ICE cars get range.

Plug in hybrids will have harder maintenance than either, while not getting the fully reduced transport costs as it’s not as efficient as a full ev.

Here’s where traditional hybrids win out, their battery can be really small, correspondingly cheap and more efficient.

Lugging all that extra weight around decreases the efficiency of the vehicle, where for full ev that matters a lot.

When running in full gas mode your lugging around a heavy battery for nothing, and in a full ev mode your lugging around a heavy engine for nothing.

The High-medium range of full gas would be better served by a traditional hybrid, and the low-medium range would be better served for full evs.

I’m sure there is a narrow window for plug in hybrids, but again that is going to be rare and shrinking as evs get better.

While you can’t fix stupid, we do have to think about how a product actually gets used vs it’s design.

If nobody is plugging their plug in hybrid, then maybe the manufacturer should remind them, even if its only outlet level power.

To me it is also a symbol of overconsumption. Buying a vehicle that will cover 100% of your use cases vs buying for 99% and renting a more suitable option for that 1%.

I do think this argument for me would change if manufacturers took a different approach. If they took something like a traditional hybrid, like a Ford fusion, and stuck a modern battery in and added a simple plug would be great. Then increase the efficiency a bit and maybe someone could get 10 miles of battery from a regular outlet.

Honestly plug in hybrids are the worst of both worlds.

There was a study recently from Europe that found the vast majority of people with plug in hybrids hardly every plugged them in, and drove them like normal cars. That defeats the entire point of a plug in hybrid, and now you are carrying a heavy battery everywhere that you are not fully using. Which makes the car less efficient than a normal hybrid!

I don’t see why we can’t go after both at once.

Fix zoning issues and work on reducing car weights

Try thinking about the math a little differently. Instead using a by mile approach I get a similar result.

1. Average American drives 15,000 miles/year
2. Over 60 years, that’s 900,000 miles total
3. Using a death rate of 1.33 per 100 million miles:
4. So for 900,000 miles: (1.33 / 100,000,000) * 900,000 = 0.01197
5. Convert to percentage: 0.01197 * 100 = 1.197%
6. 1/75 is about 1.3% which is not far from my guess.

Too be fair, it is not the choice of individual Americans to live in and be dependent on a society that was forced to become car centric and dependent.

With very few options to travel by car, and the large dominance of single family homes, we don’t get many options.

Fuck people who drive gas guzzling trucks and giant suvs though. That is just unnecessary. But again car manufacturers have been slowly convincing Americans to purchase larger more expensive suvs for obvious reasons.

This issue is absolutely a governmental policy choice, and one that is continuing to be upheld.

While it would be cool for it to appear the size of the moon, it is not necessary with a shaped mirror.

You can keep the same size in a higher orbit, maybe even geosynchronous, then sync the rotation of the mirror to keep it pointing in the same spot on earth.

Granted a shaped mirror that size would be much harder to put into orbit than a flat mirror.

It’s certainly a stupid idea if your trying to illuminate at the suns level, but if you wanted an area to have permanent moonlight? Not so unreasonable.

The moon is 400,000 times dimmer, so 1km^2 of mirror, which is ridiculous, could illuminate an area the size of Germany.

New York metro area is 12,000km^2, which would only need a mirror 173m on each side.

Actually might not be a bad tourist attraction for a crazy city, permanent artificial moonlight.

Grid storage wouldn’t be lithium ion, something like lithium phosphate would be better.

Step one, buy in bulk to get a price closer to $150/kwh

Step 2, use for much longer than 2000 cycles, lfp have much longer expected lifetimes, and since space/weight aren’t a huger consideration, you can replace individual cells when they go bad.

Step 3, produce your own energy, if you have your own energy generation, you don’t need to pay grid prices, and profit is much better.

Disclaimer, I am not an expert in this at all, but this is how I imagine it could make sense.

It seems like it’s best use case would be in conjunction with nearby buildings. Where the waste heat can be used for heating.

They’ve had fab problems for years, in that it cost them a ton on money and much longer than desired to shrink nodes, so they’ve fallen from a leader in fab production to being behind.

Not to mention there’s not much money to be made from fabs, unless your tsmc.

AMD, Qualcomm, Nvidia, Google, Apple, are all huge tech companies that design their own cutting edge chips, and only Samsung is another company that both designs and produces chips.

Ehh mastodon and lemmy don’t see a ton of cross talk. Threads is mainly going to affect mastodon instances.

Huh, well I got myself a galaxy watch 6 for like $200, and so far it seems solid.

It easily lasts a day, could probably go for 2 if I tried.

I’m confused, that looks like an m.2 slot, and it’s not like it could really be anything else. Msata is a dead standard and looks quite different. The slot would be too wide.

Yeah the strategy is : don’t cannibalize ice profits by releasing sensible evs.

Diversity is important, but it’s still better to go after larger sources of energy first. There’s just not much energy to be recovered from falling rain or waste from cars.

Make the cars waste less energy, or the transit system in general is much easier and will actually save money long term.

Ehh it’s still a rubbish idea, that money would be much better spent going after primary producers of energy, like solar, wind, geothermal, or nuclear.

Some napkin math and an equivalent area of solar, say over a road or parking lot would produce 3.5 million kwh in a year.

Honestly I’d wonder if the wear on brake pads could be cheaper than the additional strain on the battery.

You can’t slow down with regen without putting the energy somewhere, and that’s the point of brakes, they convert kinetic energy into thermal to slow you down.

The point of regen is to not waste the energy and put most of it back into a battery. At the scale of an ebikes, the additional components electronics, battery thermal management, and so on for regen are more expensive than just adding 20% more battery.

Unless you wanted to make an expensive, super efficient or very light ebike, it just doesn’t make sense at the moment.

That will not likely always be true if we ever use different battery chemistry and the cost of regen electronics goes down.

It’s not a common feature.

It doesn’t make as much sense to do on an bike, mainly because regenerative breaking requires more expensive electronics and stresses the battery more.

My family has 7 ebikes, all different models and none has regen.