Hacker News Reader

Comment by Retric | Hacker News Reader

PHEVs seems like a great option the issue is their electric range is not enough. Someone that commutes say 60 miles each way or 120 miles a day might as well get a hybrid as they don't really gain much from that extra battery.

Push the range in the 100-150 mile range and people would see more significant cost savings.

Another option might be to add some solar panels. If you get say 6m^2 * 22% efficiency * ~7.5 hours per day that's ~10kwh for free each day or around 30 miles. Not really a major savings, but would make a smaller battery seem more useful.

PS: I suspect the downside is the IC engine really needs to run fairly regularly or you have issues.

View on HN

That's not really representative of the majority of commuters.

I have a Volt, and the range is definitely enough. I can commute twice round-trip on a single charge. I do about 90% of miles electric, so I'm working that extra battery very hard. And it makes a very good hybrid on road trips.

The engine doesn't have to run very often, maybe 30 seconds every month or two, which normally happens on long trips anyway.

My commute is under 5 miles so I could defiantly use a Volt both ways. However, due to that short commute the cost savings would fail to offset the added costs.

Which is my point, they don't really provide significant savings over a hybrid if you drive a lot. And if you don't drive much then owning just about anything works fine.

Sure, for people that have a short commute but take long weekend trips it's a net gain. However, I suspect that's a relatively small segment.

Of course, if you have a hybrid, the question becomes: why not put a bigger battery in and plug it in? Batteries aren't even that expensive any more. Personally, I find a plug-in way more convenient because I don't have to go to the gas station. Also, there's essentially no maintenance besides tires. I've never worked so little on a car that I've owned as the Volt.

The modern Volt has a 50 mile range. That fits the vast majority of people's commutes, and if they can charge on both ends means a very large gas savings. But the biggest is convenience: no trips to the gas station, no oil changes, no brakes.

It's super odd to me why there are so many non-plug-in hybrids made. You already paid for most of what you need as far as complexity, but you don't go all the way and just about eliminate gasoline usage.

You'd save more by just owning a bike.

Likely quicker too on that distance. But without knowing the situation there may be other factors at play: weather, traffic safety.

There is no bad weather for biking, just being unprepared. If people can bike commute in Scandinavia all-year round I believe it's possible to do it in most of the developed world.

I'm avid cyclist, possibly a bit too avid. And even I do not bike 'year round' in the Netherlands. Falling can be a real risk, cycling in traffic can add to that risk. Snow and ice are an easy way to break a bone when you're on a bicycle.

Scandinavia and the Netherlands have the added advantage over 'most of the developed world' of having a lot of bicylce paths, NL being as flat as a pancake helps even more (though it can be very windy here).

Age, terrain, weather (temp, wind, precipitation), physical condition of the rider, traffic safety and so on are all contributing factors in whether or not you should take the bike or rather not. But under normal conditions in a place where cycling is safe and the weather is ok'ish 5 miles is biking distance.

I know someone who bike commutes every day in the Yukon. Snow's not a a big concern, he just has studded tires.

I'm sure he's not exceptional at all ;)

As someone who commutes by bike year around in Norway: No, he isn't. Studded tyres isn't rocket science.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com