rewiuoeriouf

In that case I'll hold off on buying an EV until these new, futuristic and not at all crude vehicles get made.

Hopefully by then, we'll have solved the problem of how to sustainably fuel both the manufacturing process and the fuelling of EVs.

>On the other hand it seems unlikely to me that auto manufactures would allow their portfolio to be so exposed.

Yet here we are.

>it's not like modern ICEs can be made for sale without quite a lot of advanced electronics.

Indeed. We're all doomed.

Interesting thing to think about, eh? I think we are going through a permanent shift in the availability of electronic components, and this idea will become more widespread (that is, the reliability of supply chains),

>This argument is only being made because widespread EV adoption is a new phenomenon and they are still a fraction of the market of ICE cars.

No, it's being made because the manufacture of an EV and all of its component parts requires advanced materials and processes from around the globe.

>We could flip the tables around. Modern car engines are highly precise machines. If we were just starting to make them, they too would have enormous supply chain problems. Only a couple of companies would realistically be able to produce the components with the required tolerances and lifespan.

Pfff. I could make an ICE engine in my shed, if I wanted to.

>And yes, EVs _are_ reliable. Orders of magnitude less components and even fewer moving parts.

The stats don't support this. Just because a component shouldn't move, doesn't make it reliable. This is, honestly, a silly argument - everyone knows that the most unreliable and costly part of their car these days is the electronics.

https://www.forbes.com/wheels/news/ev-reliability-varied-as-...

>Oh, and don't get started on battery materials. We too thought that our oil reserves were not able to satisfy the demand of so many cars (not to mention other industries). We found new reserves and some that were not economically feasible became available, as technology (and demand) improved.

True - but shows that EVs don't solve the "we're pulling huge amounts of resources out of the earth's crust" problem. Do you have any idea how much money is being made in the mining industry right now? My partner works in the industry. They don't know what to do with all of the money they are making.

>Electric motor controls have been around a very long time.

Not in a format that is useful for EVs, there hasn't. Only recent developments in semiconductors have made it viable to design a motor controller that is very efficient across a broad range of torques and speeds, and is also lightweight and cheap enough for use in a small passengar vehicle.

>example hybrid electric trains, elevators, water pumps.

Those examples of controllers have almost nothing in common with modern EV controllers.

> Not sure what metrics you are looking at but EVs cost less per mile to operate, accelerate faster, are quieter, and have lower maintenance.

Let's have a look at those.

I am not convinced that the "cost per mile to operate" has been fully worked out over the full lifetime and ownership of an EV - we have yet to see how the overall economics of EV ownership will work out as they filter down the 2nd hand market chain.

We will also see how the cost of maintentance works out - EVs are not currently known for being reliable.

https://www.forbes.com/wheels/news/ev-reliability-varied-as-...

Accelerating quicker - well, that's fine, if you want to burn through battery, and mess around at the lights. It's also not too hard to find or modify a car to make it have more acceleration.

That just leaves quieter - which is an undeniable benefit, if only it were safe for multi-ton hunks of mobile metal to be silent. As it is, all the EVs I've seen have speaker-generated tones at low speeds.

> The current wave of EVs are very early technologies

The efficiencies of the various powertrain components are very high (eg, charging efficiency and motor controller efficiency). I really don't see how they can be improved by very much.

The main area of improvement is the battery.

>they are actually pretty crude right now

Interesting. I am assured that they are the latest and greatest in motorised transport!

> people don't buy that

People that typically buy new cars don't want that. Those of us who only buy second hand cars are stuck with their choices.

Getting any kind of performance and efficiency out of an electric motor requires a sophisticated controller, which is why development of EVs stalled for so long. Semiconductor tech has only recently progressed to a point that makes this viable. This says nothing of battery tech, which has also seriously lagged.

Even now, EVs barely compete on practically any metric with ICE cars (except tailpipe emissions) - in my opinion, the main drivers of market demand for EVs is marketing for the new shiny, and government regulation (at least here in the EU/UK. It will be illegal to manufacture an ICE, quite soon).

>Which is why they were both invented around similar times.

The ease with which you can make oil-based fuels convert chemical energy into mecahnical motion, is the reason that EV development largely stopped until quite recently. Efficient EVs are the pinnacle of materials and electronics engineering.

That's an interesting argument.

>Making vehicles that people don't want isn't sustainable

From a business standpoint, yes. However, making unsustainable (and unobtainable) vehicles that people do want, at least keeps the automotive industry alive (for now).

>That isn't really a worthwhile path to go down

It sure is. Given a year in my garage, I bet I can make a more useful, power-converting device from scratch using internal combustion tech than using electronics.

>I believe the first EV might even predate the first ICE vehicle.

I also believe that is true. What's old is new again - time to get rid of those "dinosuar tech" ICEs and move on to...the even older EV?

Somehow electric delivery trucks are the new hotness, yet here in the UK, (lead-acid powered) milk floats are also a symbol of a byegone age.

My bad, missed those.

My point still stands - a dependency on electronics, and especially cutting-edge electronics, makes you dependendent on a complex and fragile global ecosystem.

All of the things you mention are electronics, which are at least (arguably) optional, or at least minimal, on an ICE.

I am not saying an ICE is a better idea. I'm saying that an EV is, by some definition, unreliable from the drawing board onwards.

To really put the cat among the pigeons - does this make it, in a practical sense, less sustainable?

At least that is an option for a non-EV! Maybe Hyundai should work on a mechanical or otherwise analogue motor controller.

I understand the argument. What makes their trust-funded operation better than all the others? Do we just have to take their word that they are the morally superior trust fund baby? After all, that phrase is typically used as a slur against someone's character and/or moral and social worth.

I'm very curious why this statement is so unpopular. It's demonstrably true, at the current moment.

They get away with it, because the selected news stories fit the predisposed beliefs and biases of their readers. Just like all media.

A related point - The Guardian makes much of the fact that they are funded by a trust fund, arguing that it makes them "independent". I doubt they would make the same argument about other companies or individuals sustained by old wealth.

When people talk about the "reliability" of EVs, I think that a hugely-overlooked aspect is the reliability of the supply chain (including engineering, design, and component supply). It's all very well having a fantastic design for a zero-emissions, comfortable, fast and efficient family vehicle, but it's not much use if it can't be made.