• jqubed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s interesting to see this and be reminded that 110 years ago electricity was more readily available than gasoline. It took time for gas stations to become widespread. Even in the post-WWII era it was not uncommon for drivers to encounter signs warning that the last gas station was approaching and there would be no more for another 60+ miles (100+ kilometers, I suppose). It took decades to expand the gasoline distribution network.

      In one sense electric vehicles are in the same boat today, at least in the US. From the standpoint of being able to charge at home, electric is more convenient and current models on sale likely have more than enough range for most people’s daily (or probably even weekly) commute. The cost advantage is also still there when charging at home. However, if you’re going on a roadtrip you’re much more likely to face long stretches without a fast charger, and probably no signs on the road warning you. It’s up to drivers to plan ahead to make sure they’ll have enough charge to make the next charger (and potentially have a backup location in case their first choice is full or broken). With the ubiquity of gas stations, and perhaps even more so GPS navigation on our phones, most drivers aren’t used to doing much planning when going on road trips anymore.

      What is the title and who is the author of this book?

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’m fairly convinced that the reason internal combustion won - even though it would regularly break your wrist when you started it - was that it made loud noises.

      Back then cars were a luxury, and if you’re buying something flashy you want people to notice you. A gasoline engine sputtering down the road would draw far more attention than an electric motor, so people bought those.

      • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        A gasoline engine sputtering down the road would draw far more attention than an electric motor, so people bought those.

        They’re still doing exactly this. ICE designs have never been quieter, but meanwhile Ford and GM are pumping out the L O U D E S T car options in decades.

      • grandkaiser@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 days ago

        From an engineering standpoint, liquid fuels have a far greater energy-to-weight ratio than batteries. Some of the largest advancements in combustion engines for the purpose of conveyance were made during the world wars. Noise was something they actively fought against. Loud tanks are scary, but unexpected tanks are much scarier. If they really needed it to be loud, sirens exist (see: Jericho siren). The energy-to-weight problem is only now finally being solved via modern batteries using exotic materials and processes well outside of early 1900’s technology.

          • grandkaiser@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            Oh certainly! I only felt the need to add the textbook answer because of the… Conspiratorial side of Lemmy that will happily believe misleading information as long as it confirms pre-existing biases.

      • ch00f@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        2 days ago

        Fun to remember that Mr. Toad was a parody of all the dicks who drove cars.