I'll point out one area that EVs are inferior in lifespan - calendar life of the battery. I use a bicycle for day to day and take the car only on road trips so I only end up driving about 5k mi/yr or so, maybe 10k if I roam far. At that pace the 2% capacity loss per calendar year (even higher in hot climates) will total any EV I buy long before an ICE vehicle has age issues. ICE vehicles without defects do not creep towards engine failure or transmission failure little by little like EVs do, or at least do so at a pace far slower than EVs, as long as they are driven at least once a month to prevent issues ICE vehicles can get in storage.
Unfortunately EVs still have a ways to go to catch up to my use case of buying 10-15 yr old vehicles with 100k mi for $5k and taking them to remote trails where a 550mi range is useful for safety. Such vehicles can be screened for design defects and are therefore more reliable than new vehicles - see the Toyota V6 recall for an example that even a sterling reputation isn't as strong a guarantee as just waiting and seeing. Maybe the EV range will catch up in my life but I wouldn't expect the cost of those long range models to catch up for a long time, and by the time an EV is well-used and in my price range it will no longer be a long range EV what with the capacity degradation. See how this use case perfectly hits all the negatives of EVs? It's not that uncommon a use case in North America among us dirtbag wilderness enthusiasts. I don't doubt EVs are strictly better for many people though and am very interested to see how their long term reliability and cost fares as they trickle into the 10+ yr used market I participate in.
Btw my diy oil change takes 20 minutes and costs $20 all in and during that time I do an annual safety once-over which an EV would also require. So almost 0 net time involved and a negligible amount of money compared to things like tires which cost me 5x as much per year, a number that apparently is higher for EVs since they use tires more quickly afaik. Plus many EVs seem to be much harder (intentionally?) to do DIY repairs on - wrenchers probably won't move over for a long time either.
Most modern EVs have superior battery management systems and batteries, and are generally limited in loss by discharge and recharge not specifically calendar time. They’re not alkaline batteries. The time degradation comes from use primarily . Solid state batteries hope to improve that as well. Batteries also are almost entirely recyclable because the degradation isn’t wear per se as much as chemical changes. As a machine they are absurdly simple - copper coils; magnets, and electrical potential - while ICE are insane Rube Goldberg machines. An EV can probably operate 100+ years with the same mechanicals and electrical, and a swap of batteries periodically, and the battery swap need not be expensive - in fact one mode for fast charging proposed has been racking new battery racks at the charging stations because for the provider the batteries are all the same and can be recycled as needed in bulk at low cost.
Does that mean in 2026 that all ICE use cases are replaced? No, and with the aggressively anti science US administration it’s been set back by at least 8 years - the time it will take to rebuild momentum lost, research discarded, investment displaced. But there’s no reason beyond our lack of imagination to believe ICE will be on the road in 50 years in any use case.
I'm trying to disentangle that EVs wear out from both usage as well as calendar time, you say it's usage "primarily" but you're assuming a certain use case there and re-entangling them. With zero driving, top of the line battery management, and doing everything right it's something like 3% capacity loss per year in hot climates. My point is empirical - in a hot climate a light user will have to spend $10k to replace their battery in 15 years even if they rarely drive, while an ICE will not if the transmission and engine were designed well and maintained. Your point is theoretical and what use are theories that don't match observations? I don't dispute that EVs are simpler and more environmentally friendly but there are many cases (too hot climate, too cold climate, too little usage, need for range) where they are more expensive, more disposable and generally inferior.
Saying ICE will be off the road in 50 years assumes technological advances that have not yet arrived despite massive research investment and may require the government to force people to do it to their individual detriment. I am an environmentalist so I wouldn't even be mad in that scenario (the US government already significantly harms the individual in this industry by banning BYD anyway) but I also want to be clear eyed about it. What you say about easy recycling may be true but when it comes down to it we don't have cheap battery swaps yet despite your ideal theory and much industry effort. Don't get me wrong I hope for all our sake that happens, I'm just objecting to your initial comment having the vibe that EVs are a panacea and that saving on oil changes is superior on net - to me this reads as penny wise pound foolish as a single battery replacement is the same as 500 years of oil changes. There's a lot of nice ideas in this comment but it will take seeing for me to believe - specifically I need to see a 10 year old car for $5k that isn't coming up on an expensive new battery that costs more than the car is worth. People who shop for cars like this are a significant part of the market that is way underrepresented on HN.
Including the cost of the batteries to make it stable over the day? Would need a source for that. My understanding is it comparable at best, but certainly not "much cheaper".
"One million dollars will be set aside for the theft and upgrades, which are backed by Seattle Police crime data that is helping determine which stores get the funding."
Transit source seems fine I think you're just misinterpreting it. That first source says about a third board without paying, not 90%. The 90% number you're quoting is I assume from the <10% farebox recovery which is a different metric from fare evasion. North America generally has low farebox recovery (car centric development therefore transit needs bigger subsidies to compete) and the pandemic made it worse. Don't get me wrong the numbers aren't good but I don't think it's evidence that Seattle is an especially low trust society like you're implying, I think it just indicates a lack of enforcement - a third is in line with fare evasion problems in other places in the world when they lack enforcement. People in Seattle behave no different from people in other places - they estimate risk vs reward in a free ride and some fraction of people lack a moral compass or are so poor that the benefit is significant. There's a reasonable line of thinking that 0 fares are best for society as a whole and I've heard this promoted among PNW urbanites so it wouldn't surprise me if enforcement is intentionally low to make it a sort of sliding scale farebox recovery, in which case a high fare evasion is not evidence of low trust, just of a highly progressive political culture, and something opposing propaganda will not hesitate to harp on.
Theft rings are pretty common in bad neighborhoods throughout north american cities. The existence of a policy to help grocery stores in high crime areas doesn't support your thesis since it's going to be used on a vast minority of stores, not indicative of "rampant" (most stores in Seattle seem fine in my experience), and not indicative of a broader trend in trust.
And here is some data counter to your thesis https://www.pewresearch.org/2025/05/08/americans-trust-in-on...
It seems to me that Seattle is an especially high trust society by US standards (largely due to high income I suspect), and the things you're pointing at are evidence of the opposite of your thesis - more likely to be symptoms of high trust than low trust.
> The existence of a policy to help grocery stores in high crime areas doesn't support your thesis since it's going to be used on a vast minority of stores, not indicative of "rampant" (most stores in Seattle seem fine in my experience), and not indicative of a broader trend in trust.
Grocery stores in Seattle are shutting down, and looting is a major contributing factor to it.
That 14% describes farebox recovery which is mostly low due to subsidized transit, not evasion. They say that number is "funded x% by riders paying fares" which is not the same as "y% of riders pay fares" that you interpret it as. The former is called farebox recovery while the latter describes fare evasion. 14% farebox recovery is not out of the ordinary in north america where we need to subsidize transit more than other countries due to car oriented development. If you subtract 33% fare evasion (from the article) from that 14% recovery you will still be at about 21% farebox recovery and that's on the low side but not out of the ordinary for western North America (it's better than most California systems for example where we usually get 10%). 20% farebox recovery is just fundamental to our transit and urban planning, nothing to do with fare evasion or trust level. Whereas 90% fare evasion would be highly highly unusual, which is why I wanted a source and now I can see where your misunderstanding comes from. In your defense I do think that article is intentionally eliding the two by not explicitly defining terms - maybe deceiving the reader makes the article hit harder. Anyway very few places have fare evasion over 50% since the majority of people will pay based on morals (and their income level) even against zero enforcement whatsoever.
I'm open to the claim that looting -> grocery store shutdowns, especially in bad areas, I just dispute it being "rampant" based on my lived experience, and I dispute that there's a causal link instead of correlation with a low income/low traffic/low staffing death spiral. I did not feel your source adequately supported this claim, and what you say here is a walked back claim from "rampant" to at least one store? I am not convinced Seattle has it worse than other metros (similar things happen where I live in California in bad areas too, and it's been shown to be stores that were underperforming and due to be closed regardless of looting), and I am not convinced this supports your thesis that Seattle has become a low trust society against my counter evidence from Pew.
The fundamental difference is that suspending something heavy over a waterway incurs significant cost - more structure needed to hold it up, harder to clean, etc. No idea how that cost balances out against benefits, but looking at the photos it's clearly a much more expensive structure than parking lots or rooftop due to the long span required and more specialized construction. Solar in a field plus a cheaper lighter shade structure is a pretty natural comparison to decide if this is economical isn't it?
First, Costco has some of the best employee treatment in the industry. Second, we are talking about blocking unwanted neighbors based on anything that will stick. We shouldn't have regulatory capture of socializing the liabilities and privatizing the profits, but we do and we have. Any resistance at all is by definition going to be a matter of coming at the problem sideways, up to and including fighting dirty.
Blocking unwanted neighbours with anything is exactly what NIMBYism is, and you could make similar arguments that housing developers are externalizing the burden of e.g. traffic or school capacity while privatizing the profits. Laws that enable arbitrary suppression of whatever the locals don’t like have caused generational damage via racism and now the housing crisis, and we should get rid of them.
Yep, and my free speech liberties mean that people can say horrible things to each other too. You can't have it both ways and we live in a society with people who have priorities that are misguided in different ways than our priorities are misguided. There's not one single person on this planet who is right all the time. Them's the breaks, wear a helmet.
NIMBY mostly blocks things that don't already have regulatory capture. Blocking things that are is fighting fire with fire.
I'm just addressing the text of your comment of incredulity at Walmart's building footprint. The tone of this one is different so I'll accept that as concession.
You're shifting the goalposts from an earlier comment that claimed they would be "all drain". But that's ok, maybe you could compare that money to what a strip mall would provide in tax? I would find that analysis more convincing than just saying "reduced rate therefore bad", and would probably more accurately illuminate why localities make the decisions that they do.
>Why do so many otherwise seemingly rational people pretend that nuclear is the answer to our energy needs?
>I don't think anyone reasonable is saying we should only do nuclear.
I didn't interpret the other post to imply only nuclear. I interpreted to mean "why do so many people think nuclear is better than battery". My understanding is that LCOS+LCOE for batt+solar is quite close to nuclear cost and will only go down further, plus it has the advantage of being safer in the catastrophic case.
How could you possibly know the cost and pollution levels of batteries not-yet invented? The pollution from a nuclear power plant is one 55-gallon barrel of waste per reactor per year, and ZERO batteries are that clean. Like, what are you even thinking here?
This ignores the pollution to make that fuel and the pollution to build the plan (both of which you are already counting on the battery side). Plus the pollution of all the backup generators that they require and must test regularly.
There is significant pollution created while digging up the rare earth materials which are needed to make solar panels, and batteries are some of the dirtiest things we make.
There is virtually zero pollution in a generator which does not typically run. The only waste is the need to occasionally change out the fuel. It’s a rounding error at worst.
This is also ignoring how much safer nuclear is than any other form of power generation, and pollution concerns are ostensibly, at least in part, about improving health and lives of humans.
reply