Hacker News

points by jmb99 1 day ago | 0 comments

No, but a stationary generator powered off a small volume of gasoline could have powered the house for the same amount of time, and then a gasoline powered car could've driven to the gas station to refill jerry cans. Both of which would cost substantially less than a cybertruck.

[–] porphyra 1 day ago

Yea but then you have to deal with gas which is nasty and stinky and noisy and polluting while having way less efficiency. A cybertruck charged with solar power is much more elegant and civilized.

[–] sportsracersss 1 day ago

Producing that enormous battery pack is nasty and stinky and noisy and polluting. It's just a cost that's paid upfront and the pollution is done in someone else's backyard.

[–] solyin 1 day ago

It's paid up front once. That battery is going to keep being a battery for the rest of its commercially viable lifespan. The gasoline just gets used up and you pollute over and over again to maintain having power.

[–] JuniperMesos 19 hours ago

Still a net pollution win. Pollution associated with industrial manufacturing of durable goods can be contained to specific areas and dealt with at scale by domain experts more easily than the diffuse pollution associated with burning fuel at point of use.

[–] mckn1ght 20 hours ago

Producing a gas powered car is just as stinky and nasty, so they cancel each other out. Once the EV is made, that can be the end of it.

[–] InvertedRhodium 1 day ago

Better theirs than mine or yours.

[–] jmb99 1 day ago

A generator to power your house costs <$1k. A car that runs on gas costs <$5k, or if you want something that "matches" a cybertruck, ~$50k new. You can buy a lot of gasoline for those things before you get close to what a cybertruck costs. I don't care how "elegant" solar panels and a cybertruck might be if you're throwing money away to achieve it. (Ignoring that you can't both drive your truck and have your house powered from it simultaneously, and I don't think anyone in history has considered the cybertruck to be "elegant" - at least no one with eyes.)