EVs are not the future—hybrids are

There has been a wild surge in optimism in EVs—really, a kind of hysteria—with the EU and UK governments hoping to ban combustion engines in new cars as recently as 2035. In my opinion, this is a mistake, and I suspect the law will be repealed (or at least amended) before it comes into effect. Here’s why we shouldn’t be cheering for EVs, but looking at hybrid options, as well as alternatives like public transport and electric bikes.

Problem no.1: a ticking timebomb for residual value

If you haven’t seen it already, I recommend watching this video of a Finnish guy blowing up his Tesla with a doll of Elon Musk inside. Why did he blow up his own car? Because the battery was faulty and it was not economical to repair. Batteries are the single most expensive component in an EV, and they have a limited lifespan.

Problem no2: too expensive

The next problem is that EVs—and particularly, long-range EVs with big batteries—are expensive, moreso than combustion cars, and well beyond the ability of many people to afford. Second-hand EVs are not necessarily an attractive buy because of the reason above, at least, not unless secondhand prices fall dramatically.

Problem no3: where’s the infrastructure?

I’m not just talking about public chargers, which are overpriced, and totally insufficient to meet demand. I’m also talking about the fact that many people cannot charge at home because they live in apartments or rentals. Furthermore, in slightly less developed countries like Eastern Europe, public charging points are almost non-existent. Likewise, even in developed countries, people living in rural areas will struggle with an EV.

You’ll notice that I haven’t mentioned range, although range is a problem for some people, especially those who do long journeys regularly, or people who are, let’s say, more spontaneous. Many people will not plan a journey around EV charging points.

So what are the alternatives?

At present, green hydrogen is a bit of a pipe dream. Instead, we should be focusing on improving the mileage of combustion cars, using hybridisation and advancements in combustion technology.

Let’s talk about plug-in hybrids first. In many ways, they are the best of both worlds: they can use a much smaller battery, anywhere from 5–10x smaller, which is lighter, cheaper, and crucially, won’t cripple the car if starts to fail later down the line. Plus, a smaller battery is cheaper to replace. A plugin car can travel on battery power around town and in traffic, where combustion engines are least efficient, and use combustion on the motorway.

But do not discount non plugins either, as many people do not have the ability to charge their car at home. Not only can these cars use regenerative braking and reduce engine idling, but there are other tricks they can benefit from. For example: turbo company Garrett has recently developed an E-Turbo, that is, a turbine that uses exhaust gases from the engine to run a generator and charge a battery. This technology is similar to what is being used in Formula 1.

A device like this can essentially boost the thermodynamic efficiency of the engine. The trouble with car engines is that they do not reach the Carnot efficiency limit, that is, the theoretical limit imposed by physics. A high compression ratio petrol engine might have a Carnot limit of 57%, but only achieve an efficiency of 25%. Diesel engines are a bit better, but not by much.

The reasons for why real-world engines don’t reach their theoretical limit are manyfold and complicated; I won’t go into them here. What I can say is that, by adding a turbine in the exhaust, you are essentially extracting useful kinetic energy from heat energy that would otherwise be wasted.

Hybridisation can be combined with new developments in combustion: Mazda, for example, produced the first production petrol engine with a 14:1 compression ratio (the theoretical maximum), and have even developed Skyactiv X, an engine that combines compression ignition, like a diesel engine, to increase the compression ratio beyond the theoretical limit.

Electrified motorways

Countries like Sweden are already piloting schemes where they add electrified rails or overhead cables to motorways. This is primarily intended for big trucks, but could be applied to cars as well—and even hybrids could benefit.

In the future, cars with huge 100kWh+ batteries will look like dinosaurs; their batteries are expensive, heavy, and have a limited lifespan, while cars with smaller batteries will be much more practical. Notably, cars that don’t need a huge capacity can have lower utilisation of their nominal capacity. For example, a plugin with a 15kWh battery might have a 12kWh capacity (80% utilisation), rather than a car with a 100kWh battery and 95kWh capacity (95% utilisation). Batteries with lower utilisation generally have a longer lifespan.

Salary no longer determines prosperity

In the past, it used to be that getting paid a high salary ensured an upper-middle class lifestyle. As recently as the 1990s, a salary roughly in the range of 60K pounds, 80K euros or 100K dollars would ensure access to all the trappings of a comfortable lifestyle: a big house, car, restaurants, etc. This is no longer possible. In some cities, like London, New York, San Francisco or even Munich (Germany being traditionally cheap) those numbers are simply the bar for a normal life. The reasons are well-publicised. Some of them are relatively recent, like food inflation – caused by high natural gas/fertiliser prices, plus a contraction in supply from Ukraine – as well as the pandemic, which caused microchips to skyrocket in price, and also made cars more expensive, both new and secondhand. Gas and electric have shot through the roof, although thankfully they are beginning to come down. However, these are short-term shocks, and relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. For example, food prices increased anywhere from 10 to 35%—hardly massive. Whereas housing costs have effectively doubled, tripled or even quadrupled in some areas, compared to the 70s, 80s, and as recently as the 90s. In addition to this, tuition fees and debt has increased substantially. Because house prices and rents have reached such obscene levels, the path to building wealth has diverged markedly from the conventional path: getting a degree, and going to a big city to work, is more likely to make a young professional poor than rich these days. If you want to live like your parents or grandparents did, i.e. house, kids, etc. you need to think outside the box. May I suggest something along the following: 1. Consider a non-conventional degree. Online-only courses and bootcamps can be vastly cheaper. Also consider emigrating to a country where education costs are more reasonable (this is what I did). And don’t assume you need to study for 5 years to master something; a smart and determined individual can learn a trade or profession in 2 years if they put their mind to it. Learn on the employer’s dime! 2. Don’t be afraid to live with your parents into young adulthood to save money. 3. Finally, and most importantly, get a job which can be done remotely, like software engineering, digital marketing and so on. Do not delude yourself into thinking you can buy in London or San Francisco if you *just* try to get that promotion, because it’s not gonna happen. Housing will be your single biggest financial outgoing. If your job can’t be done remotely, look for work in a medium-sized town in the North of England/Scotland, the Midwest of America, etc.

The 20th century tank is obsolete on the battlefield

This blog post is a little different from my usual content, I know, but it relates to technology, and specifically, military technology. As we have seen in the Russo-Ukrainian war, the 20th century tank is increasingly obsolete on the battlefield. In the past, the biggest threats to tanks were artillery, mines, and other tanks. This has not changed much, but the modern battlefield introduces two new threats: man-portable anti-tank guided missiles like the NLAW and the Javelin; and drones of various types, be it kamikaze, long-rate high-altitude drones like the Bayraktar, or quadcopters with grenades.

As a result, tanks have become hopelessly vulnerable, facing threats from the air, the ground, infantry and long-rate artillery. But believe it or not, this situation is not without historical precedent. When the Leopard 1 and AMX-30 were developed, the threat landscape was similarly dire; instead of heavier armour, designers focused on lighter vehicles that were more mobile, and which could gain an advantage in firepower. This advantage didn’t necessarily come in the form of high-calibre guns (the 105mm L7 gun was more than sufficient) but in the form of night vision, stabilisation, and ballistic computers.

If you are expecting this piece to argue that tanks should ditch armour and focus on being light—or that MBTs should be swapped for armoured recoinaissance vehicles like the AMX—then you’d be wrong. Tanks need to be redesigned for the 21st century, and while, yes, they should be lighter (perhaps in the 45 tonne range rather than 70 tonnes) the real solution to the problem is much more sophisticated.

Active Protection Systems

APS systems like the Rafael Trophy have proven very successful, and armies have recognised this potential, with Germany and the US retroffitting their tanks with these systems. APS systems are effective against the biggest killer of tanks in Ukraine: man-portable ATGMs. However, they are not enough on their own, and particularly, they still leave the tank vulnerable to top-attacks, i.e. drones.

How to counter drones?

When we say drones, we are referring to a large variety of systems. It is not realistic, for example, to expect a tank to defend against Reaper or Predator drones, as these will fire long-range missiles from high altitudes (that is the job of air-defence systems like IRIS-T or Patriot). However, we do need to protect tanks from ordinary sons-of-bitches like quadcopters, which might only cost $80,000 rather than millions. These systems fly lower, and have to be directly above their target to drop their payload.

Perhaps the simplest solution is tactical: have a SPAAG like the Gepard accompany each tank squad. The flak gun defends the tanks and APCs from aerial attack, while the other armoured vehicles focus on ground threats. In my opinion, this is the best solution in the short-term.

Another solution is to outfit a tank with its own air-defence system and radar. This had advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that it makes the tank more independent, rather than relying on a SPAAG which could be shot by other tanks, or the drone itself. The disadvantage is primarily the increased cost and complexity of accommodating such a system. Also, the radar would give the tank’s position away.

The air defence system could be in the form of missiles like Starstreaker or Mistral, or it could be as simple as repurposing the tank’s machine gun. (Some tanks have two machine guns.) A machine gun firing high-velocity 5.56 or 7.62 ammunition (in the 1000 m/s range) would be capable of taking down drones at altitudes up to 500m or so. While a missile is more capable, it costs far more; it doesn’t make sense to expend a $150,000 missile to take out a drone costing as little as $40,000. Or, it might do, if it protects a multi-million dollar tank.

Stealth

The Challenger 2 is one of the few tanks to have been designed with a low radar signature. It’s a step in the right direction, but it’s not enough. Tanks should be designed with stealth in mind, as it will help them evade drones and artillery. Camouflage is one obvious way to do this; tanks hidden in forests can be very hard to spot. But the biggest problem is probably the IR signature (and noise) of the diesel engine.

I think electric tanks are a non-starter because the infrastructure doesn’t exist to support them, and range will be a problem. However, hybrid diesel-electric tanks could work very well indeed. They can use the diesel engine when on the move over long distances, and rely on electric power for stealth and urban combat.

Armour considerations

I think a tank, at least in its base configuration, should not expect survive anything bigger than a 30mm auto-cannon. From the front, it may be possible to armour it against 105mm and maybe 120mm calibre ammunition, because of the slope; but it any case not from the sides and rear.

Instead, tanks should think more about their top armour. In Ukraine, we have seen a PzH 2000 (an armoured howitzer) survive a top-attack from a kamikaze drone with a payload in the 4kg range. The howitzer was damaged, but the damage was repairable and all the crew survived. This is very impressive, and it was made possible thanks to “hedgehog” armour: rubber spikes on the top. This should become a standard applique on MBTs.

Another design consideration is that ammunition should be stored separately from the turret, as ammunition cooking off makes a hit from an ATGM or similar munition more deadly. Better to lose one man than the whole crew.

Think twice before working at a startup

I’m a machine learning professional who has worked for a startup in the past. I’m writing from an EU and UK perspective, but generally speaking, tech startups are very American in the way they operate. This can result in some nasty shocks. This post will give you an honest take on the upsides of working at a startup—and the downsides.

Myth vs reality

Years of media coverage, often written by journalists who have never worked in a startup, have painted a very rosy picture, which I fell for in the early years of my career. The image of the startup is that of a small, Agile company that isn’t afraid to innovate, unlike big bureaucratic corporations. The startup is typically located in a sexy area (like a garage in Silicon Valley); likewise, the work they do is sexy. Your colleagues will become your friends. You can play videogames or ping pong, and drink beers. The startup is diverse, with people of many different nationalities and backgrounds.

And all of this is true, but this is a classic example of lying by omission. Here are the realities:

1. Your colleagues may be from diverse nationalities and/or ethnic origin, but they will almost all be men between the age of 25–40. They are also less likely to be parents. If you’re young, you’re considered too inexperienced to work there, and if you’re old, forget about it.
2. You may drink beers and play video games, but on a Friday afternoon after 5pm, when you should be enjoying your weekend. The other 4 days of the week will be spent frantically working, often with longer hours than well-established players. Early stage startups, and senior employees, might spend time working on weekends and holidays.
3. Sexy areas = high cost of living, and startups are often resistant to remote work policies (despite being “innovative”).

It doesn’t get better, I’m afraid.

Startups and the Agile methodology

Startups like to bill themselves as Agile, which means (roughly translated for non-software folks out there) as doing things interatively and not getting trapped in analysis paralysis. What actually happens is that startups write a lot of untested code which constantly breaks. The requirements change all the time, and not always because of good reasons (like the client wanting something else) but because management is fickle. There is often not much time for a formal design process, which results in poor abstractions; and nobody is responsible for writing documentation or doing QA. Likewise, there was no model review at the startup I worked for.

If you want to learn industry best practices, you are usually better off elsewhere. I would be especially careful about any startup that operates in healthcare, defence or finance. “Move fast and break things” might work for a social media site, but it will be a disaster in these fields.

Are startups innovative?

Some startups genuinely do innovative work that pushes the envelope of software engineering and/or machine learning. But this is the exception rather than the rule. Plenty of startups are building just another travel app, ecommerce site or payments platform – and it’s often a product that nobody wants (which is the reason so many startups fail). In machine learning, another extreme is the startup that tries pie-in-the-sky ideas which are academic projects, not serious commercial ideas.

And there is plenty of anodyne work in startups. You’ll end up doing the same thing as in a big company, but with worse management, benefits, and (especially) job security.

Furthermore, tech startups can often have messianic leaders. I personally find this very annoying. Startups are rarely solving world hunger or climate change, and no, your smartphone app doesn’t count. This particular criticism can be levelled at tech workers in general, not just startups, but I find many techies boring. They talk about tech during dinner parties or drinks, and rarely know much about current affairs or art. At best, I can talk about my gym routine with them.

Management can suck

Of course, management can suck in any company. But startups are often run by people who have no management experience. Furthermore, startups have a tendency to be extremely disorganised.

Job security sucks

Job security sucks for two reasons. One is that startups can go bankrupt quite quickly – they have a high burn rate, and are very dependent on investor capital, often with few clients and not enough revenue to be profitable. The second reason is that startups can be very erratic and unpredictable – and they operate with a short-term mindset. They might not need your skillset in six months or even weeks (!) from now. They don’t have the long-term mindset of keeping employees around so that they can train them.

This mindset results in a litany of problems:

1. Lots of technical debt, with complex systems in production and not many people that know how they work.
2. High turnover is demoralising, and a lot of people decide to leave fearing they will be next.
3. An inability to gain a competitive advantage by building up in-house know-how.

(If you are wondering, yes, I have seen a startup fire an entire department weeks after hiring them.)

From the perspective of the employee, it will be stressful, especially if you have children depending on you to put food on the table.

Is there any reason you should work for a startup?

There are some. Let’s get the bad reason out of the way: while you may get rich, it’s unlikely. What you do get out of working in a startup is lots of experience with a wide variety of technologies, which you won’t get if you’re pigeonholed somewhere in a big company. You will learn faster. And you will often get a stronger grounding in business problems (if you’re a technical worker) or technology (if you’re from a business background). Finally, there will be less red-tape at a startups; you will have greater freedom to try different things.

The compensation varies but I have not found startup salaries to be markedly different from the industry norm. You might want to work for a startup if they give you the best compensation (but keep in mind the downsides).

Startups from an EU perspective

Pundits admonish the EU for having way fewer tech startups than the US. Frankly, I’m not sure that’s such a bad thing. Startups:

1. Can burn millions, yet never become profitable even years after being founded. The startup I worked for wasn’t profitable in 3 years after being founded, and didn’t plan to be profitable until 5 years in the future.
2. Can cost the clients money when their product fails unexpectedly.
3. Most never develop a useful product.

I am leaning more towards the Nordic/German/Benelux model of SMEs. It’s better to start small, serving a niche, and then expand, than to attempt something grandiose.