Live data from Hacker News

Electric cars produce less brake dust pollution than combustion-engine cars

modernengineeringmarvels.com

331–340 of 783 posts

Re: Electric cars produce less brake dust pollution than combustion-engine cars

#331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all of us renters were forced to convert to electric there’d never be an open charger in any city again for the next five years, because no landlord will voluntarily afford that cost, and no municipal region can pass a ballot measure to afford that cost. California’s impending ban of combustion car sales hinges wholly on a magical DC-charging network that doesn’t exist in U.S. cities yet (i.e. at parking meters),…

Level 1 charging overnight on a standard 120V outlet, while not ideal, is surprisingly adequate. Granted, many people rely on street parking or otherwise don't have a parking spot that is right beside their dwelling, but for rented houses or complexes with private garages/parking areas the size of the lift isn't necessarily "get upgraded service and a bunch of 240V EVSE put in".

Certainly that's a factor — but, with quantity 300 parking spaces, it's not exactly the main attraction. Very approximately:

Assuming a 120V / 20A = 2400W circuit (more or less standard in a garage):

100 parking spots = 200A / 24000W; 300 parking spots = 600A / 72000W.

So a distribution line can carry 72kW readily enough — that seems to be about where they are anyways — but if it's carrying that load, it cannot carry any other load, which means that each high-capacity parking garage will need a dedicated line from the nearest substation is.

Then, that parking garage will need to distribute that current to 300 parking spot chargers. Even at 120V/20A, that's 300 new circuit taps; 300 wires, initially. You can use three-phase to reduce that to 100 wires @ 120/20A or equivalent each, which is a lot. Or you can reduce that to 3 wires @ 120V/200A or equivalent, at which point you now have the safety considerations of an outdoor distribution wire in a small enclosed fire-prone space, and you're facing the christmas light problem of "one blown bulb" versus one third of your garage.

Then you need to confront "the chargers need to support burst-mode" so that people can push a button to get a temporary fast-charge ignoring all other concerns — but also "the chargers need to default to trickle-mode", while also considering that trickle-mode should run faster when fewer cars are plugged in (or else tenants will take offense that the chargers aren't using provisioned and available capacity), and that Time-of-Day concerns should cap trickle-mode during peak so that the grid doesn't fail. And that electric vehicles are foreseen as a component of localized grid storage, so garages might need to support backfeeding from cars.

And this all has to be coordinated across three hundred chargers and who knows how many feeder circuits, between one three-phase and three-hundred one-phase, assuming that 72kW (120V/600A) is provisioned to trickle-charge the entire garage each evening at 15A per car max (have to leave some headroom for the burst needs, for momentary overdraw before a charger fuses out a defective vehicle, etc).

This is all doable, but it is logistically expensive, and I would estimate that cost at perhaps tens of millions of dollars at that scale. Doing this for my old 12-apartment complex would merely require 2.4kW of new power delivery, taps, and distribution under the pavement (there's no room for overhead poles to be introduced), without sinking the property into the riverbed it's built on, and without breaking the local emergency services grid that it's drawing from when the creek next door floods every few years.

Retrofit costs are estimated at $5000-$15000 per single parking spot (new buildings are wired more efficiently so halve that cost for anything built since the Model S came out). California at one point was offering a 30% subsidy on retrofits; so, for my example, 300 spots * $5000-$15000 = ~2-4 million dollars (napkin rounded) for a single apartment complex. At local 1-bedroom housing prices, that's around 1000 rent-months of capital investment with no future gain — and that's the most critical part here. The complex cannot recoup that investment through maintenance and usage fees, because those will have to be paid out in actual maintenance and kilowatt-hours — and tenants, in this economy, cannot afford to subsidize the buildout cost.

So until retrofits are either state-funded or state-mandated, landlords have little to no reason to invest their money into the future of electric cars, because they'll get pennies on the dollar at best from their investment. And, given their tendency to collude via RealPage, no one will be the first to build out a 100% EV charging garage because that will not only long-term devalue their other properties without increasing the short-term value of the one improved, but also will start a race to the bottom that they are already colluding to try and prevent.

Yes, trickle-charging is electrically feasible — it's compelling the profitless capital investment that is not.

Re: Electric cars produce less brake dust pollution than combustion-engine cars

#332
> Gains, however, are not equitable. Low-income neighborhoods, which often endure the highest pollution impacts, have seen slower EV uptake, demonstrating the necessity of access to clean transport on an equitable basis.

Air quality tier list:

S-tier: African/American/Australasian countries that were never discovered by the West, and have no energy sources (hypothetical)

B-tier: Western countries and similar (e.g. Japan), and those who've had a resource that they've traded for Western advances (e.g. Asia/Middle East) that can afford nuclear and renewables

D-tier: Sub-Saharan African/South American countries that now have energy needs but are burning coal or diesel to meet them

Re: Electric cars produce less brake dust pollution than combustion-engine cars

#334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Level 1 charging overnight on a standard 120V outlet, while not ideal, is surprisingly adequate. Granted, many people rely on street parking or otherwise don't have a parking spot that is right beside their dwelling, but for rented houses or complexes with private garages/parking areas the size of the lift isn't necessarily "get upgraded service and a bunch of 240V EVSE put in".

None of the apartments I've lived at had a 120V outlet near my parking spot that I could use.

There are no renter-accessible power outlets anywhere in the 300-spot parking garage for my current complex, nor the 300-spot parking garage for my past complex, nor the 12-spot covered parking for my previous complex, etc. (The one prior to all those, I parked directly outside my bedroom window, but we were expressly prohibited from using A/Cs — and so one can safely assume electric vehicles — because the supply run for the property's buildings was so badly underprovisioned that we risked melting it and twice blew the entire property circuit altogether.)

Re: Electric cars produce less brake dust pollution than combustion-engine cars

#335
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heard about that long ago but couldn't find more, so IIUC chemically it's easier and more efficient to have a "one mode" combustion engine and let the electric engine deal with the variations, to the point that the reaction produces near no toxic byproducts, is that right ? I was wondering if there was research to keep improving that part. Even though it would help sustain the fossil fuel industry..

Nissan hat the e-POWER system where a petrol engine is just used to recharge the battery of your electric car and nothing else. In theory they could run that petrol engine at the sweet spot where it produces the least amount of carbon emissions. i believe there is also a chinese company which is making such a car, their cars have nearly 1000 miles range.

Diesel-electric engines in trains and tanks worked like that during WW2.

Re: Electric cars produce less brake dust pollution than combustion-engine cars

#336
post #41

I suppose the same should apply to hybrid cars, which outnumber pure EVs significantly [1]. The effect comes from converting the kinetic energy back to the battery charge via generation instead of wasting it via friction, which is the whole point of hybrids. [1]: https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/how-many-electric...

I came across a really interesting video yesterday (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aubi3cK8Ym0) that touches on brake-dust pollution. It also explains how regenerative (kinetic-energy) charging can cut down on heat pollution, something I hadn’t realized before. That’s actually a big deal for underground metro systems; for instance, the London Tube keeps getting hotter every year.

Re: Electric cars produce less brake dust pollution than combustion-engine cars

#337
post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, you can make much lighter and lower range electric cars without all those heavy batteries, and boost the range with diesel when needed. Very attractive in principle. Most cars are not using their full range all the time, for a lot of people a 50 mile range car would be more than enough 98% of the time, but that remaining 2% means that people end up buying 200 mile range cars instead. But then, do you end up remo…

Smaller cars have always been available, but people have shown a preference for bigger cars where they can sit higher up, even though it costs them more.

I'm not talking about size, I'm talking about range and weight. You can have a huge car or a smaller car, going from a 90kWh battery pack to a 30kWh battery pack is gonna have the same weight saving in both

Re: Electric cars produce less brake dust pollution than combustion-engine cars

#338
post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another part of the point is that you can pack a much smaller and more efficient ICE and then substitute the missing power and torque from electric motors when needed. Most cars are not used at max power all the time. You need max power only at short times when accelerating. With pure ICE there is the tradeoff - a bigger engine will get you more max power / max torque but is going to be less fuel efficient because of…

On paper, yes, but did that ever happen? Sorry for being sarcastic, but where I live the frugal hybrid is exceptionally rare and the "same big engine, but driving a much heavier car" hybrid is omnipresent. The kind of people who might buy the frugal one buy second or third hand while almost all buyers of factory new pick the "same big engine" option, and those are the ones who decide what's available on the second ha…

I wonder whether people actually understand that they need a smaller engine for the same performance?

Re: Electric cars produce less brake dust pollution than combustion-engine cars

#339
post #41

I suppose the same should apply to hybrid cars, which outnumber pure EVs significantly [1]. The effect comes from converting the kinetic energy back to the battery charge via generation instead of wasting it via friction, which is the whole point of hybrids. [1]: https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/how-many-electric...

UK stats are different: https://www.zap-map.com/ev-stats/ev-market , possibly due to the shorter max travel distances.

> As of the end of June 2025, there were 2,450,462 plug-in cars, with over 1,585,000 battery-electric cars and nearly 865,000 PHEVs, registered in the UK.

> There are more fully electric cars than there are plug-in hybrids on UK roads and the gap has been widening. In 2021, fully electric cars accounted for 60% of all plug-in cars but with the increase in options, range and popularity of fully electric cars, and by May 2025 this has increased to 65%.

(That stat does exclude non-pluggable-hybrids, but those are kind of pointless stalling of the transition off petrol)

Re: Electric cars produce less brake dust pollution than combustion-engine cars

#340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are more benefits to EV conversion in a community than the use of renewable energy, noise and roadside air quality being pretty big ones. Also... how do you know there aren't Hawaiians charging their EVs using rooftop solar? I hear they're known for being in the sun sometimes.

> Also... how do you know there aren't Hawaiians charging their EVs using rooftop solar? Because of math. A 6 kW house, to charge a 60 kW battery… so long as everyone with an electric vehicle is charging them at their house for 10 sunny hours to charge from empty, you’re right and I’m wrong. Some people could get by, but it leaves the solar for nothing else. If you leave the house while the sun is up you better get b…

Dude...we are talking about Hawaii. The largest of the islands is just over 4000 square miles. None of the others are over 750 square miles. People drive a lot less in Hawaii than in most of the rest of the country.

The average is 8900 miles per year which is a little under 24 miles per day and a little under 750 miles a month.

If you can charge with solar at 6 kW on a typical EV that will give you about 20 miles per hour of charging. If you can do a little over an hour a day you will be covered.

If you find plugging in for an hour a day to much of a hassle it is under 9 hours a week or 37 hours a month.

Post reply on HN