Adoption of EVs tied to real-world reductions in air pollution: study • Hacker News Board

Re: Adoption of EVs tied to real-world reductions in air pollution: study

#421

Post by windexh8er » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 2:48 PM UTC

jwr wrote: post #369

memen wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that true? EV have much higher emissions of micro plastics and pfas (or variations thereof) due to increased tier degradation. EVs are typically way heavier than similar ICE due to the batteries and combined with the higher torques, tires wear faster.

> EV have much higher emissions of micro plastics and pfas (or variations thereof) due to increased tier degradation I find those claims highly suspect: I own an EV and haven't had to change the tires more often than I did on a gasoline-powered car. My EV bought in 2021 still runs on original tires and they're fine (although I do change from winter to summer tires, so that's 2 sets technically). I suspect black PR, a…

Just because a tire lasts as long doesn't mean it isn't wearing in different ways. EV specific tires are a lot different than their ICE counterparts.

This isn't "black PR". It's comparing apples and oranges. But throw non-EV tires on one and you'll definitely chew those tires up much more quickly [0][1][2][3].

[0] https://www.wheel-size.com/articles/how-are-electric-vehicle... [1]: https://www.pepboys.com/car-care/tire-care/ev-tire-wear [2] https://recharged.com/articles/do-ev-tires-wear-faster [3] https://www.evuniverse.com/whats-the-difference-between-regu...

Re: Adoption of EVs tied to real-world reductions in air pollution: study

#422

Post by maxerickson » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 2:48 PM UTC

MBCook wrote: post #28

princevegeta89 wrote: post #3

No surprises. No matter how we look at it, EVs are much friendlier and safer to the environment. Some people argue the source of electricty can be contested against because that involves fossil fuel burning again, but in today's world we are rapidly moving away from it and towards nuclear/hydel/wind methods for generating power. I hope ICE cars completely become a thing of the past in the next couple of decades to co…

The number of ICE cars I get stuck behind from time to time that just REEK is amazing. I’m in a decently well off area too. Some putting off soot clouds, white smoke, nothing visible but clearly not doing complete combustion. Sometimes I wonder if half the cylinders are even working. I’ve heard one car like that is the equivalent of a surprisingly large number of modern ICE cars is in good shape. I love EVs. I’ve had…

The exhaust from a well functioning modern ICE is likely enough to have less pollutants than the air. Of course it still has carbon dioxide, but less other pollutants.

Re: Adoption of EVs tied to real-world reductions in air pollution: study

#423

Post by BoingBoomTschak » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 2:50 PM UTC

stevenjgarner wrote: post #41

ares623 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just hope "dumb" EV's become a thing soon. I cannot and will not own a smart car any more I want to own a smart TV or smart fridge or smart toaster.

Why? Are you worried from a liberty/privacy standpoint? "Smart" EV's are demonstrated to be significantly safer than "dumb" EVs. Waymo’s 2025/2026 data shows an 80–90% reduction in injury-causing crashes compared to human drivers in the same cities. [1, 2, 3, 4] [1] https://www.reinsurancene.ws/waymo-shows-90-fewer-claims-tha... [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11305169/ [3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go…

You're missing "reliability" in your rhetorical dilemma.

Re: Adoption of EVs tied to real-world reductions in air pollution: study

#424

Post by jodrellblank » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 2:50 PM UTC

itsprobablyok wrote: post #336

jodrellblank wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rarely in everyday life situations do I feel as claustrophobic as being in a car in traffic in a typical road. Can’t change direction (one lane no junctions), can’t change speed (vehicles in front and behind), can’t stop (flow of traffic), can’t break concentration (driving), can’t change body position (car cabin is tiny, seats and hand/feet controls are fixed, no space to stand), can’t look away for more than a mome…

[flagged]

I said “cars bad” and you read “trains bad”. Was that deliberate bad faith on your part or did you not even notice you did it? Trains are fine - nice even, I can stand on trains, I’m not physically restrained by a belt on trains (or buses), I can move and stretch my legs because there’s tables and room and no pedals, and I can slouch and look around because I’m not the one driving. Airplanes though, they can get lost.

> “Buddy, the world is a bigger place than the 4 square miles around your downtown studio.”

4 square miles at the density of Manchester UK is enough for 50,000 people; if every one of them has to drive everywhere for everything, that’s a nightmare of traffic.

Not to mention that I can bike, bus, tram, a lot further than 4 miles in an hour. If that isn’t enough to do the tasks of everyday life then something has gone wrong. (car obsession).

> “The fact that you think you're "free" because you can walk around a little bit...well that's as brainwashed as it gets.”

The fact that you think having to drive everywhere is freedom, but being able to (walk, bus, bike, tram, drive), everywhere isn’t freedom, is nonsense. The choice to drive or not-drive is more freedom than having no choice. (Obviously)

Re: Adoption of EVs tied to real-world reductions in air pollution: study

#425

Post by mittensc » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 2:51 PM UTC

nottorp wrote: post #394

Well, if EVs are made mandatory we'll have even less air polution because fewer people will be able to afford a car. The auto industry seems to have ran out of early adopters already. Now they need a kick in the privates to make cheap EVs.

Chinese EVs are much cheaper then traditional ICE cars.

Re: Adoption of EVs tied to real-world reductions in air pollution: study

#426

Post by cucumber3732842 » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 2:51 PM UTC

xnx wrote: post #415

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

White smoke is water vapor. It's a normal byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion and tends to condense in the exhaust at low loads or immediately after exiting the exhaust, especially in colder temperatures, so you'll see a lot of it in stop and go traffic.

> White smoke is water vapor. Could also be coolant or oil

Even the faintest bit of oil will turn the smoke blue.

Could be coolant, but "coolant into engine" failure modes are generally rare and are usually the kind of thing that needs to get fixed promptly.

Re: Adoption of EVs tied to real-world reductions in air pollution: study

#427

Post by _bent » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 2:52 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #422

MBCook wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number of ICE cars I get stuck behind from time to time that just REEK is amazing. I’m in a decently well off area too. Some putting off soot clouds, white smoke, nothing visible but clearly not doing complete combustion. Sometimes I wonder if half the cylinders are even working. I’ve heard one car like that is the equivalent of a surprisingly large number of modern ICE cars is in good shape. I love EVs. I’ve had…

The exhaust from a well functioning modern ICE is likely enough to have less pollutants than the air. Of course it still has carbon dioxide, but less other pollutants.

you still have tyre rubber, which is a major source of microplastics

Re: Adoption of EVs tied to real-world reductions in air pollution: study

#428

Post by ZeroGravitas » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 2:55 PM UTC

spwa4 wrote: post #321

yen223 wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can do both! Better trains and more EVs replacing gas cars can be done simultaneously!

You forget the most important aspect of policy: it can't cost a single dime, and everyone must lie about that. Read the first sentence of the article: "When California neighborhoods increased their number of zero-emissions vehicles" Obviously neighborhoods/cities/states didn't increase anything. It was just rich people living there buying fancy cars. Of course, this needs to be described as a great accomplishment of…

California government has a great claim to advancing the state of the art in EVs (and hybrids and just ICE before that).

Some people credit Tesla with kick starting the EV revolution. Californian governance kick started Tesla.

Their EV efforts go back to the ZEV mandate in 1990.

Re: Adoption of EVs tied to real-world reductions in air pollution: study

#429

Post by maximus-decimus » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 2:57 PM UTC

dijit wrote: post #389

lima wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Battery swapping is a dead technology, it is simply not economical. It is too expensive, much harder to scale and incompatible with cell-to-chassis designs. Industry barely managed to agree on a charging connector! Meanwhile, battery longevity is essentially a solved problem. Manufacturers do have an incentive to improve it due to customer demand, and modern NMC chemistry, cooling and BMS have improved significantly…

believe it when I see it. no car you can buy with this longevity tech, no phone either- same issue.

The Tesla Model S has been out for almost 13 years, so you can already see it.

Your phone doesn't have liquid cooling temp management and is probably recharged daily. With a car that has 300 miles range, a lot of people probably only do a full cycle every week.

Re: Adoption of EVs tied to real-world reductions in air pollution: study

#430

Post by margalabargala » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 2:58 PM UTC

stephen_g wrote: post #403

margalabargala wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but use regenerative braking, which is better for brake dust Which unfortunately also increases tire wear from regen braking during periods when an ICE vehicle would be coasting without braking. EVs are much (much much) better for CO2, much better for brake dust, and much worse for tire dust.

That literally makes no sense. There’s a point on the accelerator pedal curve where you are coasting (between it applying power or applying regen), you get used to staying around that position pretty quickly because you stop short of where you are aiming to stop otherwise. You basically only back off past that point and into regen when you would be braking in an ICE car, so there is really no difference.

Yes, you learn to stay around that point.

You don't stay at the zero point. It's an impossibly small target. This is not news to anyone who drives an EV and keeps an eye on the readout showing current power usage/regen.