Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

keck.usc.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 661 posts

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

#501

Post by rootusrootus »

vel0city wrote: post #470
al_borland wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My previous car had its infotainment system reboot several times while I was on the expressway. The idea of my instrument panel, or other more critical systems, crashing and rebooting while driving terrifies me.

I've had multiple vehicles have instrument cluster failures while operating them. None of those have been screens. "Analog" gauges have not actually been analog for a while. They're all digital controls being read by a computer. Even a carbureted motorcycle I owned from the early 2000s had "analog" gauges with values given to it from a computer!

> from the early 2000s

For sure, and even earlier -- I had a 1995 Mustang with faux analog gauges, it has definitely been a Thing for decades now.

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

#502

Post by mixmastamyk »

vel0city wrote: post #468
mixmastamyk wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also you are conflating thing the poster may not have intended. I’ve not heard anyone complain about collision avoidance systems, antilock brakes etc. But spying packages, and touchscreen dash, hell no.

> I’ve not heard anyone complain about collision avoidance systems, antilock brakes etc I hear people on this site complain about these things all the time.

I’m sure it’s happened in the history of the world, but otherwise approaching zero.

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

#503

Post by vel0city »

bluGill wrote: post #496
vel0city wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of the smaller gas stations will slowly die off and we'll see continued growth of those kinds of fuel stations known for their food adopt EV charging as well and grow to offer food + energy whether that be gas or electric. Buc-ees these days has tons of rows of EV charging, often both Tesla and Mercedes brands. I imagine we'll see a similar thing with other brands.

It varies. As one station dies that temborarly strengthens the others on the same corner. Ev charging on highways will remain big business, but small rural town that support a few gas stations will support no ev charger because everyone charges at home.

I do largely agree with this. Those small and more remote rural towns are also likely some of the last places to highly electrify due to the particular needs of those kinds of lifestyles. You're far more likely to be towing a horse trailer if you live in such a place, which is something EVs will probably struggle with for a long while.

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

#504

Post by stephenr »

sagarm wrote: post #448
stephenr wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need 'dual 12.3" touch screens' for a reversing camera.

I should have mentioned a digital dashboard is also cheaper than a traditional one, I guess. But isn't that obvious?

What's that got to do with reversing cameras?

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

#505

Post by _bent »

grosswait wrote: post #437
_bent wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And not a distinguishing factor of ICE vehicles

yeah I just wanted to contest the very idea that a car could be clean.

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

#506

Post by shmoe »

princevegeta89 wrote: post #77
shmoe wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you met https://slate.auto ? :) Doesn't even have automatic windows.

Jesus Christ... this entire thing looks like such a far-fetched dream to me. I am worried for the VCs that dumped their money into this idea.

We'll see soon enough, they promise trucks on the road later this year.

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

#507

Post by Hikikomori »

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…

We have mandatory inspection of road vehicles almost every year and we measure exhaust as part of it.

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

#508

Post by rootusrootus »

digiown wrote: post #119
rootusrootus wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why I said (ish). I agree, it's predominantly an EV. I hope they backpedal on the decision a bit and offer both an EREV and a regular EV at the same time. I'm quite happy with my Lightning and will buy another, but I'm not super interested in the EREV as it just adds expense, complexity, and maintenance requirements without offering me much additional functionality for my use case.

I thought the whole point of an EREV is to reduce expense by having less battery in the vehicle.

The whole point is to sell more cars, the EREV Lightning will not be cheaper to produce or sell.

At current prices, the standard range battery in a Lightning (which is nominally about 107kWh or so) should cost under $10K. They will not be able to shrink the battery enough to offset the cost of putting in an engine and generator. For one, they have to stay competitive with the Dodge EREV pickup, which will have a ~90kWh battery.

My guess is they leave out one or two modules from the standard range pack and price the truck starting at $70K. They won't make a ton of money, but they might be able to get a nice boost in volume to make up for it.

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

#509

Post by ErroneousBosh »

ajb wrote: post #418
ErroneousBosh wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the exhaust had to go through the cabin so the driver got the worst of it, car exhaust would be the cleanest air on the planet within months and/or alternatives to cars would rocket. This is why forklift trucks and Zambonis run on propane instead of petrol or diesel. If you burn gas, you get no carbon monoxide or unburnt fuel because it runs ever so slightly lean and all the fuel is burnt. This means keeping the…

That's very interesting. I guess it could be a great option for when the % of ICE vehicles is low enough, it might be practical to ban more polluting fuels. (Edited to add) Hmm actually people are already doing LPG conversions today as it's cheaper. Not sure if all LPGs are as pollution free, though.

It depends how you do it. The conversion on my elderly Range Rover is not as efficient, being an old-fashioned "single point" system - this has a thing a bit like a cooker ring attached to the throttle, a stepper motor controlled valve driven by a third lambda sensor, and a thing to disconnect the petrol injectors when it switches to gas.

You can get ones with a complete set of LPG injectors and an ECU that takes its timing from the petrol injectors, and these are incredibly efficient. They're a bit harder to install (you need to drill holes in the intake manifold, it's a faff) but the engine can be mapped for even more power than on petrol and a tiny amount of pollution.

There's still a lot of CO2 and water vapour, but as previously discussed you're burning all this shit anyway so you might as well extract useful work from it.

The time to have done this was 25 or 30 years ago, when it was ridiculously cheap to buy gas and there were a lot of old-fashioned carburettor-fed cars that were incredibly badly polluting.

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

#510

Post by freeopinion »

Does the study account for things like coal-fired power plants in Delta, Utah being operated by Los Angeles Department of Water and Power? This makes for less pollution at the site of the vehicle, and more pollution two giant western states away.
Post reply on HN