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

111–120 of 661 posts

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

#111

Post by stevenjgarner »

direwolf20 wrote: post #89
stevenjgarner wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So liberty then. I don't disagree with you, but this modern flashpoint in the classic debate between individual liberty and collective safety does bring up the question what is saving 50,000+ lives annually actually worth in terms of loss of personal freedoms? I am personally struggling with this debate having lost loved ones in this manner.

Remote bricking of cars does not save 50,000 lives.

That is not the argument being made. We are discussing how "dumb" vehicles (e.g. vehicles that contribute to 50,000+ fatalities annually) provide independence, privacy and freedom that "smart" vehicles (e.g. vehicles with self-driving that can be bricked at will) do not ensure.

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

#112

Post by al_borland »

Gigachad wrote: post #74
kneel wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if all the electricity for EVs came from a centralized coal plant (it doesn't) it would be better than using combustion in individual vehicles. Centralized pollution in one area is better than attempting to mitigate diffuse pollution everywhere.

Coal power plants are also massively more efficient than ICE cars. They can run consistently at their optimum rpm rather than start stop usage.

One other decent argument I heard in favor of EVs is that they’re agnostic to where that power is generated. So once that coal plant is replaced with natural gas, solar, wind, or whatever, all the EVs in that area will instantly become cleaner without everyone having to buy a new car after the changes is made.

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

#113

Post by stevenjgarner »

sagarm wrote: post #95
stevenjgarner wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I assume GP meant cars with internet connectivity features, not (real) self driving tech.

The assertion that 'I just hope "dumb" EV's become a thing soon' led me to a different assumption. The ultimate aspiration of a "smart" EV is self-driving, which incorporates Internet connectivity features (e.g. digital mapping, over the air updates, etc).

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

#114

Post by charcircuit »

eldaisfish wrote: post #83
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want the car to be able to contact emergency services, but not to otherwise be able to use the cellular network. Is there a good way to sabotage the eSIM, without otherwise breaking the modem? (This would still allow the car to be tracked via IMEI, but I'm not too worried about that: anyone capable of that is also capable of tracking my actual phone, and anyone buying that data will already know what car I own.)

why do you want your car to contact emergency services? the people around you can do that just fine and very reliably. How on earth did we survive as a species before our cars could make automated phone calls?

The parent comment is interested in the survival of themselves and passengers. The survival of the human race is a low bar to pass.

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

#115

Post by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF »

dgacmu wrote: post #110
lagniappe wrote: post #97

I want the future to focus more on the brakes and tire dust, and the increase in cancers and other problems by people who live near busy roads or highways experience. Nobody studies this, and combustion or battery, everyone is affected by it. Even playgrounds are filled with shredded tires, which borders on biohazard.

It gets studied. EVs are often heavier, which is worse for tire wear, but use regenerative braking, which is better for brake dust. Overall, EVs are likely a net win on the combination of these two things, and a big win on exhaust emissions, but it would be nice if we could shift to lighter and smaller vehicles and increase the mix of non-cars such as e-bikes and mass transit. Source: https://www.eiturbanmobility.eu/…

Plug-in hybrids are a wonderful middle point on the Pareto frontier.

Wikipedia lists the 3rd-gen Prius Prime at roughly 3,500 pounds curb weight, and the Tesla Model Y at 4,100-4,600 pounds, I assume depending on the battery it's equipped with.

The Prius Prime has 40+ miles of all-electric range, and it can reach highway speeds with the gas engine off. So your day-to-day driving is all electric, then you still have an engine for harsh winter days, power outages, and you have 600 miles EPA range on gas for sudden road trips.

People are really sleeping on hybrids. Even a used non-plug-in Prius will get 50 city and 50 highway MPG. No gas sedan can do that.

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

#116

Post by digiown »

Mikasa1 wrote: post #65

Hmmm. Do we have to do a study of that? The AQI around LHR was 3 when I went there last year. Then realized all gas cars are banned at the airport.

What's the reasoning for banning the cars specifically at an airport? Don't the airplanes burn way more fuel?

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

#117

Post by dangus »

xbmcuser wrote: post #24
1970-01-01 wrote: post #2

I was out skating today. Everyone was having a fun time until a diesel truck simply drove down the nearby road. It stunk up and polluted the frozen lake air for a solid few minutes. I hate diesel trucks with a passion and if I live long enough to see it happen, I will celebrate the day they become defunct. Tesla's EV trucks need to deal the same hard kick to diesel trucks that they did to cars.

Ev trucks have already reached 50%+ sales in China this year so diesel truck will be gone soon but unlikely to be Tesla trucks though.

Just when I was thinking about Tesla’s main failure being their pickup truck you remind me how they completely missed the obvious delivery van market for which EVs are ideal.

And the semi is such vaporware that I forgot it was even a thing.

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

#118

Post by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF »

SloppyDrive wrote: post #50
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.

Post crash connectivity (as well as complex video classification) are part of the ncap standards now. And with the way we are moving to centralized one system architectures, the device that does video processing can be the same soc that does smart infotainment. Smart connectivity essentially comes "for free" if the manufacturer wants to hit 5 safety stars, so its not going away, and will come to ICE cars as they mode…

I hate that. If I live in the country, my car spies on me. If I live in the city everyone spies on me. One value I agree with the libertarians on is, I just want to be left alone.

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

#119

Post by digiown »

rootusrootus wrote: post #34
loeg wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The post-cancellation EREV Lightning is 99% an EV, for the purposes of air pollution. Agree with everything else.

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.

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

#120

Post by MetaWhirledPeas »

lagniappe wrote: post #97

I want the future to focus more on the brakes and tire dust, and the increase in cancers and other problems by people who live near busy roads or highways experience. Nobody studies this, and combustion or battery, everyone is affected by it. Even playgrounds are filled with shredded tires, which borders on biohazard.

> Nobody studies this

> Even playgrounds are filled with shredded tires, which borders on biohazard.

They don't study it, but you're worried about it? I'm curious to know why these things in particular (brake dust and rubber tires) are on the radar.

(And a quick search shows that people do study this.)

Post reply on HN