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

131–140 of 661 posts

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

#131

Post by margalabargala »

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/…

> 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.

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

#132

Post by wincy »

MBCook wrote: post #68
pinnochio wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what your point is when we're talking about cars, where fixed physical controls are demonstrably more usable and safer for drivers that need to keep their eyes on the road. Multiple manufacturers have pulled back from excessive touch controls (not just touchscreens, but capacitive buttons and sliders) and reinstated more traditional buttons and dials.

Physical controls and smart cars are not mutually exclusive. That’s why they’ve been fixing that. I agree that was an idiotic trend. But if someone wants a car without connectivity, it’s too late. The market is not strong enough to get rid of that. Most people either like it or don’t care enough to avoid it. Just like most people liked or didn’t care enough to avoid smart TVs. So that’s all you can buy.

I declined the master data agreement when Toyota updated it, and my car hasn’t connected to the Internet since. They also wanted to charge me like $20 a month for stuff like bothering me with notifications that my wife has failed to lock the car when I’m halfway across the city after the first year of ownership.

I suppose they could still remote kill the car though, and have no idea what would happen if I hit the emergency button.

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

#133

Post by DaSHacka »

sagarm wrote: post #99
everdrive wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at the specs page the base model includes "Dual 12.3" widescreen displays" Why? What the hell is wrong with modern cars?

Backup cameras are an enormous safety improvement. Plus touchscreens are much cheaper than buttons and knobs.

> Backup cameras are an enormous safety improvement.

Sure, however....

> Plus touchscreens are much cheaper than buttons and knobs.

And how much LESS safe is using a touchscreen while operating a motor vehicle? Its literally no different from using an iPad.

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

#134

Post by wholinator2 »

pvab3 wrote: post #124
Der_Einzige wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a LOT of people personally who swap their exhaust in and out just for emissions inspections. That's the meta.

a lot of people have custom exhausts, particularly catback systems that don't affect emissions. A lot of people are definitely not rolling coal.

Yeah, it's definitely a small percent of people. But i do wonder how many there really has to be to have an outsized effect. One of those lifted kid killers blowing black smoke for the entire duration of the bicycle pack is definitely more than 3 of my tiny honda civics, i wonder how many it really is, and how much those modifications increase the "resting emissions rate"even when not blowing shit. Should be illegal, likely is.

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

#135

Post by margalabargala »

rubidium wrote: post #91
didip wrote: post #73

Anyone can argue ICE vs EV all night long but there's only 1 metric I care about, in favor of EV: When I am going to take my son to school, he doesn't have to smell the gas and the fumes from the exhaust in the garage.

I did daily (old station wagon in the rear facing seat), as well as school buses. Kindof liked the smell in moderation as a kid. Still in favor of EVs, just a curiosity that this is so negative for you.

I suspect OP is considering health effects, not enjoyment.

Plenty of people like cigarettes and opium too, that doesn't mean you want your kid exposed to the smoke.

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

#136

Post by dotancohen »

stevenjgarner wrote: post #111
direwolf20 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That actually is exactly the argument. GP posted about liberty concerns, he was met with claims of saving 50,000 lives.

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

#137

Post by skylurk »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #108
bryanlarsen wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only poorly designed EV's are significantly heavier. A Tesla 3 and a BMW 3 are about the same weight.

BMWs are all pigfat today. Compare it to a proper sports car like a Miata. Most cars are far too heavy and should be made lighter. Only Mazda seems to understand this and that's why the Mazda SUVs/sedans are by far the best driving vehicles in their class.

BMW has hardware and software bloat for sure, I hate driving them. But sedans, even the heavy ones, don't really hurt roads much compared to a lorry.

As your wikipedia link indicates, any road that is designed for lorry use should be able to take heavy sedans all day and not be worse for wear:

> Therefore, the resulting stress difference between truck and car is 15,000 to 1.

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

#138

Post by margalabargala »

digiown wrote: post #116
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?

Aircraft burn more fuel, but they do so far from where people are, and Jet A burns more cleanly than gasoline from a particulate perspective.

From an air pollution perspective you are much better off a half mile from 10 jets taking off, than you are surrounded by a hundred idling gasoline cars.

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

#139

Post by achenatx »

dotcoma wrote: post #128

But don’t they cause higher pm2.5 and pm10 pollution from braking due to the fact that EVs are heavier than vehicles powered by internal combustion ?

1 pedal braking means evs often dont need new brake pads for 150K miles

One problem they are experiencing is rust and glazing on the pads from disuse.

They are heavier than the equivalent sized ICE so have more tire wear, but dont have to be that large in an absolute sense. Most are large luxury cars.

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

#140

Post by nielsbot »

dotcoma wrote: post #128

But don’t they cause higher pm2.5 and pm10 pollution from braking due to the fact that EVs are heavier than vehicles powered by internal combustion ?

Maybe if they used their brakes all the time, but they don't. (Regen braking uses no brakes). That's why EVs, while heaver, require fewer brake pad replacements than ICE cars.
Post reply on HN