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

161–170 of 661 posts

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

#161

Post by Braxton1980 »

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…

Many car enthusiasts remove the catalytic converter for a combination of additional power and/or better sound. It has a massive impact on emissions and what you might be smelling is hydrogen sulfide which is normally converted to sulfur dioxide which is orderless.

I should note the power increase may not have a major impact on newer cars where the cat has been optimized to reduce it's negative power impact.

Infact a popular tuner company, APR, that provides flashes tested the recent Volkswagen GTI and R generation with their most common tune and determined that with their tune removing the cat had a nominal impact.

*Basically they can bring the cars power as high as the OEM internals can handle reliably while keeping the cat. There are cars where it still has some impact and of course, different from power ,"straight piping" a car can offer a subjective sound change.

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

#162

Post by neogodless »

dyauspitr wrote: post #148
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…

We are about 2-3x battery capacity to never look back at ICE vehicles ever again. That or 5 min to 80% charge times with current capacity.

The current generation of Lucid, BMW, etc. are 400+ mile vehicles.

You think we need 800-1200 mile batteries?

As for charge speed, the twice a year someone needs more than 400 miles isn't as significant in real world EV usage...

I plug in on a dopey 1.3kW (~115V, ~12A) outlet and my car is at 80% charge in the morning. For commuting, a 5pm to 7am charge is ample for most people living ordinary lives.

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

#163

Post by dyauspitr »

neogodless wrote: post #162
dyauspitr wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are about 2-3x battery capacity to never look back at ICE vehicles ever again. That or 5 min to 80% charge times with current capacity.

The current generation of Lucid, BMW, etc. are 400+ mile vehicles. You think we need 800-1200 mile batteries? As for charge speed, the twice a year someone needs more than 400 miles isn't as significant in real world EV usage... I plug in on a dopey 1.3kW (~115V, ~12A) outlet and my car is at 80% charge in the morning. For commuting, a 5pm to 7am charge is ample for most people living ordinary lives.

Based on my firsthand experience, cold weather (big one) or hauling/towing significantly reduces that 400 mile range (sometimes by 50%+). Yes to comfortably get 400-500 miles per charge in the worst case scenario it needs to be atleast 2x.

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

#164

Post by cosmic_cheese »

kemiller wrote: post #69
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…

Even if you power a typical EV from 100% coal, it pencils out as about equivalent to a late model Prius. And any improvements in the energy mix take it further.

I don't think many people really understand how awful automobile-scale internal combustion engines are at efficiency. The only reason they work at all is thanks to the absurd energy density of the fuels they burn.

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

#165

Post by YZF »

margalabargala wrote: post #157
fafac wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tires and their dust don't care whether you're braking by regen or friction. The reason there's more dust is from the increased weight of the EV not because of regen braking. You can coast in EV as well, that is not exclusive to ICE.

> The tires and their dust don't care whether you're braking by regen or friction. I'm aware. The point I'm making is that EVs apply more braking than ICE vehicles do, due to the specifics of the implementation of regen braking that all manufacturers have chosen. > You can coast in EV as well Not without literally putting it in neutral. If you just take your foot off the accelerator, any modern EV will apply some amo…

But ICE vehicles can be in engine breaking mode. You pretty much never "coast" (e.g. put the vehicle in neutral or hold the clutch in). I get what you're saying but it feels like it's way in the margin if an effect at all. Do you have some reference? People keep talking about tire wear but my model 3 tires (which are relatively high performance soft tires) aren't wearing any faster than the wear I used to get on my Subaru before. I just don't drive aggressively. Flooring the accelerator must be the big difference. I don't think the weight difference is that large, certainly compared to trucks.

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

#166

Post by crystal_revenge »

dangus wrote: post #145

Something that needs to be pointed out, especially for those who want to push back against findings like this and essentially defend ICE vehicles: Really step back and imagine a world where the modern EV [1] was first to market and a gasoline combustion engine was second . Who would actually decide to switch from a modern EV to gasoline on purpose of their own choice? The downsides of gasoline cars are actually prett…

> Who would actually decide to switch from a modern EV to gasoline on purpose of their own choice?

I travel monthly through rural parts of the US where EVs really don't make sense. I get the most people on HN live in suburbs/cities, but there's a lot of stuff that happens in the rural parts of the country that absolutely demands ICE vehicles. Yes the population of people out there is much smaller, but if you've ever spent serious times in these parts of the country you'd realize petroleum runs everything.

Even in a world where electric vehicles came first this would still be the case.

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

#167

Post by crystal_revenge »

It's great to see a reduction in local pollution but it is worth remembering the electric vehicles ultimately have zero impact on climate change and petroleum consumption (which as continue to rise year-over-year).

Oil not used in ICE cars is just used someplace else.

Electric cars are great for the city/suburbs but don't really make a dent in the larger resource usage issues facing us.

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

#168

Post by neogodless »

dangus wrote: post #145

Something that needs to be pointed out, especially for those who want to push back against findings like this and essentially defend ICE vehicles: Really step back and imagine a world where the modern EV [1] was first to market and a gasoline combustion engine was second . Who would actually decide to switch from a modern EV to gasoline on purpose of their own choice? The downsides of gasoline cars are actually prett…

Kind of funny anecdote, as a bit of a car enthusiast.

I drive a Polestar 2, and someone asked if it was my favorite car I've owned. And I said, no that's a Mazda 3 hatchback... 6-speed manual. Lovely vehicle to drive. Economical, but luxurious for the price. Very practical, too.

But... if you asked me if I'd go from the Polestar 2 back to the Mazda 3? I'd say no. I'll keep the electric. Of course it's not a fair comparison... one had an MSRP of $27k and the other $67k. One has 186HP and the other 476HP (and all-wheel drive).

One had a lot of routine maintenance of the engine, while the other has needed wiper blades and tires. And one requires standing outside in 10° F days like today pumping gas, while the other one is charging in my garage (and warms up the cabin from the press of a button on my phone.)

The Mazda 3 was more of a driver's car, and if I had bought either new, it would be a very different equation. (I bought the 3 w/ 8K miles on it for $20k; I bought the Polestar w/ 20K miles on it for $29K.) The Mazda 3 has a vastly better interface - better auto-dimming headlights, tons of buttons for climate, stereo, etc.

But the Polestar 2 is the one I would rather be driving... for now. (I just hope more "driver's car" electric options come to our shores.)

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

#169

Post by cosmic_cheese »

princevegeta89 wrote: post #75
MBCook wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they? I was under the impression most EVs cut off the connection to the high voltage battery almost all the time they’re not in use. They rely on a 12 V battery or a 48 V battery like a normal car. The only thing I’m aware of that special is that if that low voltage battery gets low enough the car will detect it and recharge it from the high voltage battery, temporarily connecting it for that purpose.

Well that was what I meant - the battery pack meaning the entire system of batteries, be it 1 or 2 or 3. That really enables them to have a continuous state of power supply for a long long time. This cannot be achieved by ICE cars and not even hybrids for that matter.

In theory. In practice, a lot of EVs (and hybrids, which could do the same thing to a more limited extent) ship with the same cheap flooded lead acid 12v batteries that ship with ICE cars and don't handle constant charging/discharging well.

This puts a cap on how much the "smart" systems can do because it dramatically increases cycle count and thus the risk of the 12v battery losing the ability to produce enough voltage to start the car, leaving the driver marooned somewhere.

It could also result in a noticeable "vampire" drain on the high voltage battery which looks bad and could put you at a disadvantage vs. competitors.

Post reply on HN