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…
Adoption of EVs tied to real-world reductions in air pollution: study
171–180 of 661 posts
Re: Adoption of EVs tied to real-world reductions in air pollution: study
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
More like, more people should understand how EVs can easily work for them, and then try to shoehorn gas-powered vehicles into the few niche they need to be in.
How often does someone need a 400 mile range again? Towing? When is the last time you towed something 400 miles? The most I ever towed was... using a rental truck and a rental trailer when I moved. (Anecdotes are not data!) But why in a rational purchasing decision would I need an 800 mile EV battery for a car just because sometimes it's cold out?
Re: Adoption of EVs tied to real-world reductions in air pollution: study
#174Earlier 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.
Braking from regen or braking from a brake pad has the same net impact on tire wear. EVs can coast too and don’t apply full regen the moment you apply brakes. Some even have brake coach alerts to get you to gradually apply the brakes to maximize energy return.
EVs could coast if a manufacturer chose to make one that allowed that without shifting into neutral. In practice, when letting off the accelerator, existing EVs will instead regen brake.
Re: Adoption of EVs tied to real-world reductions in air pollution: study
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
But heavier so worse on the tires. It isn’t intuitive that they’d be better off, and they might be worse on this particular dimension.
Yes current EVs are heavy. It's not at all clear that this will prevail as solid state batteries evolve to become standard. It is highly possible that EVs will soon be lighter than comparable ICE vehicles [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46505975
Re: Adoption of EVs tied to real-world reductions in air pollution: study
#176Earlier 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…
Re: Adoption of EVs tied to real-world reductions in air pollution: study
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
The surprising part to me is that there are now enough EVs to make a measurable difference, since I kept thinking they are still relatively rare. The linked study has this piece of data: From 2019 to 2023, ZEVs increased from 2.0% (559943 of 28237734) to 5.1% (1460818 of 28498496). So 1 out of 20 cars in California is an EV.
It really feels like more than 1 in 20 driving around the 101/280
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/zero-e...
Re: Adoption of EVs tied to real-world reductions in air pollution: study
#178It'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.
That's simply not true. Oil used someplace else would have been used someplace else either way.
There is a supply/demand effect where reduced oil demand would lower its price and therefore arrest the loss of oil demand from cars by other consumers of oil, but the net effect would still be that less oil is burned and used.
Re: Adoption of EVs tied to real-world reductions in air pollution: study
#179Earlier 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.
Re: Adoption of EVs tied to real-world reductions in air pollution: study
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of old cars also since new cars are so expensive.
I think expense is basically the problem. Cost to replace the catalytic converter, cost for new exhaust pipes, cost to diagnose ignition timing problems. Whatever. If the car drives and you don’t have the money I can completely understand why someone wouldn’t get the problem fixed. Even if it means they’re burning a 1/3 of their fuel, that’s still less in the short term than the $1500 it may cost to fix it. It’s insa…