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

321–330 of 661 posts

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

#321

Post by spwa4 »

yen223 wrote: post #291
psychoslave wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's framing the topic completely out of the issue with global impacts of humanity on ecosystemic sustainability, including biodiversity. Less commut and more collective transportation is going to be far more significant in term of global impact, whatever the engine type.

You can do both! Better trains and more EVs replacing gas cars can be done simultaneously!

You forget the most important aspect of policy: it can't cost a single dime, and everyone must lie about that. Read the first sentence of the article:

"When California neighborhoods increased their number of zero-emissions vehicles"

Obviously neighborhoods/cities/states didn't increase anything. It was just rich people living there buying fancy cars. Of course, this needs to be described as a great accomplishment of local government.

And nowhere in the article is the obvious solution even suggested: advancing electric car technology so they're cheaper than ICE cars. And I don't mean charging extra tax while cutting public transport to make sure poor people don't go anywhere anymore, I mean fixing the technology so everyone has transport, for less money.

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

#322

Post by danaris »

cryptoegorophy wrote: post #230

If you live in North America and have a house or townhouse get a Tesla. It is such a no brainer. $5 for 500km vs $100 for 500km (gas) is just too good

Or, y'know...get literally any other EV.

One that doesn't support a neo-Nazi trying to wreck America's economy and political system for his own gains.

I hear the Hyundai Ioniq is supposed to be pretty good.

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

#323

Post by cbeach »

jodrellblank wrote: post #301
cbeach wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public transport will never recreate the freedom of car ownership. It’s a collectivist dream not rooted in reality.

Rarely in everyday life situations do I feel as claustrophobic as being in a car in traffic in a typical road. Can’t change direction (one lane no junctions), can’t change speed (vehicles in front and behind), can’t stop (flow of traffic), can’t break concentration (driving), can’t change body position (car cabin is tiny, seats and hand/feet controls are fixed, no space to stand), can’t look away for more than a mome…

No one is forcing you to drive if you have these peculiar feelings about it.

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

#324

Post by adev_ »

memen wrote: post #255
lukan wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, any cyclist daring to drive in winter can easily confirm this. It is so disgusting (and unhealthy) having to stand behind a ICE car on a traffic light and being behind a electric car is such a relief, that thoughts of wishing to ban all ICE cars as soon as possible (at least in cities) come automatically.

Modern ICE cars have auto start/stop systems, so on a traffic light it has as much exhaust as an EV.

> auto start/stop systems

Most start stop systems will disable themselves when the heater of the car is turned ON and the car engine not hot enough yet.

As a cyclist (or motorbike owner), it is pretty usual in city to have >50% cars with engines ON at traffic light in cities when temperature are low.

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

#325

Post by scott_w »

lukan wrote: post #263
memen wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern ICE cars have auto start/stop systems, so on a traffic light it has as much exhaust as an EV.

Also when the temperature is really low? Does not seem like it. Also at some point they will start their engines again. Guess who will inhale that?

Ironically though, cyclists inhale less pollution than drivers (who inhale the most)!

Sources: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/10/08/report-drivers-arent-... which references the BBC

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

#326

Post by itsprobablyok »

cbeach wrote: post #276
memen wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that true? EV have much higher emissions of micro plastics and pfas (or variations thereof) due to increased tier degradation. EVs are typically way heavier than similar ICE due to the batteries and combined with the higher torques, tires wear faster.

I have a heavy and high performance EV (Tesla Model S) and I have replaced my tires twice in the last six years. So it’s about the same as an ICE vehicle in that regard. One thing that differs is brake wear. My car is ten years old and still on its original brake pads and discs. The regen braking is amazing for avoiding mechanical braking. So that means less particle emission from brakes, compared to ICE.

>"I have a heavy and high performance EV (Tesla Model S) and I have replaced my tires twice in the last six years. So it’s about the same as an ICE vehicle in that regard."

Well no, it's not "the same". We have things like physics to tell us that more torque and more weight means more tire wear, despite your anecdote. There are even studies on this. They also have a greater impact on road wear.

EVs have many advantages over ICEs. I don't understand why people have to lie and say they are worse nowhere.

https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2024-us-orig...

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

#327

Post by nasmorn »

drzaiusx11 wrote: post #215
wholinator2 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I'd wager it's largely disruptive and dangerous in a highly localized way due to the small percentage of folks doing it. Doesn't make it an acceptable practice though. One person "rolling coal" can temporarily blind 3 or 4 cars back and several across depending on wind conditions, etc.

In terms of NOX it can be a factor of 100. If 1% drive without cats they produce half the NOX emissions. In reality it is probably less since there are other old cars as well that have higher emissions

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

#328

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

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…

> Some people argue the source of electricty can be contested against because that involves fossil fuel burning again

FYI, if you want to search for this, it is called "The long tailpipe" theory (1) or "long tailpipe fallacy".

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_tailpipe

And it is a fallacy for obvious reasons, including

a) electricity generation is more flexible, and rapidly shifting to solar and other non-polluting sources.

b) Moving pollution away from people is better. Cars are inherently around people, streets, residences etc.

c) One centralised plant with no weight restrictions is easier to control for emissions and efficiency than many thousands of mobile, weight-constrained power plants.

d) Wikipedia: "The extraction and refining of carbon based fuels and its distribution is in itself an energy intensive industry contributing to CO2 emissions."

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

#329

Post by decimalenough »

trimethylpurine wrote: post #319
chrisbrandow wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work for the Air Resources Board of California, and while there is a warm-up period, modern ice cars are so profoundly cleaner than cars even from the early 2000s. It’s pretty stunning. Regardless, there’s nothing cleaner than no combustion, and I can’t wait until EV‘s have replaced them all

[flagged]

Every single survey that I'm aware has concluded that by any measure EVs are more environmentally friendly than ICEs. The only caveat is that the "startup" footprint of an EV is higher (because batteries), but the ongoing cost is far lower, even with polluting electricity sources like coal, because it's still way more efficient to burn coal in a proper power plant than it is to ship around gasoline and burn it badly in ICEs. The breakeven point (depending on your assumptions and driving habits) is a couple of years in, and after that EVs wipe the floor with ICEs.

Here's a bunch of those surveys: https://evcentral.com.au/which-is-best-for-the-environment-e...

Keen to hear your expert opinion on what (eg) the International Energy Agency got wrong.

Post reply on HN