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

341–350 of 661 posts

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

#341

Post by raducu »

luckys wrote: post #339

Because this is HN, (in Allo Allo's Michelle Dubois voice...) "I shall say this only wonce": If you're curious, have a look at Earth's historical temperature and co2 data going back millions of years. What you'll notice is that there's always been oscillations, like a more or less predictable wave. Human activity is polluting the Earth, yes, but this fixation on co2 and other gases (cow farts, really?) is unhealthy t…

> notice is that there's always been oscillations

There's always been oscilations, true, but the rate o change and trend on those oscilations is the real issue.

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

#342

Post by aziaziazi »

cinntaile wrote: post #271
londons_explore wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the fleet of EV's age, I'm sure we'll see equivalents... "The high voltage wires were just dragging on the street sparking, presumably with all the safety features disabled" "They were driving with a 10 gallon coolant tank on the roof, presumably because the coolant loop had a big leak and needed continuous topping up".

You're not allowed to drive cars like that in a functional society. When you go for your compulsory car checkup it wouldn't pass the required safety standards.

while I agree, there's many places where the compulsory car checkup is tied to your relationship with the mechanic. I don't think my parents ever had a "valid" car but the certificate always was. It never felt wrong (although I think it is) but more like mutual aid or service.

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

#343

Post by memen »

raverbashing wrote: post #281
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.

It is amazing the amount of bs and grasping at straws that the oil company will push to keep their amazing polluting stuff going on No I'm sure fracking and pipelines and all the crap the oil industry needs just to exist does not have any pfas or micro plastics

Micro plastics pollution is a relatively new problem and thus many direct and indirect effects are not yet fully understood. Moving emissions from CO2 (gas) to micro particles (solid), means emissions will be deposited more local to roads. Moving emissions from 'big oil' installations to the road, means more local emissions/deposits nearer to your home and backyard.

Additionally, due to the fourth power law [0], you only need 20% weight increase to obtain a 2x road wear. Asphalt/concrete production is also accompanied with substantial emission, although progress is made to reduce it [1].

Is there a break-even for weight vs emission reduction? And if so, is it somewhere between personal and cargo vehicles or is it 'EV always better'?

Are we trading 'well-known and bad for global environment'-emission for 'poorly-understood and possibly very bad for local environment on a global scale'-emission?

Of course, with the available information EVs seem to be the better solution, but it should not prevent us from researching/solving unknown effects or being careful choosing a single solution on such a large scale.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law

[1] https://www.pbl.nl/uploads/default/downloads/pbl-2022-decarb...

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

#344

Post by mrpopo »

luckys wrote: post #339

Because this is HN, (in Allo Allo's Michelle Dubois voice...) "I shall say this only wonce": If you're curious, have a look at Earth's historical temperature and co2 data going back millions of years. What you'll notice is that there's always been oscillations, like a more or less predictable wave. Human activity is polluting the Earth, yes, but this fixation on co2 and other gases (cow farts, really?) is unhealthy t…

> There's certainly a lot to be said for humans needing to take better care of the planet. Co2 just gets a little too much attention for my taste.

GHG are a matter of life or death for hundreds of millions living in poverty in coastal areas or living from their own agriculture.

Of course you live in a 1st world country and it likely won't kill you, just cost you tons of money

It's not about "take better care of the planet", whatever you think that means

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

#345

Post by bruce511 »

danaris wrote: post #313
bruce511 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't downvote comments because you don't agree with the argument. Downvotes should be for comments that add little to the discussion. I agree that discussing weight with regard to EVs, without acknowledging that (in the US) the fashion is for big heavy ICE cars is just as polluting is disingenuous. That said, outside the US the trend is for smaller cars, and equally the weight of a small EV is not hugely diss…

And wouldn't you say that when a comment is made in bad faith, or misrepresents (deliberately or not) a major component of its argument, that it adds little to the discussion? It's all well and good to have high-minded ideals of pure intellectual discussion, but in the real world, there are many people who are coming into the comments with a strong political agenda in mind, and are both willing and able to make disin…

I understand that it can feel like you're having to make the same point over and over (I certainly feel like that sometimes) but personally I'm more inclined to give the person the benefit of the doubt when it comes to good faith.

Out in the world there are common misconceptions which are propagated by vested interests and believed by many at first glance.

Having the opportunity to see those arguments, and rebuff them , (over and over again) is key to balancing the public discourse.

I agree, some argue in bad faith, that's going to be true in some cases. But I think most times it's honest misconceptions.

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

#346

Post by stetrain »

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…

The amount of braking force needed to take a car of X weight from Y miles per hour to zero in a given amount of time is the same whether by friction brakes or regen brakes.

You can reduce the total braking force needed by extending the time, in which case aerodynamic forces and rolling resistance will contribute some more to the reduction in speed.

In an EV with one-pedal driving you can still stop quickly or slowly. In an ICE car you can stop slowly with more coasting or quickly with more braking force.

I don't see how the drivetrain is going to make a difference to the amount of braking needed to stop and thus force exerted on the tire. The added weight of most EVs would be the larger factor.

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

#347

Post by tcfhgj »

zdragnar wrote: post #150
nine_k wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say that putting off sooth clouds is a way to sequester carbon (which obviously failed to burn). Such over-enriched fuel mixes must generate much more CO though, and I wonder if those who "tune" their cars like so take care about the catalytic converter :(

The health consequences of inhaling exhaust particulates are far more harmful than the equivalent CO2 contribution to greenhouse effect warming unfortunately. All in all, a well tuned ICE is better for everyone than a poorly tuned one, if you had to pick between the two.

> The health consequences of inhaling exhaust particulates are far more harmful than the equivalent CO2 contribution to greenhouse effect warming unfortunately

Short term for the individual definitely, but long term for all individuals affected?

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

#348

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

memen wrote: post #273
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…

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.

While it is true that EVs are heavier than the equivalent ICE vehicle, and that this causes more tyre and road wear.

1) this is not the only or even the overriding factor when comparing the two. There are engine emissions (none for EVs) and braking (EVs have regen braking)

2) There is a trend for larger, heavier ICE vehicles in the USA as well. Big trucks and SUVs. It is very selective to argue against EVs in this way without also arguing against these.

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

#349

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

itsprobablyok wrote: post #336
jodrellblank wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

"If you think you're free in a walkable city, that's hilarious brainwashing" is a wild wild take, and you should be ashamed of it.

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

#350

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

cbeach wrote: post #323
jodrellblank wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It entirely depends on where you live. You could live in a dense urban area with abundant transport options, where owning a car is more trouble than it's worth, or in a more spread-out community where it's nigh-essential.
Post reply on HN