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

391–400 of 661 posts

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

#391

Post by dietr1ch »

adrianN wrote: post #66
MBCook wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Even modern cars pollute a lot (especially in winter) because you need a certain temperature for the cats to start working. On short city trips it happens frequently that you never reach proper operating temperatures.

I try to keep my cat indoors, but he won't work anyway. Maybe I should get one of those newer electric cats.

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

#392

Post by dangus »

crystal_revenge wrote: post #166
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…

80% of Americans live in urban areas and that number is rising, so I think in this scenario where EVs came first we’d see maybe 20% of vehicle sales being ICE vehicles.

But today we’ve got basically the opposite.

I would disagree with the idea that petroleum would run everything out there if EVs came first but I won’t argue that point super hard with you. I can see and understand how petroleum is a lifeline for things like oil heat, generators, etc.

Still, batteries are very well-suited to off-grid usage, and EV batteries can even power your house for a week or more in the event of a power outage. Let’s not forget that solar panels exist.

There are entire islands that have switched from imported diesel fuel power generation to grid scale solar+battery and they have had a great deal of cost savings and reliability benefits.

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

#393

Post by dangus »

somerandomqaguy wrote: post #246
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…

I'd call the that country that adopted EV's first and gasoline second... extinct after WW2. If nothing because the country wouldn't be able to launch an airforce to counter the bombers hitting your power plants. If not that then there's the constant contention of having to pull power lines forward and leaving them vulnerable to artillery fire while the petrol tank hit and run with impunity. Plus now you have problems…

I didn’t say EVs would be used for military vehicles. It’s more like a scenario where 80% are buying EVs and 20% are buying ICE.

Again the hypothetical was modern EVs with modern infrastructure.

And this hypothetical isn’t that crazy. Many Chinese car buyers’ first vehicles are electric, and many of those people buying cars are quite used to electric scooters as their transportation method.

Speaking of wars, how many wars for oil would be avoided if there wasn’t a widespread dependency on cheap oil? If the gas price ever goes above $5-7/gallon in America it basically triggers a recession.

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

#395

Post by dangus »

neogodless wrote: post #168
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 comp…

I feel similarly to you. I really miss having a manual transmission car that has some more fun factor.

I periodically have to stop and think about how annoying it might be in city driving with the constant stop and go.

But someday I might buy myself a little shitbox with a manual that I can park on the street, maybe a Fiat 500 or something.

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

#396

Post by input_sh »

otikik wrote: post #371
jillesvangurp wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That used to be true; it no longer is. In the EU, some of the cheapest cars on the marker in 2026 are now electric. There are a few nice options in the 15K-20K Euro segment. These are the opposite of luxury cars. There are a quite a few new more joining the half dozen or so that were for sale last year. The trend here is that EVs are becoming the cheapest option. A few cars from Stellantis that are available in ICE a…

> a few nice options in the 15K-20K Euro segment You are making my point. Most folk can’t afford that for transportation. 10k is already a stretch.

Depends on the country. People living in richer European countries buy more new cars on average, while people in poorer European countries give second life to those same cars once those "rich people" decide to sell them and fail to buy any buyer domestically.

This is still a net positive even in poorer countries. If you can't afford a new car, you buy as close to a new car as you can afford. The newer the car is, the higher the EURO standard is that it had to abide by when it was sold brand-new, achieving the same result of reducing pollution.

I live in one of those poorer ones where most people can't afford new cars, but even if you can, the percentage of brand-new ICE cars that are even available for purchasing is going down pretty fast in recent years. So those better off are slowly being pushed towards EVs (or at least hybrids), and the vast majority of others still relies on importing like 15 years old second-hand cars (EURO 5 standard) to replace their 25yo cars (EURO 3 standard). In the capital, cars below EURO 4 are even banned when air pollution gets really bad, but the vast majority doesn't even realise this rule exists because their cars are now EURO 4 or above.

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

#397

Post by KaiserPro »

tbrownaw wrote: post #22

This study is about air quality in neighborhoods . So it would show the same thing even if EVs just moved pollution from where people use their cars to where power plants get placed, because that's not the question it's addressing.

This is highly dependent on your country's approach to power generation.

Nitrogen pollution is usually reasonably local to the plant but also can be srubbed. Its not practical to scrub moving objects, but it is for stationary generators.

Same with particulates, you can capture quite a lot with electrostatic scrubbers.

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

#398

Post by danaris »

bruce511 wrote: post #345
danaris wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

As a personal policy, that can work: you can always choose which conversations to engage in and which to ignore.

As a site policy, it cannot. If you demand that everyone coming there in good faith treat everyone else as also operating in good faith, even when they open with arguments that are very common when sealioning people, you are telling every troll, every bad actor, everyone paid by a massive corporation or a foreign government to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about particular political or economic positions that this site is ripe for their use.

I've seen far too many people even on here "just asking questions", or using the Gish Gallop, or other techniques of bad faith debate, to believe that it can possibly be a good idea to treat everyone as if they are good-faith rational actors seeking open debate for the sake of finding the truth.

If you're still not convinced, do some research on Brandolini's Law [0], also known as the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle. It really does take massively more effort to refute bullshit with truth than it does to spin bullshit everywhere.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

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

#399

Post by jonstewart »

nottorp wrote: post #394

Well, if EVs are made mandatory we'll have even less air polution because fewer people will be able to afford a car. The auto industry seems to have ran out of early adopters already. Now they need a kick in the privates to make cheap EVs.

I’m reading your comment more sardonically about the state of US manufacturers, but globally I don’t think this holds up. Some of the most expensive vehicles—trucks and SUVs—have the worst mileage. Often the cheaper a new car is, the better gas mileage it gets.

This dynamic might not hold as consistently with used cars but it’s not entirely eliminated, either.

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

#400

Post by thelastgallon »

tzs wrote: post #236
thelastgallon wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best solution is to build walking or biking environments. This was discussed before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43672779 (saving a click) We need to start taxing vehicles based on the damage they are responsible for. The 4th Power Law is a principle in road engineering that states that the damage a vehicle causes to a road surface is proportional to the fourth power of its axle load. This means that eve…

That 4th power law works both ways. A 40 ft bus 2 axle bus with 80 passengers will weigh about 40 000 pounds. The axle weight is 20 000, so by the 4th power law the damage is proportional to 2 x 20 000^4 = 3.2 x 10^17. If instead those 80 passengers each drove alone in a Kia Niro EV it would be about 4 000 pounds each, so an axle weight of 2000, so the damage would be proportional to 160 x 2000^4 = 2.56 x 10^15. That…

Thank you for doing the calculations. This is interesting and useful. Yes, people should switch to EVs, but mostly because it helps build resilient independent grids (eventually), EVs add a layer of energy storage, we can dump excess energy when its negatively priced (or free) and supply power back to the grid when its costly, replacing peaker plants.

I wasn't talking about passenger buses, because thats unlikely going to happen in US. Almost all of damage is done by 18-wheelers. A fully loaded 18-wheeler: 80,000 lb. Everytime a discussion comes on ICE vs EV, the fossil fuel proponents immediately jump to but EVs weigh more (debatable) and cause more damage. The damage they cause is insignificant compared to 18-wheelers. I'm not entirely sure if EVs weigh more either, maybe the earlier models did, but energy density keeps increasing. Also, there is no compelling reason to have 300+ mile range batteries when most of the trips are under 3 - 5 miles.

Post reply on HN