Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 93 posts

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#41

Post by virgildotcodes »

trollbridge wrote: post #9
jmclnx wrote: post #5

The US Post Office was slated to use EVs as replacements for worn out mail delivery vehicles. For many areas, especially urban areas, those would have been perfect and cheaper in the long run. I know because I knew a lot of Mail cCarriers and I know how these are used. As a kid I was driven around a route one day with a relative. But Trump and the Postmaster General cancelled that and went to use gas guzzlers instead…

"But Trump and the Postmaster General cancelled that and went to use gas guzzlers instead. I wonder how that is working out now." What makes you say that? The biggest impediment to the rollout was that the company that was supposed to build them repeatedly failed to do so, and finally had their contract pulled in 2021 and it was given to a defence contractor who seems to be on track to actually deliver the things.

The admin fought quite hard to destroy the electric conversion, not just cancelling future orders but scrapping existing trucks and infrastructure despite that being a major expense. It's in line with the way it's fighting against renewables and environmental protections on many fronts.

I would say it's obviously in service of the fossil fuel industry but it's gotten to the point of being so absurdly senseless and against our interests that it seems primarily ideological/emotional.

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/trump-...

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/senate...

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#42

Post by unnamed76ri »

jeffbee wrote: post #34
SoftTalker wrote: post #26

The fact of the matter is that the only thing that matters to most people is what makes economic sense to them. As for me, no way am I trading my 20 year old, fully paid for, cheap to insure, cheap to register ICE vehicle for a new EV with payments, higher insurance, and higher registration fees.

The economy does not occur naturally. We can turn the knobs on this equation by just having some taxes. For example, carbon taxes. That should change your calculus pretty significantly.

How very tyrannical.

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#43

Post by ramgine »

FabCH wrote: post #13
trollbridge wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly not the case for hybrids like Priuses. The battery system lasts 10-15 years and 150k-200k miles. Any ICE car on the market now should be expected to last a lot longer than that; I drive cars that are 25+ years old and really don't need much significant in the way of repairs.

Hybrids are the worst of both worlds when it comes to maintenance. They have their benefits and are key to fighting climate change, but mechanically you inherit all the problems from both sides. There is no way you are driving a 25 year old car without serious maintenance like exchanging the timing belt. Add the frequent oil changes and all other yearly maintenance and it does add up. Compared to a BEV, where you lit…

Changing a timing belt is not serious maintenance. Just something that needs to be done at 100k. I just did the timing belt and water pump on my 300k tundra over the course of a weekend for 100 bucks.

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#44

Post by thelastgallon »

SoftTalker wrote: post #26

The fact of the matter is that the only thing that matters to most people is what makes economic sense to them. As for me, no way am I trading my 20 year old, fully paid for, cheap to insure, cheap to register ICE vehicle for a new EV with payments, higher insurance, and higher registration fees.

> The fact of the matter is that the only thing that matters to most people is what makes economic sense to them.

This is what I used to think for decades, people are rational and they make purchases based on costs/efficiency. I learnt thats not how the world works. Humans don't work that way, they buy for emotional reasons, status, what they've bought before (the power of defaults, familiarity), signaling identity (I'm macho, I drive a F350), what other people buy (social validation -- you don't want to stand out by being the odd one out, or subject of ridicule). Most importantly, what people think of EVs is manipulated by Big Oil, there is a lot of scaremongering, you can't charge cars (range anxiety), EVs catch fire, they spy on you, they have more electronics(all new cars have electronics), battery needs to be replaced every few years, it won't work when its hot, when its cold, batteries pollute more than gasoline, and so on ...

Whats worse is the vast majority of people are innumerate and illiterate, regardless of degrees. They can't do the math of how much driving an EV costs, because doing the OpEx calculation over a lifetime of ownership requires doing multiplication.

The 2 dozen people who can do the arithmetic either walk to work, bought a Nissan Leaf back in 2012+, or buy a used EV.

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#45

Post by thelastgallon »

unnamed76ri wrote: post #42
jeffbee wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The economy does not occur naturally. We can turn the knobs on this equation by just having some taxes. For example, carbon taxes. That should change your calculus pretty significantly.

How very tyrannical.

Yes, lets continue on with the $7 trillion subsidies/year (worldwide), 10M deaths from air pollution, almost all diseases/cancers linked to pollution. Its sacrilege to talk about fossil fuel subsidies.

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#46

Post by thelastgallon »

SoftTalker wrote: post #26

The fact of the matter is that the only thing that matters to most people is what makes economic sense to them. As for me, no way am I trading my 20 year old, fully paid for, cheap to insure, cheap to register ICE vehicle for a new EV with payments, higher insurance, and higher registration fees.

> the only thing that matters to most people is what makes economic sense to them.

The other thing is the UX of figuring out how much an EV costs to charge is painful. It changes every few miles based on who your utility provider is, going through the various plans, figuring out the right plan. The vast majority of people are incapable of that.

It works out to be cheaper (a lot cheaper) for most people, but its hard to refute arguments by fossil fuel shills when they use Hawaii, CA or NY electricity prices. We can say, no its not true, but I can't refute the argument until you provide zip code and utility provider.

It would be awesome if we can state costs like, it costs $0.01/km for EV vs $0.08/km for gas. For eg: What Kind of EV Can a Low-Income Family Buy in China? ($0.01/KM) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4860RGi7IY

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#47

Post by bryanlarsen »

cgyvbunji wrote: post #25
FabCH wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hybrids are the worst of both worlds when it comes to maintenance. They have their benefits and are key to fighting climate change, but mechanically you inherit all the problems from both sides. There is no way you are driving a 25 year old car without serious maintenance like exchanging the timing belt. Add the frequent oil changes and all other yearly maintenance and it does add up. Compared to a BEV, where you lit…

> mechanically you inherit all the problems from both sides Not really. The transmission is an e-CVT in hybrids which has no torque converter, the main part that breaks first in an automatic transmission. Unlike a regular CVT, the e-CVT has no belt, either. The e-CVT basically never breaks, so you basically never have a transmission go bad in a hybrid. On top of that, because the traction battery is so small, it's re…

The joke is that you have to replace the traction battery twice in a Prius but you never have to replace the traction battery in a Tesla. But that's an indictment of the Tesla, not the Prius.

A Prius battery will last 150k km or so, but since the car can go 500k km +, that's a couple of battery replacements. A Tesla battery will last about 300k km, but that's longer than the rest of the car will typically last, so you never have to replace it.

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#48

Post by unnamed76ri »

thelastgallon wrote: post #45
unnamed76ri wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How very tyrannical.

Yes, lets continue on with the $7 trillion subsidies/year (worldwide), 10M deaths from air pollution, almost all diseases/cancers linked to pollution. Its sacrilege to talk about fossil fuel subsidies.

“Almost all diseases/cancers linked to pollution” is such a bizarre claim.

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#49

Post by orangecat »

SoftTalker wrote: post #26

The fact of the matter is that the only thing that matters to most people is what makes economic sense to them. As for me, no way am I trading my 20 year old, fully paid for, cheap to insure, cheap to register ICE vehicle for a new EV with payments, higher insurance, and higher registration fees.

The fact of the matter is that the only thing that matters to most people is what makes economic sense to them.

Yes, and that's why we should have carbon taxes that better align what makes economic sense with what's environmentally beneficial.

Re: The climate benefits of retiring an operational combustion engine vehicle

#50

Post by anonymars »

unnamed76ri wrote: post #48
thelastgallon wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, lets continue on with the $7 trillion subsidies/year (worldwide), 10M deaths from air pollution, almost all diseases/cancers linked to pollution. Its sacrilege to talk about fossil fuel subsidies.

“Almost all diseases/cancers linked to pollution” is such a bizarre claim.

I don't think it's an unreasonable claim for fossil fuels to account for the vast majority of air pollution deaths

But apparently it is: I certainly didn't peg desert dust to be top spot. Anakin was right

https://ourworldindata.org/data-review-air-pollution-deaths

Post reply on HN