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

531–540 of 661 posts

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

#531

Post by LordDragonfang »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #523
Analemma_ wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t have hard numbers on this, but I once read a claims that the lawnmowers and weed-whackers in California with their two-stroke engines are responsible for more nitrate and particulate emissions than all the cars and trucks in the state put together, even though by fuel burned the latter outnumbers the former by orders of magnitude. I could totally see a malfunctioning four-stroke ICE with dirty burns being wor…

That probably explains why California banned the sale of gas powered leaf blowers, law mowers, and weed whackers in 2024. You can still use them if you have an old one or by one out of state.

And at the right time too. At almost every point before that, a gas powered engine was justified for duration and power, but the significant advances in both batteries and electric motors in the past 10-20 years have finally made them good enough that ICE tools are totally unjustified.

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

#532

Post by dzhiurgis »

torginus wrote: post #280
dzhiurgis wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> get stuck behind from time to time that just REEK is amazing It’s crazy. How do we even allow selling cars without HEPA filters.

HEPA filters stop dust particles and not those tiny organic molecules that cause the smells. Filters for these exist as well, usually used in respirators, but those need to be exchanged pretty frequently and are not cheap.

I never smell anything in my Tesla. Only my own farts.

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

#533

Post by hvb2 »

dijit wrote: post #438
maximus-decimus wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Tesla Model S has been out for almost 13 years, so you can already see it. Your phone doesn't have liquid cooling temp management and is probably recharged daily. With a car that has 300 miles range, a lot of people probably only do a full cycle every week.

It was recently in the media that old Tesla’s are now worthless once the batteries are dead and that this is happening now. Heres one such source but theres hundreds if you care to look: https://min.news/en/auto/2a2636e0ac962b5d94ee68babcd09a3d.ht...

So 7000 to 8000 euros to replace a battery of a 80 to 100k car?

It depends on how many miles it has driven and how much other maintenance the car has had. It's a big expense but a battery dying is probably comparable to a timing belt breaking, those aren't cheap either and thats not even for luxury cars...

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

#534

Post by dijit »

hvb2 wrote: post #533
dijit wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was recently in the media that old Tesla’s are now worthless once the batteries are dead and that this is happening now. Heres one such source but theres hundreds if you care to look: https://min.news/en/auto/2a2636e0ac962b5d94ee68babcd09a3d.ht...

So 7000 to 8000 euros to replace a battery of a 80 to 100k car? It depends on how many miles it has driven and how much other maintenance the car has had. It's a big expense but a battery dying is probably comparable to a timing belt breaking, those aren't cheap either and thats not even for luxury cars...

where did you get that number?

parts and labour is $15,000 to $22,000 from all sources I can find.

Heres one: https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/tesla-battery-replace...

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

#535

Post by SirMaster »

neogodless wrote: post #162
dyauspitr wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are about 2-3x battery capacity to never look back at ICE vehicles ever again. That or 5 min to 80% charge times with current capacity.

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.

And if I have to park on the street at night where I live?

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

#536

Post by Loudergood »

consp wrote: post #268
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".

Are those even user serviceable? So, it won't stop everyone but it will stop most of them.

It isn't until it is. Manuals will appear, guides will show up online, shadetree mechanics will get better at electronics(they used to be experts in carburetors after all), software will be cracked if necessary.

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

#537

Post by Loudergood »

xnx wrote: post #415
cucumber3732842 wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

White smoke is water vapor. It's a normal byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion and tends to condense in the exhaust at low loads or immediately after exiting the exhaust, especially in colder temperatures, so you'll see a lot of it in stop and go traffic.

> White smoke is water vapor. Could also be coolant or oil

Coolant will have the dead giveaway sweet smell.

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

#538

Post by dalyons »

Revolution1120 wrote: post #310

For the environmental impact within a specific region, electric vehicles are indeed much better than cars. However, when it comes to things like greenhouse gases and global warming, that's likely just Elon Musk's lie.

What? That makes no sense

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

#539

Post by margalabargala »

Rygian wrote: post #528
margalabargala wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They learn to sort of coast. The car feels like it's coasting. Sure. Next time you do this keep an eye on the actual power readout. See if it's actually zero or if it's reporting ~3kW of braking or accelerating.

It hovers depending on how my foot modulates the speed. I don't want or need "exactly zero power readout", I only need to reach my target speed at my target spot on the highway, without having to action the physical brakes at any time. Whether that is more or less efficient than a zero-power coast followed by some kind of braking exactly at the end... I assume the difference is so tiny that it makes no difference.

The difference is tiny from an energy efficiency perspective. But we're discussing tire wear, and the periodic regen followed by power that a human foot gives because it can't perfectly match the car's PID loop, wears the tires a bit each time. Which adds up over ten thousand miles.

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

#540

Post by gpm »

bluGill wrote: post #447
flakeoil wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But 50 years from now most of that ICE infrastructure will have disappeared. I'm guessing it will be already in 20-30 years from now. In 5-10 years from now, no-one will buy an ICE vehicle. Add to those 10 years a lifetime of 10-20 years for the last sold ICE vehicle and you get 20-30 years. So 20-30 years from today there will not be many ICE cars rolling on the streets and most gas stations and other needed infra…

The average car is 12 years old (us, but other countries are similar). so gas stations are likely still common in 20 years. in 10 years new gas stations will be built a lot less often, but nobody will close an existing one that they wouldn't close anyway.

If GP's prediction that no one is buying ICE cars 5-10 years from now, and the average car is 12 years old, by 20 years from now we're down to less than half the current ICE fleet by natural replacement.

But the replacement isn't random. Rather people who drive the most all already replaced their vehicles to minimize costs. Gas stations would, under just natural replacement, be down well below 50% of their former sales.

And that makes it worse. Gas is less conveniently available, and more expensive. Replacement isn't just targeted towards people who drive a lot, but it's well above replacement.

I'd be surprised if there was 10 years between the last mass marketed gas cars being sold and the entire mass market fleet of cars no longer using gas. The infrastructure becomes unprofitable and ceases to exist in a negative feedback loop.

Post reply on HN