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

561–570 of 661 posts

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

#561

Post by paulryanrogers »

ErroneousBosh wrote: post #512
paulryanrogers wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compressed propane is explosive, more so than liquid gasoline or batteries. Though batteries do burn hot and are hard to extinguish.

Actually it's considerably less explosive than petrol and far safer in a crash. If a petrol-fuelled car goes on fire, the fuel tank will explode. The tanks are usually thin plastic and will split open in an accident, spilling fuel everywhere. By contrast, the LPG tanks are pretty much indestructible and if you remove a tank from a car that's been on fire (a lot of taxis are LPG-powered and seem to go on fire late at…

Is that really true? Liquid gasoline does evaporate pretty quickly, yet doesn't need special metal tanks. Isn't propane sold and kept in pressurized tanks?

As I understand it, gasoline tanks on cars are unlikely to explode unless they are nearly empty.

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

#562

Post by testing22321 »

1over137 wrote: post #467
testing22321 wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean we can do something today that will reduce PM10 pollution by half?! That’s fantastic news!

>You mean we can do something today that will reduce PM10 pollution by half?! We could. We could massively fund public transit and massively reduce private car ownership. But we won't, because then capitalists will make less money.

What do you mean? Plenty of countries are doing all of that and more.

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

#563

Post by cyberax »

kfarr wrote: post #187
cyberax wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> "Walking and biking environments result in ghettoes" I must admit this viewpoint is one I have never seen before! Instead I've heard many arguments that bike lanes and pedestrianization are forms of gentrification, but resulting "ghettoes?" +1 for creativity!

Yes? Bikes are an incredibly segregating means of transport. They are inherently limited in range, and they are largely incompatible with any other transit mode.

So you create an environment where all the housing within bike range from good jobs is unaffordable for most people.

And the most democratic mode of transport? Cars. They provide far greater accessibility.

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

#564

Post by cyberax »

unglaublich wrote: post #202
cyberax wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

What a ridiculous take. There are many, many cities and towns worldwide that are primarily walk/bike friendly and they seem to do very well in terms of quality of life.

Well, do they have easily affordable housing for poor people? Or do they self-segregate into high-income areas surrounded by a halo of low-income areas?

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

#565

Post by Loudergood »

mattlondon wrote: post #205
eldaisfish wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why do you want your car to contact emergency services? the people around you can do that just fine and very reliably. How on earth did we survive as a species before our cars could make automated phone calls?

There's often been a few cases of "disappeared" people who went missing and it turns out they actually crashed off the road somewhere and weren't found for a week or two. That's extreme of course but there are probably a lot of accidents that happen in low-density rural country areas or late at night when there aren't many people around. The automatic e-call from the car gives exact GPS coordinates and severity of th…

There's often no cell service in those locations as well.

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

#566

Post by Loudergood »

dyauspitr wrote: post #195
neogodless wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're saying 100% only EVs with no use cases whatsoever for gasoline, then I suppose so. I don't think that's a smart goal, though. More like, more people should understand how EVs can easily work for them, and then try to shoehorn gas-powered vehicles into the few niche they need to be in. How often does someone need a 400 mile range again? Towing? When is the last time you towed something 400 miles? The most I…

It depends on your lifestyle. I haul my RV around sometimes two weekends a month. In my F-150 lightning I get around 100 miles between charges which is pretty dismal. I’m assuming you live in a city or in Europe. Where I live people regularly haul RVs, boats etc. I also frequently drive long distances and even in the best case scenario 2.5 hours of driving followed by 40 minutes of charging is a pain. These aren’t un…

RVs need to have a dual purpose battery pack on board. I feel like long distance boat hauling is rare. Either they're driving across town to a launch, or it's moored/docked for the season.

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

#567

Post by Loudergood »

windexh8er wrote: post #421
jwr wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> EV have much higher emissions of micro plastics and pfas (or variations thereof) due to increased tier degradation I find those claims highly suspect: I own an EV and haven't had to change the tires more often than I did on a gasoline-powered car. My EV bought in 2021 still runs on original tires and they're fine (although I do change from winter to summer tires, so that's 2 sets technically). I suspect black PR, a…

Just because a tire lasts as long doesn't mean it isn't wearing in different ways. EV specific tires are a lot different than their ICE counterparts. This isn't "black PR". It's comparing apples and oranges. But throw non-EV tires on one and you'll definitely chew those tires up much more quickly [0][1][2][3]. [0] https://www.wheel-size.com/articles/how-are-electric-vehicle... [1]: https://www.pepboys.com/car-care/ti…

But my Ioniq 5 is lighter than a large number of ICE SUVs on the road.

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

#568

Post by bryanlarsen »

dyauspitr wrote: post #560
bryanlarsen wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No need to double twice. 250 miles (~4 hours of driving) is about what you want. Pretty much everybody needs to bathroom at least that often. And nowhere on a road in the continental US is more than 150 miles from a charger. So yes, you want 400-500 miles of range, but that's because you've doubled the 250 for weather, safety margin, etc.

I believe we need 700-800 miles of stated range which will result in 400-500 miles of actual range in the worst possible conditions. That’s about what you get from a tank of gas and what it would take to reduce range anxiety. Stopping every 2 hours for 40 minutes doesn’t make sense, stopping every 4 hours for 40 minutes is much, much better.

Which is much better served by faster charging than a larger battery.

I want to drive for 4 hours and then stop for 20 minutes. So >250 miles of 70mph range between 10-80% charge.

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

#569

Post by danaris »

cryptoegorophy wrote: post #511
danaris wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Try both. Report back. You people read too much news. Never the source.

Ah, yes. Buy two $40k cars, one of which funds one of the people actively trying to destroy democracy.

There's. A lot to unpack there.

But I've still got 3 suitcases of my own stuff sitting waiting for me to get a real flat, so I think I'll pass on that and just let you assume that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid and can't do their own research. And, I guess, has $80k just lying around to spend on whatever.

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

#570

Post by pornel »

SirMaster wrote: post #535
neogodless wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Once a week you plug it in for ~30 minutes somewhere.

EVs charge unattended, so they can be left charging while you do something else. Shopping malls often have chargers.

At city distances and city speeds BEVs often have enough battery to last a week or two, and the battery doesn't drop when the car isn't used.

You don't have to charge to full if you don't have time. Even if you plug it in for 10 minutes, you'll probably return home with more charge that when you left.

Post reply on HN