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

571–580 of 661 posts

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

#571

Post by magicalhippo »

Loudergood wrote: post #556
magicalhippo wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They rely on a 12 V battery or a 48 V battery like a normal car. Which leads to "fun" situations when that battery runs out, like not being able to get into your car or start it. However not much power is needed, so a tiny portable jump pack is enough to get things going. Both me and my sister has experienced this, me a Nissan Leaf and her a VW ID.4, good times.

Both my old Bolt and Ioniq 5 had alternate key entry systems in the door handles.

Fair enough, at least my Leaf had that too, and I guess the ID.4 as well. However for the Leaf and my current car it's just the driver side, and you still can't get the car started, or turn on the heat say.

The latter can be an issue as my sister got stranded in the mountains during winter. Battery ran flat while they were on a long ski trip, and they couldn't get it fired up when they got back. Took a few hours before rescue vehicle arrived and gave them a boost.

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

#572

Post by ErroneousBosh »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #561
ErroneousBosh wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The petrol in the tank will boil quickly and blow the tank apart, especially if it's already a bit melty. You won't get enough pressure for a proper "BLEVE" because the leaky plastic bucket won't hold enough pressure to stop it beginning to boil, but it'll throw burning fuel all over.

An automotive LPG tank is a bit different to the kind of thing you'd run your barbecue off with a "multivalve" that's got a float to shut off the filling port when it's full and act as a level gauge (similar to a petrol tank) and a pipe to pick liquid up from the bottom. You get "four hole" tanks with a vapour tap that you can use a normal regulator in, which is handy for things like motorhomes - same tank runs the engine and the cooker :-)

They're only pressurised to about 8 bar, low enough that you can use plastic pipe to connect them to the vapouriser at the engine. It's kind of nylon tubing with braid over and a PVC outer jacket, and it handles liquid propane at tank pressure.

If there's an overpressure because it gets really hot (like, car is on fire hot) it'll burp out a bit of gas which will cause a puff of flame but you're talking about something like a deodorant can on a bonfire (and don't tell me you've never done that).

Quite honestly, I'm more wary around the 15 bar air suspension tank and lines. That's where pressurised gases start to get a bit spicy.

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

#573

Post by ponector »

vel0city wrote: post #491
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...

Old ICE cars are also usually dead when major drivetrain parts fail after a decade and a half.

For old ice car the solution often is to swap with used parts from wrecked vehicles. Not suitable for batteries.

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

#574

Post by sagarm »

stephenr wrote: post #504
sagarm wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should have mentioned a digital dashboard is also cheaper than a traditional one, I guess. But isn't that obvious?

What's that got to do with reversing cameras?

Dual screens. One for infotainment, including the backup camera, the other for the dash.

Have you never seen a newer model car?

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

#575

Post by dpc050505 »

lukan wrote: post #238
adrianN wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, any cyclist daring to drive in winter can easily confirm this. It is so disgusting (and unhealthy) having to stand behind a ICE car on a traffic light and being behind a electric car is such a relief, that thoughts of wishing to ban all ICE cars as soon as possible (at least in cities) come automatically.

The tire dust crossing the bridge that's next to four lines of heavy traffic isn't much better than the exhaust fumes IME.

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

#576

Post by paulryanrogers »

ErroneousBosh wrote: post #572
paulryanrogers wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The petrol in the tank will boil quickly and blow the tank apart, especially if it's already a bit melty. You won't get enough pressure for a proper "BLEVE" because the leaky plastic bucket won't hold enough pressure to stop it beginning to boil, but it'll throw burning fuel all over. An automotive LPG tank is a bit different to the kind of thing you'd run your barbecue off with a "multivalve" that's got a float to s…

That ... still sounds more dangerous than liquid gasoline to me. Though I suppose if it were cheaper and as plentiful then the world would switch. Gasoline was after all a byproduct of kerosine processing.

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

#577

Post by SirMaster »

pornel wrote: post #570
SirMaster wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 prob…

I can't think of the last time I've willingly gone to a store to shop. I do all my shopping online and everything is delivery including groceries. Going to a physical store feels like a huge waste of time to me.

I drive quite a bit for work as I drive around and calibrate and repair lab equipment so it just seems like a major inconvenience to my schedule to have to go places to charge for awhile so often and hope they are working and hope they are not being used.

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

#578

Post by trimethylpurine »

mittensc wrote: post #374
trimethylpurine wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I'm an expert in the field and I can say EVs are much less pollutant then ICE cars. Do give your best shot to debunk that.

Even where they are charged using coal? Please provide the research on that. Note that I'll be checking who funded and who performed the peer review, so please choose carefully before posting.

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

#579

Post by vel0city »

ponector wrote: post #573
vel0city wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Old ICE cars are also usually dead when major drivetrain parts fail after a decade and a half.

For old ice car the solution often is to swap with used parts from wrecked vehicles. Not suitable for batteries.

For old EVs the solution is to deal with used parts from wrecked vehicles. It can absolutely be suitable for batteries.

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

#580

Post by vel0city »

bluGill wrote: post #548
vel0city wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do largely agree with this. Those small and more remote rural towns are also likely some of the last places to highly electrify due to the particular needs of those kinds of lifestyles. You're far more likely to be towing a horse trailer if you live in such a place, which is something EVs will probably struggle with for a long while.

farmers already own their own gas station on the farm. They have on road diesel forethe trucks, off road diesel for the tractors (no road tax, otherwise the same - DOTs check this so nobody cheat), and gasoline for cars that never go to town (also for lawn mowers). Of course distance from town matters, if you live near town you won't have your own, but the farther town is the more useful your own personal supply is.

True, but there's also that range of household that aren't truly a real farm operation yet live in that kind of space.
Post reply on HN