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

611–620 of 661 posts

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

#611

Post by kube-system »

ubertaco wrote: post #245
01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plug-in hybrids are a wonderful middle point on the Pareto frontier. Wikipedia lists the 3rd-gen Prius Prime at roughly 3,500 pounds curb weight, and the Tesla Model Y at 4,100-4,600 pounds, I assume depending on the battery it's equipped with. The Prius Prime has 40+ miles of all-electric range, and it can reach highway speeds with the gas engine off. So your day-to-day driving is all electric, then you still have a…

I looked into PHEVs on my last vehicle shopping go-round, since few pure EVs met my cargo size requirements (stroller/baby life is a whole thing). Ultimately, it was way more worth it to go all the way up to an F150 Lightning than to go with a good PHEV, partly due to up-front cost, but mostly due to ongoing cost: I will need to change the oil on the electric motors maybe every 150,000miles, and I never need an emiss…

The cost to maintain and inspect a PHEV engine in most vehicles is so minuscule as to be a rounding error. Engine oils last a long time these days.

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

#612

Post by Mawr »

cyberax wrote: post #563
kfarr wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

> Bikes are an incredibly segregating means of transport.

A bike costs on the order of a few hundred dollars; there's essentially no barrier to entry.

Comparing them with cars on this metric is laughable. Must be 18 or so and able bodied, obtain an expensive license, purchase the actual very expensive vehicle, pay for constant upkeep in insurance, fuel, repairs, and risk serious accidents. All of this is an insane barrier to entry.

> They are inherently limited in range

Yeah, to like a radius of 5km or so, on the low end. That's quite a bit in a city.

> and they are largely incompatible with any other transit mode.

Kind of, but not really? Between e-scooters, rental bikes, and bike garages at train stations, this really is just a matter of proper infrastructure in the end. I don't get the relevance of this anyway.

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

And where exactly is this place you describe where everyone commutes exclusively by bike? Ooops, right, it doesn't exist, never has, probably never will. So you're just making stuff up.

I mean, it is a cute little theory, but it has zero relevance to the world we've built or ever plan to build.

Or maybe it's a strawman, implying that someone somewhere has claimed that we should only commute by bike? Again, cute, but nobody says that. Adding public transportation to the equation neatly eradicates your entire made up theory.

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

I adore your conversational technique of adding positively charged words like "democratic" and "accessibility" without any justification or explanation, just to make it seem like you have an argument. "The democratic, accessible and green coal power plants." I'll add this technique to my list of common fallacies, thanks.

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

#613

Post by groundzeros2015 »

vel0city wrote: post #599
groundzeros2015 wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla has used more than 40 billion of capital

They've made almost 9 million cars overall, with a lot of those made in the last several years. Spreading it over the cars they've made so far, 40,000 / 9 = 4,444.44. Doesn't seem that crazy. I'm not seeing your point.

That 40 billion is investment money, not the cost of goods sold. I’m saying its not obvious at all that environmental cost is recouped.

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

#614

Post by trimethylpurine »

mittensc wrote: post #585
trimethylpurine wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How would you put coal in EV?! They're electric, you plug them in! You provide the research to prove ICE is cleaner. Go in detail, I'll check everything: - cost of extraction - cost of byproducts - cost of refining - waste during refining - cost of transporting oil to the pump (what do oil transport ships burn?) - cost of burning that oil - analysis on car age affecting emissions - analysis of cheating like volkswage…

"Coal in the EV?"

Based on that I no longer believe you are an expert of any chemistry or energy. Or you are really bad at making jokes maybe?

Regardless, electricity for your EV comes from somewhere, right? It's powered by a coal power plant in much of the US, with electrical energy transduced (effective loss at every transduction point) through countless parts and miles of electrical equipment before it reaches your charger.

Are you about to tell me that coal is cleaner than gasoline? It's not remotely comparable. Coal is insanely dirty. This is common knowledge.

Every metric you asked about applies to coal and much worse and therefore to your EV in vast swathes of America.

The EV in such places is doubly destructive. You've burned coal AND mined lithium and shipped it, plus you're carrying a heavier load, and your batteries are short lived, and toxic.

There's simply no comparison. Be real.

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

#615

Post by mrpopo »

luckys wrote: post #355
mrpopo wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's certainly a lot to be said for humans needing to take better care of the planet. Co2 just gets a little too much attention for my taste. GHG are a matter of life or death for hundreds of millions living in poverty in coastal areas or living from their own agriculture. Of course you live in a 1st world country and it likely won't kill you, just cost you tons of money It's not about "take better care of the p…

>GHG are a matter of life or death That's what I hear from mainstream media all the time. Do you have some information or argument that will help me see things differently? >Of course you live in a 1st world country and it likely won't kill you, just cost you tons of money A little presumptuous to assume my living conditions >It's not about "take better care of the planet", whatever you think that means Now that's ju…

> Do you have some information or argument that will help me see things differently?

I already told you 2 things, coastal areas and agriculture.

This is Bangladesh elevation map. Bangladesh is amonng the most dense countries in the world, and also among the poorest.

https://www.floodmap.net/elevation/ElevationMap/CountryMaps/...

People are gonna lose their homes and starve to death, this will create massive refugee crises. They won't care if you have micro plastics in your testicles

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

#616

Post by trimethylpurine »

rcxdude wrote: post #366
trimethylpurine wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Just say the substantive part. The warmup has already reduced the impact, not helped.

No warmup here. I've stated that much of the research favoring "clean" energy makes extremely generous assumptions about the validity of the data and allows for overly confident assertions mainly used for marketing. We know a lot less about the environment than you think, and even with what we do know, we can say for sure that when you include supply, manufacture, transduction, etc. you really can't call any method for power generation "clean" with current tech. It's all empty promises of new potential tech to be seen if we milk the tax payer. Just people with degrees in the field making money on selling pipe dreams to the public, and helping officials pump taxes into their investments. That's "clean" energy in a paragraph. It doesn't exist.

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

#617

Post by sandos »

BeetleB wrote: post #543
hvb2 wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what age your kids are, but if they're below 10 I can guarantee you that your kids will be slowing you down, bit the car. Kids need to use the bathroom would be filling up the battery well over 25% if it wasn't almost full. The one thing people that have never owned an EV seem to miss is the benefits that you get to experience every day. No gearbox, so seamless acceleration. No maintenance on, spark plugs, t…

The thing with young kids is they tend not to be good at timing restroom breaks with the availability of charging. By the time they tell you, you need to stop at the nearest gas station - they can't wait for you to drive 20 miles to the next charging station. > No maintenance on, spark plugs, timing belts, gearbox. No oil changes. A quieter ride, especially nice on a road trip. I'm thinking of getting an EV, so I'll…

The insurance premiums here in Sweden are very similar between ICE and EVs, with one exception: Teslas!

They are 2-3x as expensive as many comparable EVs to insure.

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

#618

Post by Rygian »

margalabargala wrote: post #539
Rygian wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Indeed it adds up, over ten thousand kilometers, to a lot less wear than the equivalent coast-then-hit-the-brakes in an ICE. If I follow your reasoning correctly.

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

#619

Post by ErroneousBosh »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #576
ErroneousBosh wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You think something that goes "puff" and emits a wee puff of flame every so often is more dangerous than something that just sprays liquid dynamite all over the incident?

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

#620

Post by littlecranky67 »

danaris wrote: post #320
littlecranky67 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Reduced demand for oil reduces the quantity of oil extracted That is not true. Reduced price leads to higher demand. This is economics 101. > The price drops and hardware to extract oil stops being produced Oil extraction costs differ vastly amongst countries, and there is a lot of potential for increased productivity and efficencies when the margins become lower - price pressure is a driver for innovation. And cou…

> This is economics 101. OK. And did you go to Economics 201? Because there, you might have learned that the basic economic principles you describe as "economics 101" are the equivalent of the "spherical cow in a frictionless vacuum"-type examples you get in introductory physics classes. In the real world, demand is affected by all kinds of things, and sometimes, a product or service is just no longer desired by the…

Your entire point hinges on EVs idrying up the oil market that there is no more demand. But ICEs don't run on oil, they run on gas or diesel. Oil is used in far more industries (aviation, ships). Plus, you cannot account for business models that become viable, that haven't been viable before. People come up with new ideas all the time.
Post reply on HN