Live data from Hacker News

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

keck.usc.edu

621–630 of 661 posts

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

#621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 you…

Oh no, am i bad at making jokes?, Or is your argument a joke?

> It's powered by a coal power plant in much of the US, with electrical energy transduced

You are wrong. Please provide sources and peer reviewed study that says that.

Even wikipedia says you are wrong!, look up share of coal power plants in electrical supply!

Where did you get that fact from?

So what debate can I have with you if you can't even start from truth and facts?

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

#622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, Bangkok feels very much like a developing country. If you go to Chinese cities, the EV adoption has incredible positive effects to the vibe, though. Shanghai’s French concession is so quiet and peaceful now that most cars are EVs.

There is no place called the French Concession in Shanghai today.

OK, the Former French Concession.

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

#623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, Bangkok feels very much like a developing country. If you go to Chinese cities, the EV adoption has incredible positive effects to the vibe, though. Shanghai’s French concession is so quiet and peaceful now that most cars are EVs.

Those cities used to be filled with smokey two-stroke motorbikes and mopeds. One of those is worse than a dozen of normal cars, to say nothing of EVs.

They’re still filled with motorbikes and mopeds, they’re just electric.

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

#624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Western countries will never match the new East Asian cities. All cities decay as the residents begin to oppose change. All residents begin to oppose change as they age and become wealthier. So whatever you become before the population gets rich is what you will remain. There will be no new fast subway in San Francisco and there will be no maglev in NYC. There will be no autonomous buses in Sydney and London will be…

That doesn't make much sense to me. HK added transit long after it was a big city. Tokyo added transit. Heck, all the cities of Europe started long before transit became a thing and then added it later. I agree it seems hard in NYC, SF, etc but other cities have added transit

Developing in Hong Kong has been much harder and expensive than before. The high speed rail that connected Hong Kong to the mainland system was (IIRC) the most expensive rail project per kilometer. (They did it anyway since it was a national objective from the central authorities.) And, given the recent tragic fire in Tai Po, there has been a lot more worry about people not being able to afford to renew aging infrastructure (as in residential buildings).

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

#625

No surprises. No matter how we look at it, EVs are much friendlier and safer to the environment. Some people argue the source of electricty can be contested against because that involves fossil fuel burning again, but in today's world we are rapidly moving away from it and towards nuclear/hydel/wind methods for generating power. I hope ICE cars completely become a thing of the past in the next couple of decades to co…

Even if the source of electricity used to charge an EV is mostly generated by fossil fuels, EVs are still probably more energy efficient because gas powered cars are not particularly efficient at turning gasoline into useful energy compared to the efficiency of larger scale power plants.

Also as you point out, non-fossil fuel energy is becoming a larger part of the grid over time, so an EV you buy today will become cleaner over time, while the fossil fuel reliance of a gas car purchased today will never improve.

Honestly the biggest blocker for EVs from my perspective is charging infrastructure. Public fast charging sites are too uncommon compared to gas stations and a less than ideal solution to use for all of your charging needs and lots of people live in housing where installing a charger at home is difficult or impossible. Eventually both of those will change, but it will lag significantly behind the quality of the vehicles themselves.

The interesting thing to me is that even for people who can't charge at home, EVs and charging infrastructure have reached the tipping point where they're at least viable. They're less convenient in such situations than a gas powered car and so will be limited to people who are extra motivated for one reason or another. But the EV world is over the "possible" hurdle so the "practical" threshold seems inevitable.

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

#626
post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Less wear on your brake pads. More on the tires.

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

#627
post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t say EVs would be used for military vehicles. It’s more like a scenario where 80% are buying EVs and 20% are buying ICE. Again the hypothetical was modern EVs with modern infrastructure. And this hypothetical isn’t that crazy. Many Chinese car buyers’ first vehicles are electric, and many of those people buying cars are quite used to electric scooters as their transportation method. Speaking of wars, how many…

>Really step back and imagine a world where the modern EV [1] was first to market and a gasoline combustion engine was second. .... you worded that extremely poorly. Being first to market is completely different then someone's personal first experience. Between that first sentence and the follow post, it's like reading the question what if the smartphone came out before the electric telegraph. If you're trying to say…

Per your third paragraph, that’s exactly what I’m saying. If BEVs of modern capability were either first to market and/or the first car-buying experience, those network effects and preconceptions/biases wouldn’t be a big buying hurdle like they are today.

I did mention the three major drawbacks: fueling time on long trips, extra curb weight, and cost. But I also mentioned that even in the non-hypothetical status quo, these issues are almost certainly going to be solved soon (let’s say by 2040 like you picked out). In a world where BEVs came first, these issues would likely already be solved. Automakers weren’t really investing any development money before the 1990s, so our current BEVs are like owning a gasoline car from the 1950s in terms of time spent in the development oven. Now you have every battery technology company on the planet in an arms race to deliver the next big thing for automotive applications.

Remember that gas stations weren’t on very corner when the gasoline car was invented, either.

Don’t read what I said as some kind of exact computer science logical language-qualified statement where I must say the exact correct parameters, you understand my general point.

I also think your use of your personal anecdote isn’t a very convincing argument by itself. BEVs aren’t right for you as of today, in a world which isn’t a part of this hypothetical. You also pointed out that you are a minority outlier by having odd requirements like “I don’t have data on my smartphone.” Do you think that’s common? I think most people even un in developing countries have smartphone data access. Isn’t this argument kind of like saying gasoline pumps need to take cash to become popular? Of course they took cash in 1990 since most of their users still primarily used cash. In today’s status quo, most EV owers are the kind of person to own a smartphone. (And of course, this is already a non-issue for Tesla owners, and increasingly a non-issue for other manufacturers who are adding the ability to “just plug in” to major charging networks, something that would obviously not be an issue if BEVs came first)

The USA should be an ideal EV market but there are consumer perceptions that are barriers.

Over half of homes in US housing stock are single family houses with implicit access to charging. Daily commutes are around 40 miles. I argue that we should logically see ~50% of new vehicles being EVs but we are way below that number and I put that on customer familiarities and preconceptions.

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

#628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've never see an old vehicle blow a substantially "bluer than normal" cloud. That's what I'm talking about. > Blown gaskets on ICE engines like E25s leak both oil AND coolant, no? This is way, way too broad of a statement. The Subaru EJ25 tends to leak oil externally from the valve covers. When they have head gasket problems it tends to be combustion gas into coolant which blows the coolant out the expansion tank…

My experience is limited to cars manufactured before 2008 (back to 1928). Maybe the new ones are all welded cold rolled steel tubes but I've only seen cast parts for intake and exhaust manifolds, nearly universally. Shit cracked all the time.

This isn't a new thing. Jeep used "factory headers" on the last years of the 4.0. Ford did welded manifolds on the 5.0 Explorers. Subaru went to welded steel for the EJ series engine in the 90s. GM had them on the LT5 in the early 90s. Just about every application that has the catalytic converter right up at the manifold used a welded one.

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

#629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Backup cameras are an enormous safety improvement. Sure, however.... > Plus touchscreens are much cheaper than buttons and knobs. And how much LESS safe is using a touchscreen while operating a motor vehicle? Its literally no different from using an iPad.

There are large implementation differences in touch screens. My wife's care needs several second: turn the radio on, wait for the splash screen, press the drives heat control, wait for it to appear (100s of ms - long enough to notice) then find the button in the miedle of the screen - finally I can change the heated seats. My car that button is always has the button at the bottom of the screen in the same place so is…

You still lose the tactile feedback of the button though. It's much harder to hit it while not looking versus a physical knob.

There's a reason Euro NCAP requires physical climate controls for ca models to get a five star safety rating starting in 2026.

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

#630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's 9 million (and probably many more unless Tesla disappears tomorrow) far cleaner cars on the road, offsetting what would have probably been ICE sales.

I'm no Tesla-stan but spending $40B over a decade to inject massive amounts of change in an entrenched industry to move forward in efficiency and emissions sounds like a pretty good investment to me.

Post reply on HN