Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

unenvironment.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 188 posts

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#81

Post by rienbdj »

ben_w wrote: post #70
trhway wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

cycling isn't space efficient and doesn't really scales that good. It is a luxury ttransportation mode for low/mid density US cities not capable/not willing to build true mass transit modes. Look at the packed subway in say Moscow ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCZKXHsZo68 ) and compare to the best possible bicycle situation - mid-80s China http://www.theurbancountry.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/83... - around 1…

Cycling is at least four times the space efficiency of cars, unless all the cars are Smart Fourtwo or equivalent. And that’s when parked, the multiplier goes up with speed. Additionally, low density US cities are one of the worst places I’ve seen for cycling, because not only is everything spread out, but also the multi-lane roads everywhere make it much more dangerous than equivalently populated towns and cities in…

wow, I was using London as an example of how NOT to do cycle infrastructure.

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#82

Post by wonderwonder »

swebs wrote: post #12
Symmetry wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the new power is generated in coal plants that might actually be a net minus, at least in particulates and SO2 terms. EDIT: I'm referencing this: A series of studies by Tsinghua University, whose alumni includes the incumbent president, showed electric vehicles charged in China produce two to five times as much particulate matter and chemicals that contribute to smog versus gas-engine cars. Hybrid vehicles fare li…

How so? A car's ICE is much less efficient than a power plant.

Volume, coal plants produce massive amounts of pollutants. Cars as a source of pollution only just passed power generation and that's because of the switch to natural gas. Individual coal plants can burn millions of tons of coal per year each. Coal ash is also radioactive.

https://www.vox.com/2016/6/13/11911798/emissions-electricity...

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#83

Post by gurumeditations »

stellar678 wrote: post #77
Reason077 wrote: post #3

Electrification of surface transport is the most obvious way to improve air quality in dense cities. This needs to be a priority.

Studies have actually shown that electric cars produce more than 90% as much particulate-matter air pollution as fossil fuel cars. The reason for this is two-fold: 1. Modern gasoline cars produce very clean exhaust. 2. Most of the particulate pollution comes from wear on tires, brake and the road surface. And electric cars, being heavier than average, produce more wear on tires and road surface. Electrification is pa…

Is the particulate pollution just as grave as emissions pollution or a completely separate issue?

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#84

Post by justinator »

amyjess wrote: post #55
tarboreus wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If by "electrification" you mean "switch to public transportation," I agree with you. If by electrification you mean "burn dinosaurs four miles away," then I don't agree with you.

On top of the excellent comments made by rayiner, tfha, and jwr, we wouldn't even be burning dinosaurs miles away if we switched entirely to nuclear power.

That's never going to happen.

(but no mention of solar, wind, drastically reducing our energy consumption, etc?)

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#85

Post by Reason077 »

stellar678 wrote: post #77
Reason077 wrote: post #3

Electrification of surface transport is the most obvious way to improve air quality in dense cities. This needs to be a priority.

Studies have actually shown that electric cars produce more than 90% as much particulate-matter air pollution as fossil fuel cars. The reason for this is two-fold: 1. Modern gasoline cars produce very clean exhaust. 2. Most of the particulate pollution comes from wear on tires, brake and the road surface. And electric cars, being heavier than average, produce more wear on tires and road surface. Electrification is pa…

Those “studies” are pretty much nonsense.

It’s true that tire wear may be increased slightly due to weight, but electrics aren’t that much heavier than combustion vehicles: typically 10-20% more for comparable vehicles of the same size/class.

Under normal road/wear conditions, most tires degrade into relatively large particles that are not actually aerosolised. They end up on the road and get washed away by weather. The main place where they become a problem is in tunnels where the dry conditions and passing traffic keep picking them back up into the air.

Finally, brake pads. Electric hugely reduce brake wear due to regenerative braking. Most EV owners will tell you that they’ve never had to replace their brake pads!

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#86

Post by flybrand »

gurumeditations wrote: post #83
stellar678 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Studies have actually shown that electric cars produce more than 90% as much particulate-matter air pollution as fossil fuel cars. The reason for this is two-fold: 1. Modern gasoline cars produce very clean exhaust. 2. Most of the particulate pollution comes from wear on tires, brake and the road surface. And electric cars, being heavier than average, produce more wear on tires and road surface. Electrification is pa…

Is the particulate pollution just as grave as emissions pollution or a completely separate issue?

All pollution is some kind of particle - here it just means that emissions are coming out of the tail pipe as a byproduct of the internal combustion engine, as opposed to the particulate created from braking, etc.

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#87

Post by justinator »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #49
jesstaa wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

human powered transport like walking or cycling works great in dense cities, it's more space efficient so it scales better too.

Oh yes. As a Parisian and a big supporter of the electrification of all terrestrial transportation, I want as few EVs as city as possible. Cars simply don't make sense in dense cities (bikes do).

I lived in Paris for a spell, and one of the great things about the city is that it is so bike-able. It's not a large place! And it's dense. Lots of traffic, but the French seem to understand that bikes belong.

We almost never used the Métro, what was the point? Saved money and no one ever stole my wallet!

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#88

Post by flybrand »

rayiner wrote: post #43
tarboreus wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If by "electrification" you mean "switch to public transportation," I agree with you. If by electrification you mean "burn dinosaurs four miles away," then I don't agree with you.

In economic terms, the biggest impact from air pollution is particulate matter in densely populated areas, not CO2. Burning dinosaurs four miles away (more accurately, 40+) has a huge positive impact, because the worst of the particulate matter falls to the ground by then.

As someone who works in filtration - one of the primary ways to reduce pollution - stationary sources are easier to filter.

Vehicles have limited under the hood space and are distributed.

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#89

Post by crdoconnor »

StavrosK wrote: post #57
mmphosis wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree there are worse types of power plants than nuclear: no SO2, NO2 or PM10, but at the risk of the release of Cesium-134, Cesium-137, Iodine-131, Xenon-133, strontium-90, plutonium-239. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/radioactive-isotopes-from-fukushima-meltdown-detected-near-vancouver/ https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/nuclear-accidents-fact-sheet

Depending on the rates, I'd take a risk of Cesium than the certainty of SO2, CO2, NO2, etc.

I'd rather tariffs were taken off solar panels so they weren't rendered artificially uncompetitive.

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#90

Post by justinator »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #63
wowzap wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there actually proof that it "works great"? Asking for myself every time I try to cross the street in downtown Manhattan and have to look for a cyclist on the sidewalk, going against traffic, blowing through a red light, or fighting with another cyclist.

A city that was never designed for bikes is hell for bikes, so you end up with only the most reckless bikers on the road. I commute with a bike every day in Paris, France. The infrastructure isn't great but it's OK, and it's improving. The thing is: I'm a big, strong guy who can legally outrun most cars and motorbikes in such a big, dense city. I can fight my way in traffic, mostly because the law authorizes bikes to…

I think I rode a taxi in Paris once or twice, but never a private car - and none of our friends had private cars, either. I assumed parking was a nightmare, and expensive. The narrow medieval roads didn't help, either. Many of the streets around our apartment were closed to cars (at least on Sunday).

Being a cyclist, I thought I found a slice of heaven. I thought about being an urban planner when I got back to the States.

Post reply on HN