Some putting off soot clouds, white smoke, nothing visible but clearly not doing complete combustion. Sometimes I wonder if half the cylinders are even working.
I’ve heard one car like that is the equivalent of a surprisingly large number of modern ICE cars is in good shape.
I love EVs. I’ve had one for 5 years now, and I’m glad they help. But I think the “are new EVs worse than new ICE” discussions so often miss a fact.
The pollution from ICE isn’t just from very modern well tuned vehicles, things vary wildly. But all EVs use the same power supply (assuming local grid only), so no individual vehicles put off 10x the pollution per kWh.
Reminds me of how I didn't really notice cigarettes until they were banned from public spaces and the base level of normal was recalibrated.
You can smell these cars from halfway up the road sometimes, when they're 100 metres ahead.
What's the intended precedence in that sentence?
I ask because I've never seen a lawnmower (in the US) with a two-stroke engine. There are probably some, but they're not common.
Regardless, there’s nothing cleaner than no combustion, and I can’t wait until EV‘s have replaced them all
Here's a bunch of those surveys: https://evcentral.com.au/which-is-best-for-the-environment-e...
Keen to hear your expert opinion on what (eg) the International Energy Agency got wrong.
Do give your best shot to debunk that.
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 volkswagen
- full analysis of ICE car manufacturing
- Cost of wars to give us oil
- cost of weaponry needed to make oil producers behave and sell it at a decent price
- cost of aircraft carriers positioned around the world to enforce that.
- health cost of breathing in fumes.
- total cost of lead poisoning done by ICE cars until it was forbidden.
- health costs of noxes from diesel cars.
- costs of cars with dpf off or cat converter removed or just bad engines.
- Environmental impact of shale oil and water aquifers destruction and earthquakes.
- (reserve the right to add more after you provide the above)
Most start stop systems will disable themselves when the heater of the car is turned ON and the car engine not hot enough yet.
As a cyclist (or motorbike owner), it is pretty usual in city to have >50% cars with engines ON at traffic light in cities when temperature are low.
Also at some point they will start their engines again. Guess who will inhale that?
Sources: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/10/08/report-drivers-arent-... which references the BBC
You've got the added bonus that you don't need to strip-mine huge chunks of Africa for precious metals, too.
One good thing about driving an EV is that weird oil or hot coolant smells are from someone else's car (and not a problem with your car)
(although yes technically many EVs have coolant loops)
"The high voltage wires were just dragging on the street sparking, presumably with all the safety features disabled"
"They were driving with a 10 gallon coolant tank on the roof, presumably because the coolant loop had a big leak and needed continuous topping up".
EVs eliminate a lot of polluting failure states of ICE vehicles. There just simply aren't that many things to burn or leak and still have a functioning vehicle.
There are also lower ongoing costs for maintenance and fuel.
There is still the secondary wealth filter of having a place to park and charge, of course.
Second, places with high touch governments already lose out on business due to registration arbitrage. Your proposal would dump gas on that fire.
[1]: https://goodcar.com/car-ownership/vehicle-inspections-by-sta...
In the neighbourhood I live, there's a guy who visits someone here several times per week. His headlights are broken, the tires are worn smooth, the exhaust is loud beyond all reason. Given the general state of the vehicle, I don't have high hopes for the brakes.
I reported it to the police. I'm really not the type of person to do that, but this is worse than anything I've seen. Of course nothing happened. I didn't even get a reply. They don't give a shit. Some day that guy is going to rear-end my car and break my neck because his brake lines finally gave out.
Also, the compulsory car inspections only work for honest people. People with illegal mods will put back the stock parts for the inspection, and switch them back after. I'm not gonna say the inspections are worthless, but it does make a lot of money for the state and the private actors who run the inspection centres.
EDIT to add: They made a law recently that the inspector has to take a photo of the car inside the inspection centre, because there was so much fraud happening with vehicles just being "inspected" on paper.
It then runs code which auto detects the car model (fairly easy from the messages on the bus), and has a database of the messages to send/inhibit to change the behaviour in the desired way.
Because so many cars use electronics that are common across a whole manufacturer of cars - ie. all GM cars, or all cars with a Bosche ECU - there won't be awful lot of work making it compatible with hundreds of models of car.
Such devices already exist for faking data for engine tuning, and for faking 'zero faults, all monitors pass' to pass government tests.
And then things like battery temperature warnings will quickly turn into real failures.
And then the next generation or 2 of stuff is going to at least attempt to implement cybersecurity features that greatly complicate tampering at the message level.
It’s more ‘I could have replaced a few cells in my battery pack, but the car bricked itself when I opened the pack! Assholes!’.
Notably many recent ICE cars aren’t much better.
I should note the power increase may not have a major impact on newer cars where the cat has been optimized to reduce it's negative power impact.
Infact a popular tuner company, APR, that provides flashes tested the recent Volkswagen GTI and R generation with their most common tune and determined that with their tune removing the cat had a nominal impact.
*Basically they can bring the cars power as high as the OEM internals can handle reliably while keeping the cat. There are cars where it still has some impact and of course, different from power ,"straight piping" a car can offer a subjective sound change.
> 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 until equilibrium is reached. Typical head gasket failures cause some degree of that but coolant mixing with oil is more typical. Many V engines have intake gaskets that can leak coolant into the intake or oil or both.
Regardless, if you can taste coolant in the exhaust the car is basically at the point of "fix it now"
> I might be mixing up blown heads with cracked manifolds which often go hand in hand since temp extremes in engines fissure cast parts like the manifold.
A sizable minority of cars don't even use cast manifolds anymore. While it's possible for cast manifolds to crack in a way that makes them leak that's rare and it's more common for them to crack their mounting tabs off. Steel exhaust tubing can and does sometimes break after many years of vibration, say nothing of rust.
While cylinder heads can crack it usually takes the kind of overheating that requires major work to fix in order to make it happen so just about nobody is driving around with a cracked head.
"No — the VW EA888 Gen 3 engine block is not cast iron in the latest versions. engines.... use an aluminum alloy block, not traditional cast iron."
So I know for sure it's iron so I said "Are you sure it's an aluminum block on the gen 3"
"No — the VW/Audi EA888 Gen 3 engine does not have an aluminum block"
Do you mean minimal impact?
All in all, a well tuned ICE is better for everyone than a poorly tuned one, if you had to pick between the two.
Short term for the individual definitely, but long term for all individuals affected?
Could also be coolant or oil
Could be coolant, but "coolant into engine" failure modes are generally rare and are usually the kind of thing that needs to get fixed promptly.
It’s crazy. How do we even allow selling cars without HEPA filters.
One of the reasons I wrote the comment above is because my filter has worn out and needs replacing, so all of a sudden I can smell all this nonsense again.
1000% with the money.
If the exhaust had to go through the cabin so the driver got the worst of it, car exhaust would be the cleanest air on the planet within months and/or alternatives to cars would rocket.
But as long as it’s other peoples health affected, meh.
This is why forklift trucks and Zambonis run on propane instead of petrol or diesel. If you burn gas, you get no carbon monoxide or unburnt fuel because it runs ever so slightly lean and all the fuel is burnt.
This means keeping the air clear is just a case of getting rid of carbon dioxide and water, so you can open some vents (warehouses have great big vents, big enough for trucks to drive in and out...) and let the place air out. You won't die if you breathe it, unlike the CO and unburnt fuel from petrol and diesel engines.
It's a simple and inexpensive conversion, too.
(Edited to add) Hmm actually people are already doing LPG conversions today as it's cheaper. Not sure if all LPGs are as pollution free, though.
You can get ones with a complete set of LPG injectors and an ECU that takes its timing from the petrol injectors, and these are incredibly efficient. They're a bit harder to install (you need to drill holes in the intake manifold, it's a faff) but the engine can be mapped for even more power than on petrol and a tiny amount of pollution.
There's still a lot of CO2 and water vapour, but as previously discussed you're burning all this shit anyway so you might as well extract useful work from it.
The time to have done this was 25 or 30 years ago, when it was ridiculously cheap to buy gas and there were a lot of old-fashioned carburettor-fed cars that were incredibly badly polluting.
Otherwise you may be smelling cars who have had the cats stolen.
It’s not whatever tiny bit of oil gets burned in a healthy engine.
I'm not spending $30-40k or more on a car. That just isn't going to happen.
Cost to replace the catalytic converter, cost for new exhaust pipes, cost to diagnose ignition timing problems. Whatever.
If the car drives and you don’t have the money I can completely understand why someone wouldn’t get the problem fixed. Even if it means they’re burning a 1/3 of their fuel, that’s still less in the short term than the $1500 it may cost to fix it.
It’s insanely rare I get the sense that the person is running really dirty on purpose.
I don’t know what a realistic fairway to fix it is. They’re probably isn’t one. I don’t think fines would work, it would probably just make things worse. Seems like the kind of thing where a little government group to find the worst 0.1% of cars on the road and just get them back to reasonable levels would be a huge help.
But that’s not how we do things.
Well that’s not strictly true. If you move into the state you have to get one emissions check to get your car licensed.
After that, or if you buy the car in the state, no checks for you.
Additionally, a lot of conservatives love to "Roll coal", and literally will shit up the environment on purpose just because they feel schadenfreude from pissing of an environmentalist.
Some people remove catalytic converters when they install a performance exhaust. Nobody is doing it for louder noises because the muffler portion is what dampens the sound.
Also I wouldn’t say it’s “a lot of Americans”. We have emissions inspections in most major cities and your car won’t pass if you remove the catalytic converter. They can now detect modified ECUs, too. Someone would have to be so determined to do this that they’d swap the exhaust in and out every time they had to do emissions inspections.
Cats also act as mufflers, they significantly reduce the sound coming out the exhaust.
I’ve seen (heard) the effects first hand. Trust me, people aren’t removing the cat just to make their car annoyingly loud. If they are, they’re going to be disappointed.
HNs lack of knowledge around cars is sort of frightening.
> HNs lack of knowledge around cars is sort of frightening.
I actually have a lot of knowledge and experience in the automotive space, including with exhaust systems!
Catalytic converter removal alone doesn’t have a big change exhaust tone. I have seen it first hand, and also with 100-cell and 200-cell race cats as an intermediary step.
Your posts are full of condescending assumptions about Americans and HN’s comments about cars, but you’re ignoring the actual facts others are trying to share.
You’re describing your small friend group, not Americans in general.
Sometimes the plural of anecdote really is data.
However, I do agree that there aren't enough folks "rolling coal" in aggregate to really move any needles on planet-scale environmental impacts though. Just VERY unpleasant to be caught behind.
I haven’t noticed people removing the catalytic converters just for noise. The rare time I see a car that wants to be loud it usually just seems to be the exhaust end they changed, or maybe removed the muffler.
The kind of stuff I’m complaining about mostly seems to be older cars, or those in poor mechanical shape. Cases where the people probably just don’t have the money to fix it.
Is this true?
If an EV were 30% heavier than an ICE, would it produce 30% more tyre wear emissions? Or would it produce more or less than 30%? Is the primary factor in tyre wear weight and is the relationship linear?
The types of tyres appear to be quite different, the EVs seem to have smaller contact patches (narrower wheels) and they're made of different "less grippy" compounds that drag less. Does this change the equation at all?
Running EVs in densely populated regions is probably a lot better for the population on the whole even if the net pollution would stay the same, IMO.
Still no EV is even better, but we’ve created a world where transport is often required so, one step at a time I guess.
The pollution always goes somewhere, and its not like we have large swaths of useless places that we can pollute without consequences.
> The pollution always goes somewhere,
"The solution to pollution is dilution". We want the concentration of pollution low, so the health effects are low too, and we can give natural processes the time to decay/oxidize/etc the pollutants.
> not like we have large swaths of useless places
We do... we mostly care about the lower ~100 meters of atmosphere because that's where people live. That's less than 1% of the total atmosphere. This means we can distribute pollution over a volume a 100x larger than that that is important for us. And then I'm not even counting the vast amount of the planet that's uninhabited / non-land.
Also, smokestacks are designed to not directly pollute the air close to people, see:
From 2019 to 2023, ZEVs increased from 2.0% (559943 of 28237734) to 5.1% (1460818 of 28498496).
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/zero-e...
Truth is: for commuting up to 100kms, the EVs are wastly cheaper long run ( you have to factor everything ! )
So direct environment impact is still huge for EVs and calling them ZEV is literally a scam.
Though I suppose that EVs and hybrids are heavier than similar gas powered counterparts, so tire wear is worse. At least until EVs can be made lighter.
Further, particle emission from brake dust is mitigated in EV's that use regen braking. One of my ev's can go days without phycical brake usage, and another uses the brake pads so infrequently it has an automatic mode to touch the discs occasionally just to keep them from building up rust.
tire particles --- different compounds can effect that, but will always be a side effect of tires on vehicles.
There's vehicles like trains, subways and bycicles, responsible for transporting hundreds of at least a billion people per day, which don't use tires whose particles are the biggest source of microplastics.
That’s fantastic news!
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.
Less commut and more collective transportation is going to be far more significant in term of global impact, whatever the engine type.
"When California neighborhoods increased their number of zero-emissions vehicles"
Obviously neighborhoods/cities/states didn't increase anything. It was just rich people living there buying fancy cars. Of course, this needs to be described as a great accomplishment of local government.
And nowhere in the article is the obvious solution even suggested: advancing electric car technology so they're cheaper than ICE cars. And I don't mean charging extra tax while cutting public transport to make sure poor people don't go anywhere anymore, I mean fixing the technology so everyone has transport, for less money.
Some people credit Tesla with kick starting the EV revolution. Californian governance kick started Tesla.
Their EV efforts go back to the ZEV mandate in 1990.
Shouldn't the obvious solution be based on observable reality? Which is that there is no technology in sight that will make EVs cheaper to build than ICEs. Otherwise you are praying for a miracle, and that's not a sound policy.
I mean, this isn't even a very hard thing to model.
Could you please explain in more detail what exactly do you want to model here? Above, you mentioned "advancing electric car technology so they're cheaper than ICE cars". Now as we both know the issue is with the battery, do you just want cars with battery so small that the car is cheaper than an ICE but nobody wants it? Because there is no need to model that, it has been tried and failed.
If you mean modeling battery technology that's not yet available in EVs, good luck with that. There are better batteries available than in mass-market vehicles, but they are not cheaper; cheaper technologies are not as good. Sure, in 10 years the batteries will be much better overall, but we don't really have the luxury of waiting until the technology gets perfect and then scaling that, do we.
But more than 60% of that is lost as heat. The inefficiency increases in colder temperatures.
[1] _ https://natural-resources.canada.ca/energy-efficiency/transp...
We could have been running cars on that for decades, but getting people to make their dirty polluting inefficient old petrol cars run on fuel that emits carbon dioxide and water with no HC, CO, SOx, NOx, or particulates was nowhere near as profitable as selling them lots of debt to buy cleaner greener diesels.
And we're burning the fuel they'd run on anyway.
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 night for some reason, especially if they're parked in the wrong part of town) you'll find the tank is still about as full as it was before the car got burnt.
As I understand it, gasoline tanks on cars are unlikely to explode unless they are nearly empty.
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.
And with the way we are moving to centralized one system architectures, the device that does video processing can be the same soc that does smart infotainment.
Smart connectivity essentially comes "for free" if the manufacturer wants to hit 5 safety stars, so its not going away, and will come to ICE cars as they modernize the vehicle architectures.
Yes, there are some security threats, but solving them is more valuable than trying to design a car around true firewalls.
[1] https://www.reinsurancene.ws/waymo-shows-90-fewer-claims-tha...
[2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11305169/
[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39485678/
[4] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Comparison-of-Swiss-Re-h...
It's important to realize the reason for that.
Crashes by human drivers are hugely disproportionately by people who are driving drunk or with insufficient sleep or significant distractions etc. In other words, it's not a difference in the cars, it's a difference in the drivers. Waymo can beat a drunk driver, and therefore can beat the human driver arithmetic mean which has the drunk drivers averaged in.
That doesn't mean it's any safer than driving an ordinary car when you're not drunk.
I hear people on this site complain about these things all the time.
The computerization of formerly mechanical features making it harder to DIY repair is a separate but also valid concern, though I'm not sure how it applies to EVs.
Added: see https://x.com/IntCyberDigest/status/2011758140510142890 for exactly the kind of thing that nobody wants.
Win.
Though it means connected charging via API stuff doesn’t work. Not that it’s mattered to me!
I was under the impression most EVs cut off the connection to the high voltage battery almost all the time they’re not in use.
They rely on a 12 V battery or a 48 V battery like a normal car.
The only thing I’m aware of that special is that if that low voltage battery gets low enough the car will detect it and recharge it from the high voltage battery, temporarily connecting it for that purpose.
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.
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.
That really enables them to have a continuous state of power supply for a long long time. This cannot be achieved by ICE cars and not even hybrids for that matter.
This puts a cap on how much the "smart" systems can do because it dramatically increases cycle count and thus the risk of the 12v battery losing the ability to produce enough voltage to start the car, leaving the driver marooned somewhere.
It could also result in a noticeable "vampire" drain on the high voltage battery which looks bad and could put you at a disadvantage vs. competitors.
So extra drain would be an extra big problem.
Doesn't even have automatic windows.
All it's connected features appear to come from Android Auto or Apple Car Play. AKA from a connection to your phone.
I like the looks of it because it appears to be a serious EV unlike too many which are just some company getting their toes wet.
Even a carbureted motorcycle I owned from the early 2000s had "analog" gauges with values given to it from a computer!
For sure, and even earlier -- I had a 1995 Mustang with faux analog gauges, it has definitely been a Thing for decades now.
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.
You know that a backup camera can be added to practically any car right? My ~2002 Toyota has a Pioneer deck from around 2007 (I guess?) that supports reversing camera input. My wifes 2012 Toyota hybrid has a reversing camera using some POS cheap Chinese deck that's so shit it doesn't even support Bluetooth audio.
No part of reversing cameras are dependent on any of the "modern" trends in cars that are being discussed here.
Have you never seen a newer model car?
You don't need them to have a reversing camera. Literally millions of cars over the past 2 decades have perfectly fine reversing cameras using the screen of a regular double-DIN deck (or fold out single-DIN deck).
(Battery heating is inexplicably an extra $300 option, and not available on the base trim AFAICS?)
How on earth did we survive as a species before our cars could make automated phone calls?
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 the accident, even if you are unconscious or if your phone that was neatly in the cup holder before the crash was flung somewhere else (potentially even flew out of the car etc) and you're trying to find it while someone might be dying in the seat next to you etc.
People didn't survive before all this. It's a mandatory feature now because it's so effective at saving lives. 2 to 10% reduction in fatalities and serious injuries apparently. Would you also question why we have mandatory airbags and traction control?!
A much more reasonable ask would be for your car's systems to use your phone to place a call to emergency services. I absolutely do not want yet another internet connected device in my life, especially one like a car, where examples exist of hackers being able to disable the electronics remotely.
I reluctantly bought an LG with webOS (least bad option available) a couple of years ago. For some reason they weren't content to let the TV menu/remote work with up/down/left/right buttons.
That's too fucking predictable, and anyone who's used a tv in the last 2 decades could use it....
Let's give it a fucking nipple, just like those horrific fucking IBM/Lenovo laptops.
Then of course it also tries to "help" by detecting HDR content and change view mode... while something is playing.... which makes the screen go black for several seconds.
What business case is there for a "dumb" EV?
By using touchscreens and software for most functionality, you dramatically reduce your supply chain overhead and better enhance margins (instead of managing the supply chain for dozens of extruded buttons, now you manage the supply chain of a single LCD touchscreen).
This was a major optimization that Chinese automotive manufacturers (ICE and EV) found and took advantage of all the way back in 2019 [0] - treat cars as consumer electronics instead of as "cars".
Edit: Any answer that does not take COGS or Magins into account is moot.
[0] - https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/automot...
I agree that was an idiotic trend.
But if someone wants a car without connectivity, it’s too late. The market is not strong enough to get rid of that. Most people either like it or don’t care enough to avoid it.
Just like most people liked or didn’t care enough to avoid smart TVs.
So that’s all you can buy.
I suppose they could still remote kill the car though, and have no idea what would happen if I hit the emergency button.
Sell and product with enough margin to make money. Don’t sell it at or below cost, then spy on your users and sell them to the real customers, the advertisers.
“Dumb” stuff has a very simple and honest business model. Market the cars by exposing what every other car brand is actually doing.
Auto quality touch screes are not cheap. A high quality switch/button assembly is still cheaper for a give lifetime (100k, 200k, whatever), which is why it's what the 3rd world compact cars all use. The switches start losing when you start having a ton of different sets of features the car needs to support.
You only want „dumb” bc the other car companies fk’d it all up.
when was the last time you saw a Tesla and went “oh cool car!”? been awhile, right? Now ask the same question for BMW, Benz…
FYI, if you want to search for this, it is called "The long tailpipe" theory (1) or "long tailpipe fallacy".
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_tailpipe
And it is a fallacy for obvious reasons, including
a) electricity generation is more flexible, and rapidly shifting to solar and other non-polluting sources.
b) Moving pollution away from people is better. Cars are inherently around people, streets, residences etc.
c) One centralised plant with no weight restrictions is easier to control for emissions and efficiency than many thousands of mobile, weight-constrained power plants.
d) Wikipedia: "The extraction and refining of carbon based fuels and its distribution is in itself an energy intensive industry contributing to CO2 emissions."
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.
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.
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.
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 ever towed was... using a rental truck and a rental trailer when I moved. (Anecdotes are not data!) But why in a rational purchasing decision would I need an 800 mile EV battery for a car just because sometimes it's cold out?
So yes, you want 400-500 miles of range, but that's because you've doubled the 250 for weather, safety margin, etc.
I want to drive for 4 hours and then stop for 20 minutes. So >250 miles of 70mph range between 10-80% charge.
I would argue that this provides us the possibility of energy flexibility, which is a good thing given the current global geopolitical situation
for this to happen the EVs depreciation needs to drastically improve compared to ICE. I don't see this. On top of this EVs tend to push ideas from Software/Tech companies, such as recurring revenues (because the underlying technology lends itself to it better).
Personally I'm unsure that this will be accepted by all consumers as much as is needed. After all the automotive marketing has since Ford insisted that driving was about "freedom". So some pivot needs to happen in the messaging. Suppose decades is a lot of time to change it. Personally I think EVs are nonsense, and a better utopia would be making sure public transport is abundant, high-quality and free.
Define "improve" ?
One way for "ICE cars completely become a thing of the past" is for there to be lots of cheap, reliable, second-hand EVs. If you can buy a good used EV for less then yes, a barrier to quitting ICE cars has been removed.
That's an improvement. The car doesn't have to be an asset, it could be more like a utility.
EV depreciation seems to be driven by
1) rapidly advancing state of the art, which should eventually stabilise and
2) Fears of battery lifespan, which in current vehicles is largely unfounded
https://www.wired.com/story/electric-cars-could-last-much-lo...
https://insideevs.com/news/763231/ev-battery-degradation-lif...
It’s a collectivist dream not rooted in reality.
Can’t change direction (one lane no junctions), can’t change speed (vehicles in front and behind), can’t stop (flow of traffic), can’t break concentration (driving), can’t change body position (car cabin is tiny, seats and hand/feet controls are fixed, no space to stand), can’t look away for more than a moment (responsibility of driving).
And the only places to go are on the predetermined road, from a car park, to a car park, following a lot of strict prescribed rules about how.
This meme of “freedom” is brainwashing and marketing (which has been picked up as an identity thing by the right wing recently).
There’s nothing free about having to use a $20,000 vehicle to buy bread because no other options are available.
Sometimes, for special errands, I rent a car. For example, I intended to move across town last year, so I rented a car for 3-4 days.
It was the most excruciating pain I could have. I chose a little Mitsubishi Mirage, and firstly, it was the middle of July in the Sonoran Desert, and the A/C hardly worked, so I was sweating, and the car would heat up real good in parking lots. No sun shades, dark upholstery. Also, the USB connection was flaky, so sometimes my phone didn't charge, and whether or not, it was directly exposed to the Sun and overheating.
By the second day, my legs hurt a lot. I had spent an unexpected amount of time on my feet and walking around, despite the vehicle. Do you know how big parking lots are these days?!
I tried sitting down at every opportunity. I have a running gag/dispute at my bank to see whether they will allow me to "sit down" at the "ADA/Disabled" teller window.
Driving home at night on the last night, my leg cramped up really bad. I was in such pain, I nearly pulled over because it was my accelerator/brake leg and I was going to lose control of the car.
Thankfully I was able to hold it together, and returned the car the next day, but boy I did not want such a vehicle ever again. And it was not a stick-shift; it was an automatic transmission.
Next time I'm going to be really sure that the USB and A/C work. And that my legs are super-comfortable and has cruise control.
While there are no alternatives with similar funding and societal support to driving, car dependency forces many people to drive even for trivial things. Most car journeys are less than three miles. That’s a bonkers state of affairs for the planet and for human history.
All 110 billion humans who ever lived couldn’t possibly be considered “not free” because they didn’t have cars to get to the nearest stream or nut tree. Wild animals aren’t considered to have “no freedom” because they don’t own cars.
Buddy, the world is a bigger place than the 4 square miles around your downtown studio. How do you plan on visiting without entering one of these claustrophobic compartments, be it plane, train or automobile? The fact that you think you're "free" because you can walk around a little bit...well that's as brainwashed as it gets.
> “Buddy, the world is a bigger place than the 4 square miles around your downtown studio.”
4 square miles at the density of Manchester UK is enough for 50,000 people; if every one of them has to drive everywhere for everything, that’s a nightmare of traffic.
Not to mention that I can bike, bus, tram, a lot further than 4 miles in an hour. If that isn’t enough to do the tasks of everyday life then something has gone wrong. (car obsession).
> “The fact that you think you're "free" because you can walk around a little bit...well that's as brainwashed as it gets.”
The fact that you think having to drive everywhere is freedom, but being able to (walk, bus, bike, tram, drive), everywhere isn’t freedom, is nonsense. The choice to drive or not-drive is more freedom than having no choice. (Obviously)
I live in a suburb. There's a bus stop outside my door. It connects me to 1,100 square miles of service area. The busses and trains also have bike racks so it expands the area even more. It connects me to multiple international airports with one offering non-stop flights all around the world.
I could be on the other side of the planet in a day without having to get in my car.
You know what would make my kids more free? If they could just play outside without the giant death machines flying by with their operators looking at their phones well over the speed limit.
I'm trapped in a world where I need to spend a good chunk of my life in a cage just to work and eat, and you call that "freedom".
If you think “freedom” means not having a car, then there are options for you.
I moved out of a dense urban public-transport-and-cycling environment into a countryside town with heaps of space, and where everyone happily owns cars to give them the freedom to go wherever they like, whenever they like, taking family and cargo with them, without issue.
I would never go back to the urban environment, waiting around for public transport, being limited to the routes served by public transport, useless cycle lanes everywhere (what good is a bike when I need to transport my 3 year old, 6 year old, and all our shopping?). And the stifling density of housing and amenities was oppressive and unpleasant.
There is a better way. Move to countryside town, buy an EV that cost negligible amounts to run, cases negligible local pollution, and is a joy to own.
Not really. People are often tied to lots of areas for a number of reasons, and we don't build this much of this kind of urban environment in the US. We've made it largely illegal to build this in most of the country. I'm not free to really live that kind of life.
For most Americans, it's not an option.
> what good is a bike when I need to transport my 3 year old, 6 year old, and all our shopping?
If it was designed well enough your six year old should be able to ride on their own bike with you. You can take a lot of stuff with you with an even mildly powerful electric bicycle. And I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to have the option for a car, but we've designed our urban spaces to be actively hostile to everything but a car when we really didn't have to. Freedom is being able to choose, not be forced into only one option.
God I love freedom so much.
Electric cars are heavier and produce more tire grime.
What about all the resources and people used to develop the cars?
Doesn't seem that crazy. I'm not seeing your point.
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, and there is always a grain of truth in black PR: emissions are indeed likely to be higher. Probably not "much higher" and probably not in a way that really matters.
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/tire-care/ev-tire-wear [2] https://recharged.com/articles/do-ev-tires-wear-faster [3] https://www.evuniverse.com/whats-the-difference-between-regu...
1) this is not the only or even the overriding factor when comparing the two. There are engine emissions (none for EVs) and braking (EVs have regen braking)
2) There is a trend for larger, heavier ICE vehicles in the USA as well. Big trucks and SUVs. It is very selective to argue against EVs in this way without also arguing against these.
One thing that differs is brake wear. My car is ten years old and still on its original brake pads and discs. The regen braking is amazing for avoiding mechanical braking. So that means less particle emission from brakes, compared to ICE.
Well no, it's not "the same". We have things like physics to tell us that more torque and more weight means more tire wear, despite your anecdote. There are even studies on this. They also have a greater impact on road wear.
EVs have many advantages over ICEs. I don't understand why people have to lie and say they are worse nowhere.
https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2024-us-orig...
No I'm sure fracking and pipelines and all the crap the oil industry needs just to exist does not have any pfas or micro plastics
Additionally, due to the fourth power law [0], you only need 20% weight increase to obtain a 2x road wear. Asphalt/concrete production is also accompanied with substantial emission, although progress is made to reduce it [1].
Is there a break-even for weight vs emission reduction? And if so, is it somewhere between personal and cargo vehicles or is it 'EV always better'?
Are we trading 'well-known and bad for global environment'-emission for 'poorly-understood and possibly very bad for local environment on a global scale'-emission?
Of course, with the available information EVs seem to be the better solution, but it should not prevent us from researching/solving unknown effects or being careful choosing a single solution on such a large scale.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
[1] https://www.pbl.nl/uploads/default/downloads/pbl-2022-decarb...
> The accuracy of the law of the fourth power is disputed among experts, since the test results depend on many other factors, such as climatic conditions, in addition to the factors mentioned above.
It's incredible one agency in the '50s did some small limited tests and everyone will parrot it as if it's tablets handed down from God.
Battery swapping changes the game entirely. Imagine a national network of exchange stations (co-located with existing petrol infrastructure, you can use the overhead canopy for solar). Standard pack sizes scaled by vehicle class: compact cars get 2 cells, vans get 4, lorries get 8.
Whoever owns these battery packs now has skin in the game for longevity. Their profit depends on keeping packs in service for 20+ years, not selling you a new car.
Suddenly the R&D money flows towards batteries that last, obsolescence now costs them money, and isn’t a happy accident that keeps you hooked on buying more cars.
You’d still have the option to buy your own packs outright if you only ever charge at home, but the network creates the economic pressure for genuine improvement of longevity in battery tech that’s completely missing today.
I’m aware that a company called “Better Place” failed. But they were a startup trying to strong-arm the automotive industry. A nationally coordinated infrastructure concern is different, and the air quality data from this study suggests we can’t afford to keep muddling through - and I really think that peoples concerns about batteries are not misplaced.
Perfect is the enemy of good, but damned if we can’t at least align incentives for better.
Meanwhile, battery longevity is essentially a solved problem. Manufacturers do have an incentive to improve it due to customer demand, and modern NMC chemistry, cooling and BMS have improved significantly to the point where they're expected to maintain 70-85% capacity after 10 years[1], far from worthless. At this point, components like the motor likely fail before the battery does.
Given the much lower failure rate of everything else in an EV, TCO is dramatically better than ICE cars even with degradation[3].
Manufacturers like Mercedes even guarantee 70% health after 8 years (a worst-case estimate).
There is a significant commercial incentive for aftermarket battery repair shops. EVClinic[2] is very successful and a glimpse into the future.
[1]: https://www.geotab.com/blog/ev-battery-health/
[2]: https://evclinic.eu/
[3]: https://evclinic.eu/2025/12/31/diesel-mythology-vs-ev-realit...
no car you can buy with this longevity tech, no phone either- same issue.
Your phone doesn't have liquid cooling temp management and is probably recharged daily. With a car that has 300 miles range, a lot of people probably only do a full cycle every week.
Heres one such source but theres hundreds if you care to look: https://min.news/en/auto/2a2636e0ac962b5d94ee68babcd09a3d.ht...
It depends on how many miles it has driven and how much other maintenance the car has had. It's a big expense but a battery dying is probably comparable to a timing belt breaking, those aren't cheap either and thats not even for luxury cars...
parts and labour is $15,000 to $22,000 from all sources I can find.
Heres one: https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/tesla-battery-replace...
but, sure, fair enough.
13 years old dead luxury cars are worthless, yes, especially when the tech is quickly evolving. That doesn't say anything about how long it takes for them to die or how reliable the tech is.
There aren't many 10+ year old EVs yet, and demand is limited. This is changing, and EVClinic will be the first of many aftermarket EV repair shops.
They've been aiming for the same or worse in regular cars for over a decade now.
That being said, there is an incentive for EVs: competition from China:
https://www.electrive.com/2026/01/19/byd-extends-battery-war...
Very much like when Japanese cars first got a foothold in the US.
The Nissan Leaf 15 years ago came with a 5-year/100,000km battery warranty, now Toyota are at 10-year/1,000,000km.
As it stands the Nissan Leaf is an outlier only in Norway, where it was practically a free car due to subsidies, otherwise their growth is pretty much in line with other EVs.
I’m a bit EV obsessed so spend a lot of time answering questions about them online, the longer warranty is 100% impacting buying choices.
It needs to be fixed, because aside from someone being left with the economic bag of disposing of the vehicle, it is actually an environmental issue to build these batteries.
Just not as bad of an issue as running ICE cars for the same period of time.
People tend not to think more than a certain amount of time away for some reason.
We saw this play out with phones. We used to have easily swappable batteries. And since battery chemistry was (and hopefully still is and will continue) improving, by the time you actually swapped the battery there were ones around with a higher capacity than the battery the phone shipped with. And typically for little money.
Now everything is glued and messy to swap so the manufacturer can sell you a battery swap for much much more money than it used to cost.
I believe cars should have swappable somewhat standardized batteries. Even if not swappable by the user, it should not be a more than 1h job at the mechanic (ANY mechanic, not just the manufacturer).
Imagine picking a car and not caring about battery at all. You want a Tesla but BYD batteries are better - so get a Tesla without a Battery and put a BYD one it it. Or maybe Tesla has the best batteries right now, so you get that. And once you have to swap the battery, you again just pick the best manufacturer at the time - who might not even be a car manufacturer at all but rather someone specialized in batteries exclusively.
And since hopefully 10 years have passed since you bought the last battery, chemistry has improved so you pick from options that are all (hopefully a lot) better than the battery you had initially.
We could have some proper competition where manufacturers would have to compete on pricing and performance.
But car manufacturers don't care. They want as much of your money as they can get. And opening their cars to third party batteries and not keeping up as many walls as they can is the opposite of that.
So until forced by regulation every manufacturer will continue to put batteries in their cars that only they themselves will sell and put a slightly different one in every car. So guess what, even if you swap your battery in 10 years, they will sell you the same battery you can buy right now. Because the newer stuff is for new cars only and compatible with your car.
Show me a million mile gas/diesel engine.
Also let's not forget that Toyota has a well funded corporate program rewarding employees to spread anti-EV propaganda.
A theoretical battery that is not actively produced, let alone actually gone the distance…?
On the other side I can tell you at least SaaB has had a million mile ICE car, from 1989. There’s assuredly more than this.
> 1989 Saab 900 SPG - 1 Million Miles
https://www.saabplanet.com/1989-saab-900-spg-with-1-million-...
Tesla lets you use it all, which gets bigger range numbers (for a time) but at the cost of degradation, if you use it.
If you get maximum profit from the maximum social good, people will do that (or find a way to cheat); but as it stands, theres money to be made in not doing this and the consumer won’t care too much if its 9 years or 10 years that their car lasts, so its not hurting sales to not fix this (even if fixed perfectly, it would take 10 years to prove after all!).
I think I’m dreaming, the investment would have to be enormous, who wants to hold stock of so many batteries? Who will convince manufacturers to integrate standardised batter packs instead of the more profitable “built-in phone style” that is used today, and the automotive marketing machine is really strong and will (correctly) lean on the idea that by having the battery replaceable would require less rigid car bodies, so their current incentive would be to fight this initiative and they would probably lead with the safety angle.
The anti-EV propaganda already works pretty well with the very little it has to work with (farming batteries is harmful), so, imagine what they could do with something of actual substance.
Is that why EV sales have absolutely sky rocketed?
What free market?
it's 2026 now, you barely see bad days in Beijing, most people wear mask only for the flu, not for the air pollutions. basically its only a few days in winter. and just wait for the wind, it all goes away.
shutdown factory and move them to other places sure helps, but nobody will deny that adopt ev contributes a lot. i remeber the sales data for 2024 is nearly 45%+ of new cars are EV, and 2025 is 51.8%. i'm sure the number will go up and reach nearly 100%.
For example EVs depend on charging, so we're seeing more public charge points, as well as more home chargers, work chargers and so on.
ICE depends on gas stations (which is the tip of the gasoline distribution industry.) It also depends on ICE mechanics. As demand for those services drop off, so they'll become harder to find. (To be clear, that's not happening soon, there are a LOT of ICE cars out there...)
But 50 years from now most of that ICE infrastructure will have disappeared.
I'm guessing it will be already in 20-30 years from now. In 5-10 years from now, no-one will buy an ICE vehicle. Add to those 10 years a lifetime of 10-20 years for the last sold ICE vehicle and you get 20-30 years. So 20-30 years from today there will not be many ICE cars rolling on the streets and most gas stations and other needed infrastructure will be gone as it is not economical to stay in business.
But the replacement isn't random. Rather people who drive the most all already replaced their vehicles to minimize costs. Gas stations would, under just natural replacement, be down well below 50% of their former sales.
And that makes it worse. Gas is less conveniently available, and more expensive. Replacement isn't just targeted towards people who drive a lot, but it's well above replacement.
I'd be surprised if there was 10 years between the last mass marketed gas cars being sold and the entire mass market fleet of cars no longer using gas. The infrastructure becomes unprofitable and ceases to exist in a negative feedback loop.
Buc-ees these days has tons of rows of EV charging, often both Tesla and Mercedes brands. I imagine we'll see a similar thing with other brands.
It’s well known at this point, it’s always polluted in the winter yet summers are “fine”.
Overall, EVs are likely a net win on the combination of these two things, and a big win on exhaust emissions, but it would be nice if we could shift to lighter and smaller vehicles and increase the mix of non-cars such as e-bikes and mass transit.
Source: https://www.eiturbanmobility.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/4...
We know it is disingenuous because no one cares about this when discussing overweight trucks and SUVs. Good news about a reduction in pollution from EVs? Can't have that. It's like the "At what price" meme around headlines about China.
Going forward, I will downvote any comment about "brake pollution" and "tire pollution" that does not begin with - specifically - "This is a bigger issue for large, gas-powered trucks and SUVs", and invite you all to do so to. The association of these shitty comments with EV topics is as organic as lighter fluid.
The cybertruck clocks in at around the same weight as oversized trucks. Whenever I see people alone in either, I’m pretty annoyed.
Semis for long haul are also annoying and we should substantially increase rail infra in the US
I agree that discussing weight with regard to EVs, without acknowledging that (in the US) the fashion is for big heavy ICE cars is just as polluting is disingenuous.
That said, outside the US the trend is for smaller cars, and equally the weight of a small EV is not hugely dissimilar to a common ICE car.
Frankly I'm not sure there's a whole lot to say about tire dust- cars need tires. EVs generate less brake dust. If there's a tire dust discussion to be had, then that discussion is independent of the vehicle fuel source.
It's all well and good to have high-minded ideals of pure intellectual discussion, but in the real world, there are many people who are coming into the comments with a strong political agenda in mind, and are both willing and able to make disingenuous and bad-faith comments to support that agenda.
Presenting the increased tire dust of heavier vehicles as being an exclusive property of EVs—a bright-line differentiator between them and ICE cars—is disingenuous and misrepresents the facts. I think it's reasonable to say that makes it "add little to the discussion".
Out in the world there are common misconceptions which are propagated by vested interests and believed by many at first glance.
Having the opportunity to see those arguments, and rebuff them , (over and over again) is key to balancing the public discourse.
I agree, some argue in bad faith, that's going to be true in some cases. But I think most times it's honest misconceptions.
As a site policy, it cannot. If you demand that everyone coming there in good faith treat everyone else as also operating in good faith, even when they open with arguments that are very common when sealioning people, you are telling every troll, every bad actor, everyone paid by a massive corporation or a foreign government to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about particular political or economic positions that this site is ripe for their use.
I've seen far too many people even on here "just asking questions", or using the Gish Gallop, or other techniques of bad faith debate, to believe that it can possibly be a good idea to treat everyone as if they are good-faith rational actors seeking open debate for the sake of finding the truth.
If you're still not convinced, do some research on Brandolini's Law [0], also known as the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle. It really does take massively more effort to refute bullshit with truth than it does to spin bullshit everywhere.
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 an engine for harsh winter days, power outages, and you have 600 miles EPA range on gas for sudden road trips.
People are really sleeping on hybrids. Even a used non-plug-in Prius will get 50 city and 50 highway MPG. No gas sedan can do that.
Yes, EVs have a weight penalty of ~250-500kg of battery currently.
Battery technology is rapidly advancing, when Na-ion batteries are introduced more widely, the whole range anxiety issue will become moot, because a recharge will take as long as refueling an ICE vehicle.
The weight difference will also start to reduce, both due to newer batteries, but also moving to lighter weight construction and increased use of alternatives to steel.
Arguing for ICE technology in 2025 is like Blackberry/Nokia users complaining about the loss of keyboards & T9 texting.
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 emissions test again. PHEVs require keeping the gas engine up, and getting it emissions-tested.
A whole category of cost just straight-up disappeared, for cheaper than I could get a RAV4 Prime too.
Which unfortunately also increases tire wear from regen braking during periods when an ICE vehicle would be coasting without braking.
EVs are much (much much) better for CO2, much better for brake dust, and much worse for tire dust.
You don't stay at the zero point. It's an impossibly small target. This is not news to anyone who drives an EV and keeps an eye on the readout showing current power usage/regen.
EVs could coast if a manufacturer chose to make one that allowed that without shifting into neutral. In practice, when letting off the accelerator, existing EVs will instead regen brake.
Modern EVs have easy adjustment for this. The Hyundai/Kia EVs for example have shift style paddles for adjusting this on the fly which includes a mode for regen only when depressing the break pedal.
It's true though that using this mode will extend the life of your tires.
Next time you do this keep an eye on the actual power readout. See if it's actually zero or if it's reporting ~3kW of braking or accelerating.
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.
I'm aware. The point I'm making is that EVs apply more braking than ICE vehicles do, due to the specifics of the implementation of regen braking that all manufacturers have chosen.
> You can coast in EV as well
Not without literally putting it in neutral. If you just take your foot off the accelerator, any modern EV will apply some amount of regenerative braking. It's not really possible to hold the accelerator pedal at the exact position where you are not applying motor power but also have 0kW of regen braking, certainly for any extended period of time.
If your point is that someone could make an EV to which regen braking contributes no more to tire wear than an ICE vehicle, you're correct. Unfortunately, no such EVs are currently manufactured. Even the ones that allow you to "turn off" regen braking will generally apply 1-2kW of regen if your foot is off the accelerator.
Hyundai and Kia EVs have a 5 level setting for what happens when you lift up on the accelerator, either partially or fully.
At level 0 the regeneration is so low that I don't notice a difference between that and being in neutral. It slows down way less than an ICE does when not in neutral.
> If you just take your foot off the accelerator, any modern EV will apply some amount of regenerative braking. It's not really possible to hold the accelerator pedal at the exact position where you are not applying motor power but also have 0kW of regen braking, certainly for any extended period of time.
Tire wear is not a linear function of acceleration. Is there any reason to believe that variations from not being able to hold your foot perfectly steady, assuming you aren't have spasms, will be big enough and/or last long enough to make a non-trivial difference?
You can reduce the total braking force needed by extending the time, in which case aerodynamic forces and rolling resistance will contribute some more to the reduction in speed.
In an EV with one-pedal driving you can still stop quickly or slowly. In an ICE car you can stop slowly with more coasting or quickly with more braking force.
I don't see how the drivetrain is going to make a difference to the amount of braking needed to stop and thus force exerted on the tire. The added weight of most EVs would be the larger factor.
Here's a reference for you: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/07/elect...
But anyway, I find I drive differently with an EV. I don't let off the throttle unless I want to slow down. If I want to coast, I just reduce my throttle input to where its coasting.
Generally they do not allow you to turn it off.
In any case, what's the problem with having it very, very low vs off? Like, what do you really need coasting for? Not something I've felt I've been missing.
My main point is that most people don't turn it off. One pedal driving is convenient!
In a gas car that means the car is using the brakes and gas engine (obviously) but it’s a jarring experience compared to a BEV or hybrid. The regenerative braking and smooth acceleration are much more pleasant.
Regen is lossy, so there’s no incentive in slowing down to capture 1W just to speed up and spend 1.1W
Porsche has modes for coast and regen. Applying brakes in coast mode will use regen up to a threshold and then use conventional pad/rotor.
So I am sorry to inform you that you’re just wrong.
There are EVs that can coast.
EVs are not braking more.
Whether you use conventional brakes, engine braking, or regen braking, it’s all the same to the tires.
The reason to capture 1W and then spend 1.1W is it keeps you at a consistent speed. That's why manufacturers do it.
Lots of people in these comments who have never actually driven an EV while looking at the energy usage readout.
Personally I've never driven a Porsche but I've driven EVs from Nissan, Tesla, VW, Chevrolet, Kia, and Hyundai and they all do this.
So I am here to inform you that you are just wrong. There's no need to be sorry about educating someone, though, don't apologise next time :-)
The responses tend to be either "actually regen braking wears tires just as much as using brake rotors" by people who didn't actually read, or "surely manufacturers wouldn't do that, it doesn't match the mental model in my head" by people who've never paid close attention to the power readouts while driving an EV.
Your own response was "actually one manufacturer does have a setting that will avoid the effect if someone sets it, therefore the whole concept must be wrong".
Tire dust has been studied for decades and the most recent research I've seen suggests the issues are less concerning than previously estimated.
https://www.ch.cam.ac.uk/news/illusion-truth-surrounds-inacc...
Brake dust is significantly reduced by EVs:
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/electric-cars/running/do-electri...
> Even playgrounds are filled with shredded tires, which borders on biohazard.
They don't study it, but you're worried about it? I'm curious to know why these things in particular (brake dust and rubber tires) are on the radar.
(And a quick search shows that people do study this.)
It isn’t intuitive that they’d be better off, and they might be worse on this particular dimension.
This was discussed before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43672779
(saving a click)
We need to start taxing vehicles based on the damage they are responsible for. The 4th Power Law is a principle in road engineering that states that the damage a vehicle causes to a road surface is proportional to the fourth power of its axle load. This means that even small increases in axle load can cause exponentially greater damage to the road.
A Prius causes about 50,000 times more damage than a bicycle.
A truck causes 16 billion times more damage than a bicycle.
A truck causes 31,000 times more damage than a Prius.
The solution is to tax trucks 31,000 times more than cars. Improve walking/biking/trains/public transportation. Private cars should be a luxury which is made a necessity with zoning laws.
If instead those 80 passengers each drove alone in a Kia Niro EV it would be about 4 000 pounds each, so an axle weight of 2000, so the damage would be proportional to 160 x 2000^4 = 2.56 x 10^15.
That's 125 times less road damage than the bus!
Another interesting 4th power calculation is EV vs ICE. My car is available as an ICE, a hybrid, or an EV. I've got the EV which weighs more than the ICE.
Based on the 4th power law I should be doing about 40% more damage than I would if I had bought the lighter ICE model.
But wait! With the ICE model I'd need to regularly by gasoline, and that gasoline is delivered by a tanker truck. Tanker trucks, especially when they are traveling between wherever they load and wherever they unload, are very heavy.
I calculated what would happen in a hypothetical city where everyone drove the ICE version and then all switched to the EV version, and how many tanker truck gas deliveries that would eliminate. I don't remember the exact numbers but it was something like if mid sized tankers were used for gas delivery then if they had to drive more than a few miles from wherever they loaded up to wherever they unloaded the elimination of those trips by everyone switching to EV would reduce road damage by more than the damage caused by the EVs being heavier than the ICE cars.
Bzzzt. Wrong, unless you literally have a bus that goes from A to B without stopping. City buses do not carry "x passengers", they serve trips. An 80-passenger bus serves way more trips than 80 (though not on average of course), as people can freely get on and off at any time.
And of course, there are way more aspects of this problem than just road wear, parking space for one.
But sure, we absolutely should put buses on rail tracks!
I wasn't talking about passenger buses, because thats unlikely going to happen in US. Almost all of damage is done by 18-wheelers. A fully loaded 18-wheeler: 80,000 lb. Everytime a discussion comes on ICE vs EV, the fossil fuel proponents immediately jump to but EVs weigh more (debatable) and cause more damage. The damage they cause is insignificant compared to 18-wheelers. I'm not entirely sure if EVs weigh more either, maybe the earlier models did, but energy density keeps increasing. Also, there is no compelling reason to have 300+ mile range batteries when most of the trips are under 3 - 5 miles.
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!
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.
The actual root cause is over-centralization, where the only jobs worth having are concentrated in downtowns of a dwindling number of cities. These downtowns are always congested, and bike lanes are one way to make it more tolerable. But if you can afford an apartment, of course.
Bike lanes near Wall Street are an iconic example. If you're using them, then it's highly likely that you're a multi-millionaire. Or maybe you inherited a rent-controlled apartment.
Cars historically were a great equalizer. Sure, your CEO was likely driving a better car, and living in a better house. But they were stuck in the same traffic along with you. And this _was_ a factor when deciding on the next office location: "Hm. I really hate the commute, perhaps our next office should be in a bit less congested location?"
And this is reflected in actual research: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4938093/ - "For the USA, we observe an exponent βUSA ≈ 0 indicating that the density of jobs is independent from the skill level in the USA. For the UK and Denmark, we observe a non-zero exponent with βUK ≈ 1/2 for the UK and a larger value for Denmark βDK ≈ 0.8. These results indicate that the density of jobs decreases with the skill level, more in Denmark than in the UK."
> Cars historically were a great equalizer.
I suppose we'll agree to disagree on this one, there's like a bajillion books that assert the opposite so I will let those and the intertubes do the talking.
As it relates to the study, I'm a little confused how it relates to the above discussion. Is this a good or bad thing to have density of jobs relate to skill level? Wouldn't the historic development of these cities with thousands of years of human civilization in Europe vs. relatively recently developed US cities be a confounding factor in exploring land use patterns?
Yes, I should have mentioned that I specifically meant people using bike lanes for commutes. Bike lanes for work or for recreation are a totally different story, and I have nothing against them.
However, in this case it still reinforces my point: delivery by bike is a luxury good. It still is something that makes living in an utterly unaffordable area more bearable for people who have money.
> I suppose we'll agree to disagree on this one, there's like a bajillion books that assert the opposite so I will let those and the intertubes do the talking.
I'm actually not saying anything that is not an accepted fact in urbanism.
> As it relates to the study, I'm a little confused how it relates to the above discussion. Is this a good or bad thing to have density of jobs relate to skill level?
No, it's not good. This means that good jobs force people to move closer to the centers of their concentration. This automatically reduces opportunities for other people.
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.
When I am going to take my son to school, he doesn't have to smell the gas and the fumes from the exhaust in the garage.
Even if the idea doesn't outright gain traction, enough insistence will shift the overton window.
Still in favor of EVs, just a curiosity that this is so negative for you.
Plenty of people like cigarettes and opium too, that doesn't mean you want your kid exposed to the smoke.
The auto industry seems to have ran out of early adopters already. Now they need a kick in the privates to make cheap EVs.
Also, someone who doesn't think in SV lattes may not afford to buy a car with unknown reliability.
This dynamic might not hold as consistently with used cars but it’s not entirely eliminated, either.
Compare the same category of car in gasoline and EV versions. See how the EV adds 10k to the price.
Not much by silicon valley latte standards of course. A lot by "i can barely afford a barebones renault" standards though.
Compare the same category of car in gasoline and EV versions.
Plus how much is the EV version of a 60k usd truck? 75k? More?
1) Byproducts from combustion (like soot and nitrogen oxides). Only ICE produce these, EVs don't
2) Break abrasion. EVs tend to do better, because they can do most of their breaking through the motor and recuperate a part of the energy
2) Tire abrasion. EVs tend to do worse here, because they tend to be heavier.
So yes, EVs aren't a panacea, but overall on the topic of air pollution, they score much better than ICEs.
https://www.ch.cam.ac.uk/news/illusion-truth-surrounds-inacc...
Even if the pollution is identical, moving it from where everyone lives and works over to more isolated areas where power plants are would still be a big benefit.
We know EVs are cleaner than that. And when the pollution is centralized in one power plant it’s also more economically feasible to apply filtration or particle capture isn’t it?
Nitrogen pollution is usually reasonably local to the plant but also can be srubbed. Its not practical to scrub moving objects, but it is for stationary generators.
Same with particulates, you can capture quite a lot with electrostatic scrubbers.
BUT I don't think switching to EVs will help reduce CO2 in any way - not even if all the EVs are charged using 100% solar/wind. The narrative usually is "I get an EV instead of an ICE, charge it with regenerative energy and have 0 emissions, thus not burning oil and saving on CO2".
But that is not how a globalized world with free markets works. In order to save on CO2, we would need to keep that oil not burned by the EV underground, but that does not take place. The market reality is that oil price will just drop with less demand from ICE vehicles. But with falling prices, other business models that require refined oil will become viable and the oil is still burned - just somewhere else. No one so far has made a good argument why the Saudis or Russians would leave their ressources underground, just because demand from ICE vehicles drop.
Having said that, the path being taken in some countries to remove ICE is simply pushing large swathes of the population out of the car market. I don't support that, although I'm sure there are many people who do.
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 countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia have a very high incentive to keep extracting oil and sell it, because their economy relies on it.
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 population. Do you think that if you were selling buggy whips for $0.05 each, you'd be able to make a profit on them today? Of course not, because people don't need them. You'd barely sell any, and those purely as a novelty.
While there's still a lot of work to do to make it fully possible, and certain political groups are actively working against it, the world at large recognizes that getting off of fossil fuels is an important goal. Demand for oil is going to continue to drop—maybe not monotonically, but overall—regardless of what the price of oil does.
The only downside is that traffic creates a lot of pollution, and the engine noise (not honking, there's very little of that) is so bad that you need to yell to a person standing next to you to have a conversation.
As a visitor, I can't claim to know how to fix the problems facing locals, however I can't help but feel that urban centers would be 1000x better with mass adoption of EVs (bikes, cars). I have seen a spike in the number of Chinese EVs across the city - however I'm aware that economic pressures prevent mass adoption by the majority of the road-users
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.
I think tier 1 Chinese cities are in a league of their own though. It's a shame it's so difficult to stay there for a prolonged period of time as a foreigner.
Thailand strikes a good balance of accessibility and development - that said I certainly agree that there are noticeable signs of it being a developing country. Still better than Sydney on balance though.
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 entirely devoid of skyways.
This is the nature of growth. One grows then dies as one fossilizes. The next one grows past but no one will ever reinvent themselves.
This is why death is crucial to improvement.
Bangkok just built a new metro line and are currently developing a high speed train from Malaysia to Vietnam, which would eventually lead to a train from Singapore to China.
Australia can't even build a functioning train to the outer city suburbs, let alone between major cities
I agree it seems hard in NYC, SF, etc but other cities have added transit
Really step back and imagine a world where the modern EV [1] was first to market and a gasoline combustion engine was second.
Who would actually decide to switch from a modern EV to gasoline on purpose of their own choice?
The downsides of gasoline cars are actually pretty crazy: complicated engines and transmissions with heavy maintenance schedules, emissions, more NVH, worse interior space and packaging, need to wait for HVAC rather than it being ready ahead of time, need to go to a special gas station to add fuel, worse/slower performance.
You would have this laundry list of downsides and your only potential plus sides are faster fueling on road trips over 4 hours long, lower curb weight, and lower cost.
And those three minor down sides are very likely to be resolved sometime within the next 10-20 years.
[1] Not talking about Baker Electric type of stuff that was quickly surpassed by internal combustion of its day
I drive a Polestar 2, and someone asked if it was my favorite car I've owned. And I said, no that's a Mazda 3 hatchback... 6-speed manual. Lovely vehicle to drive. Economical, but luxurious for the price. Very practical, too.
But... if you asked me if I'd go from the Polestar 2 back to the Mazda 3? I'd say no. I'll keep the electric. Of course it's not a fair comparison... one had an MSRP of $27k and the other $67k. One has 186HP and the other 476HP (and all-wheel drive).
One had a lot of routine maintenance of the engine, while the other has needed wiper blades and tires. And one requires standing outside in 10° F days like today pumping gas, while the other one is charging in my garage (and warms up the cabin from the press of a button on my phone.)
The Mazda 3 was more of a driver's car, and if I had bought either new, it would be a very different equation. (I bought the 3 w/ 8K miles on it for $20k; I bought the Polestar w/ 20K miles on it for $29K.) The Mazda 3 has a vastly better interface - better auto-dimming headlights, tons of buttons for climate, stereo, etc.
But the Polestar 2 is the one I would rather be driving... for now. (I just hope more "driver's car" electric options come to our shores.)
I periodically have to stop and think about how annoying it might be in city driving with the constant stop and go.
But someday I might buy myself a little shitbox with a manual that I can park on the street, maybe a Fiat 500 or something.
In the 1920s, a lot of auto startups had a unique idea. Then they got crushed by Henry Ford's and GM's production lines. And then the depression.
The Model T was a farm car. 50% of the population lived in rural areas, and they didn't have electricity. There was a market for an urban electric short-range car, it just didn't hit the economy of scale at the right time. But not because it was a bad idea.
https://www.thehenryford.org/collections-and-research/digita...
I travel monthly through rural parts of the US where EVs really don't make sense. I get the most people on HN live in suburbs/cities, but there's a lot of stuff that happens in the rural parts of the country that absolutely demands ICE vehicles. Yes the population of people out there is much smaller, but if you've ever spent serious times in these parts of the country you'd realize petroleum runs everything.
Even in a world where electric vehicles came first this would still be the case.
But today we’ve got basically the opposite.
I would disagree with the idea that petroleum would run everything out there if EVs came first but I won’t argue that point super hard with you. I can see and understand how petroleum is a lifeline for things like oil heat, generators, etc.
Still, batteries are very well-suited to off-grid usage, and EV batteries can even power your house for a week or more in the event of a power outage. Let’s not forget that solar panels exist.
There are entire islands that have switched from imported diesel fuel power generation to grid scale solar+battery and they have had a great deal of cost savings and reliability benefits.
Plus now you have problems moving tonnes of food, water, ammunition on BEV vehicles that no longer have reliable charging access. Being unable to supply your military is more or less a death knell for any fighting force.
Even setting aviation aside, a lot of the reason why gas engines were adopted was because agriculture was among the first to do so, they were less finicky then ox and horses. Rural areas didn't have access to electricity like cities did at the time though; It was a lot easier to have a tin of whatever liquid fuel (gasoline was a byproduct of kerosone production at the time).
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 wars for oil would be avoided if there wasn’t a widespread dependency on cheap oil? If the gas price ever goes above $5-7/gallon in America it basically triggers a recession.
.... 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 like a future time when we've got fast chargers everwhere with no need for an app, and at home charging is common which makes BEV's 80% of the market? Sure that makes sense. Probably it's going reality by 2040 or so.
But for me right now, as is, I'd probably still sticking to ICE, or MHEV engines for a while. No easy access to home charging, and I don't have data on my phone which makes fast charging way more complicated. And I don't drive enough KM in a year to make break even point in costs reasonable.
And I've test driven BEVs and I could afford to buy a BEV. The advantages don't outweigh the drawbacks in my situation at least, and there wasn't enough there for me to want to just put objectivity aside.
Battery technology was significantly much worse. Lithium batteries were only discovered in the ‘70s.
Gas engines were far more polluting but way less complex in 1910.
Recall that my hypothetical is “modern EVs” not pre-lithium EVs.
Anyone who likes the sensations of driving and not just going fast in a straight line. When you show me the equivalent of an EV Lotus Elise, I'll be properly swayed.
Enthusiast vehicles are disappearing in the middle class segment of the market. Where are the Mitsubishi Eclipse, Toyota Celica, Toyota MR2, Chevrolet Camaro, Z4/Supra getting discontinued, Focus RS, Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution, the list goes on? The Nissan Z was just updated but sales have been abysmal. The only survivors seem to be the Mustang and the MX-5, and Dodge is busy screwing up the Challenger’s replacement Charger model.
Super expensive cars like the Lotus Elise are irrelevant to the broader market.
Look at the (p)reviews of the upcoming Porsche Cayenne EV. It’s the best Cayenne ever made. I think the Porsche Taycan and the Lucid Air Sapphire are fun to drive, competent performance vehicles. Even the Ioniq 5 N is a great time.
There are a number of electric supercars and hypercars on the market: https://www.roadandtrack.com/rankings/g45639363/best-electri...
I was in the market for a new car in 2024. Thought seriously about a few electric options but opted for another ICE vehicle because 2025/2026 are years of many road trips, and the issue that kept coming up for me was "can I just pull off any random highway and refill my car in a few minutes?"
Unfortunately for the environment I guess, I prefer not being forced to strictly plan my trips around distance and availability and speed of chargers. I can go pretty much anywhere in North America and be reasonably certain there's a gas station just off any highway, let alone an interstate.
"Oh, do the kids need to use the bathroom ASAP? Might as well fill up a quarter tank while we're there" opportunities would also vanish.
And even if charging stations were magically placed across the country to match gas stations, there'd still be the "time to charge" problem.
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, timing belts, gearbox. No oil changes. A quieter ride, especially nice on a road trip.
> 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 see how much I like this. I can say that this is pretty much not a hassle for me with my ICE car - over the last 20+ years. But then I tend to buy reliable cars and didn't fall for the manufactured "3 months or 3000 miles" rule.
I keep track of all my costs. I average about $500 a year in maintenance (includes tires, oil changes, brakes, etc). I just checked with the insurance company - the increase in my annual premiums for the EV car I'm looking at is $400 more than if I got an equivalent ICE car. And one still needs to change tires, etc on an EV. So the repair/maintenance savings aren't there.
500$ a year is very little for any car, but I opened a Nissan leaf for 8 years and spent less that 2K, of which 1K was for the AC
I'm not so sure. The issue is two-fold: First, If you get into an accident and you're at fault, the average damage is a lot more than with an ICE, due to the much heavier weight. Second, compared to an ICE, just about any repair is a lot more expensive. If some of the battery gets damaged, that's crazy expensive. There's also not a good ecosystem for parts - they are more expensive and less modular than with an ICE (or so I'm told).
It apparently is a lot more common for EVs to be declared a total loss compared to an ICE just because of the expense to repair.
> 500$ a year is very little for any car
This is over 3 different cars. And all of them very old (I bought two of them when they were 8 years old, and another when it was 15 years old - still driving that last one).
About $80/year for oil changes. That's it. Then every once in a while there is an expensive repair (brakes, tires, some engine problem, etc). Doesn't happen every year - so the average comes out to $500.
I also don't go to the official dealers. Everything is more expensive with them.
And yeah, the cars are old, so few electronic parts to repair. I imagine if I get another 8 year old ICE, the annual cost to repair will be more just due to the extra safety systems that can go wrong.
> but I opened a Nissan leaf for 8 years and spent less that 2K, of which 1K was for the AC
Leafs are the best case scenario. They're small, not heavy, and thus don't have much tire wear.
To be honest, the bigger barrier I see is around political will to charge the true social cost of gasoline.
Some nonprofits think the true cost of burning gas is $10-15/gallon. If filling up with gas cost $250 and charging an EV was 85% cheaper, I’d be willing to wait 30 minutes for an occasional charge.
Chinese cars are a "better deal" because they give more bang for the buck. Japanese cars, on the other hand, are very "stingy" due to decades of near monopoly.
[0] https://www.yamato-hd.co.jp/news/2023/newsrelease_20230912_1...
[1] https://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/jp/newsroom/newsrelease/20...
Electric seems like a pretty clear winner now.
And the semi is such vaporware that I forgot it was even a thing.
Standing near the average car isn’t that bad at all. EVs are way better, but it’s not that bad.
But stand near a car that has some sort of exhaust problem or isn’t burning fuel correctly and it’s bad. Just horrible to breathe.
I’ve found cabin air filters either activated carbon help immensely. I started buying them on someone’s recommendation but I had no idea how much they affected things.
I’ve driven on brand new asphalt and not noticed the smell. I’ve been behind horrible cars and I don’t notice a thing, unless I put my window down and then it suddenly hits me.
All of a sudden lately I’m smelling the terrible cars again. Time to change the filter.
That won't happen until they design a normal truck. The Lightning sold more than the CT and it still ended up getting canceled(ish). It isn't going to be Tesla that does it, it will probably be someone else, and the driving factor is battery capacity. We've got a ways to go yet. It would help to have 400+ kWh batteries and megawatt chargers.
At current prices, the standard range battery in a Lightning (which is nominally about 107kWh or so) should cost under $10K. They will not be able to shrink the battery enough to offset the cost of putting in an engine and generator. For one, they have to stay competitive with the Dodge EREV pickup, which will have a ~90kWh battery.
My guess is they leave out one or two modules from the standard range pack and price the truck starting at $70K. They won't make a ton of money, but they might be able to get a nice boost in volume to make up for it.
Although to be fair new ICE cars are also a luxury item. Most people can only buy used ICE cars these days
A few cars from Stellantis that are available in ICE and EV variants are now actually cheaper in the EV variant. This reflects the reality that batteries are now cheap and EVs don't have a lot of moving parts. So, they should be easier and cheaper to assemble. That's a trend that is spreading across all price segments in the next few years. Driven by component and cheap battery availability.
Used EVs are widely available now as well. You can get some amazing deals on cars that mostly still have their drive trains + batteries under warranty. Lots of cars coming out of lease programs are sold on second hand. EVs have been very popular for car leasing for the last 6-7 years now. These are mostly still the relatively expensive models from a few years ago.
The cheap EVs that are now on the market will inevitably start penetrating the second hand market in larger and larger numbers. Cheap ICE cars are disappearing rapidly from the market as models are being discontinued by manufacturers and as the market shares for ICE vehicles keep on shrinking. That means they'll also start getting more scarce in the second hand market in a few years. You'll still be able to get your Ford Fiesta. But it will be a model from before it was discontinued a few years ago. Or the new electric model that they are rumored to launch soonish.
You are making my point. Most folk can’t afford that for transportation. 10k is already a stretch.
This is still a net positive even in poorer countries. If you can't afford a new car, you buy as close to a new car as you can afford. The newer the car is, the higher the EURO standard is that it had to abide by when it was sold brand-new, achieving the same result of reducing pollution.
I live in one of those poorer ones where most people can't afford new cars, but even if you can, the percentage of brand-new ICE cars that are even available for purchasing is going down pretty fast in recent years. So those better off are slowly being pushed towards EVs (or at least hybrids), and the vast majority of others still relies on importing like 15 years old second-hand cars (EURO 5 standard) to replace their 25yo cars (EURO 3 standard). In the capital, cars below EURO 4 are even banned when air pollution gets really bad, but the vast majority doesn't even realise this rule exists because their cars are now EURO 4 or above.
Unless you spend upwards of 40% of your battery daily, you'll be good.
If you own a parking spot in your apartment complex, and depending on your jurisdiction, you can install your own charger.
You also don't have a gas station inside your apartment. Depending on which car you get, you could go charge it to charging station. I'm not saying this is instant process.
From an air pollution perspective you are much better off a half mile from 10 jets taking off, than you are surrounded by a hundred idling gasoline cars.
It's not a hard sell: no more oil changes, no more annual emissions-testing bill, no transmission to ever worry about, and a massive chunk of storage under the hood where the gas engine would be – plus a bunch of outlets all over for powering or charging tools. When I then tell them that I spend about $30/month on charging the thing (at home) compared to my former gas budget of ~$150-200/month, it becomes even more of a no-brainer.
And none of this has anything to do with climate change. It's just plain and simple practicality.
They tend to ask about range. I get around 300 miles on a full charge when road-tripping, and Buc-ees has some pretty cheap chargers (still cheaper than gas would be) that get me back on the road in about the time it takes me to use the bathroom, grab and eat some brisket, and change the baby's diaper. I've done some shortish road-trips a few times now, and not had any problems. I've got some longer ones planned this year, now that I know that I can find chargers along the way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
It also simply moves the pollution to places like Africa where the extremely dirty lithium mining is externalized away from wealthy westerners.
Environmental externalization.
A Tesla 3 and a BMW 3 are about the same weight.
Most cars are far too heavy and should be made lighter. Only Mazda seems to understand this and that's why the Mazda SUVs/sedans are by far the best driving vehicles in their class.
As your wikipedia link indicates, any road that is designed for lorry use should be able to take heavy sedans all day and not be worse for wear:
> Therefore, the resulting stress difference between truck and car is 15,000 to 1.
> Next, the research team obtained data from the Tropospheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI), a high-resolution satellite sensor that provides daily, global measurements of NO₂ and other pollutants. They used this data to calculate annual average NO₂ levels in each California neighborhood from 2019 to 2023.
> Over the study period, a typical neighborhood gained 272 ZEVs, with most neighborhoods adding between 18 and 839. For every 200 new ZEVs registered, NO₂ levels dropped 1.1%, a measurable improvement in air quality.
Seems pretty clear to me that that's controlled for.
But what about the use and abuse and shredding of tyres?
One problem they are experiencing is rust and glazing on the pads from disuse.
They are heavier than the equivalent sized ICE so have more tire wear, but dont have to be that large in an absolute sense. Most are large luxury cars.
One pedal drive can still use the brake pads, regen braking is what saves brake usage regardless of one pedal drive being on or not.
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.
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.
https://grist.org/transportation/electric-vehicles-are-a-cli...
https://caltrout.org/news/did-you-know-your-cars-tires-could...
1: Yes, let's stick with ICE cars and die of preventable illnesses because EVs are only a massive improvement, rather than absolute perfection
2: Hey let's take this massive improvement and enjoy enormously cleaner air
I meet way too many people from group 1 unfortunately.
https://www.ch.cam.ac.uk/news/illusion-truth-surrounds-inacc...
Oil not used in ICE cars is just used someplace else.
Electric cars are great for the city/suburbs but don't really make a dent in the larger resource usage issues facing us.
That's simply not true. Oil used someplace else would have been used someplace else either way.
There is a supply/demand effect where reduced oil demand would lower its price and therefore arrest the loss of oil demand from cars by other consumers of oil, but the net effect would still be that less oil is burned and used.
Most of the world is priced out of purchasing oil.
When the price declines those people can (and do) buy the oil westerners aren't using.
But don't trust me, here's the data.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fossil-fuel-primary-energ...
You're missing that the supply drops as well since it is not economical to produce the same amount of oil as before at a lower price.
As long as the supply curve does not change (and nothing about EV usage changes the supply side here), a reduction in demand leads to lower consumption.
Edit: And in addition, your chart doesn't show anything like you purport it to show. By your claim, oil consumption by non-Western countries should have been drastically higher in 2000-2007 when oil prices were lower than they are today. Yet the opposite is true.
Oil consumption is up over time, including in non-Western countries, but that was driven by organic changes in demand, not changes in supply. Switching to EVs would act as a reduction in demand and therefore reduce overall oil usage, at least as compared to a world where vehicle transport required ICE vehicles.
I'd like to see the same attention being given to plastics (so much single-use crap and how much of it can be recycled?), synthetic clothing, and all kinds of other chemicals including the ones we put in ourselves (pharma, food) and the environment, like fertilizers or the byproducts of mining today's fashionable minerals like lithium. Not to mention the explosion in electromagnetic frequencies activity, which somehow is taken as normal and ok by the same scientific establishment which accepts thousands(?) of fake papers every year for publication. You just have to love the irony when something like Science is deemed 'settled'-- in that regard, it's almost as if we went back a few centuries.
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. And don't take from this that I love oil. I find fracking to be abominable and another big factor in polluting the land and the water tables.
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 planet", whatever you think that means
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 just snarky and done in bad faith. If I didn't care would I have posted it, already antecipating the downvotes?
We humans got where we are much due to technology, but we have to start thinking seriously where we go from here or there won't be land or water (or air?) that isn't polluted by something the planet is not well equiped to process. Have you read on the kind of places that microplastics have been found already? In the human body?
There's always been oscilations, true, but the rate o change and trend on those oscilations is the real issue.
More details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
Here is at least something tangible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surface_temperature#Glo...
On this page can be found the following graphic https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/EP...
On that graphic -- under the heading 'Ice cores (from 800,000 years before present)' in case the link gets truncated -- one can observe regular peaks in temperature that took place before the current one. I'm happy to be explained what caused them, as it could not have been human industrial activity.
That's it. I'm open to dialogue but won't entertain any more lazy dismissals and unfair characterization.
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 come.