Electric car sales drive toward cleaner air, less mortality(news.cornell.edu)
news.cornell.edu
Electric car sales drive toward cleaner air, less mortality
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2022/12/electric-car-sales-drive-toward-cleaner-air-less-mortality
11 comments
> Electric cars certainly reduce particulate emissions a lot further, but tire and break wear has become a significant part of particulate emissions.
Doesn't regenerative braking reduce both tire and brake wear?
Doesn't regenerative braking reduce both tire and brake wear?
Brake yes, I don't see how it would help tire wear (assuming you slow down at the same speed). Electric cars typically have higher tire wear because of the increased weight + typically higher torque/acceleration.
https://www.nokiantyres.com/company/news-article/there-is-a-...
> Tires on a modern electric car will wear down much slower than in a car with a traditional internal combustion engine. This is due to good traction control. The driver assist systems reduce slipping by utilizing the electric motor's rapid power adjustment. This system is much quicker than in ICE vehicles, where it is based on braking and limiting engine RPM, Liukkula says.
I dunno if anyone's done a good scientific study on this.
> Tires on a modern electric car will wear down much slower than in a car with a traditional internal combustion engine. This is due to good traction control. The driver assist systems reduce slipping by utilizing the electric motor's rapid power adjustment. This system is much quicker than in ICE vehicles, where it is based on braking and limiting engine RPM, Liukkula says.
I dunno if anyone's done a good scientific study on this.
This was, in my experience, not true. Ask most Tesla owners as well.
The heavier car + much better acceleration created more tire wear than any improvements to traction control from faster power response (though I'm not sure intrinsically why that would reduce wear - ICE cars can apply brakes to a slipping tire just as well as an EV, and instant torque doesn't feel like it would do anything positive for tire wear).
Fitting lower rolling resistance tires on ICE cars would provide any of the same benefits that EVs receive.
The heavier car + much better acceleration created more tire wear than any improvements to traction control from faster power response (though I'm not sure intrinsically why that would reduce wear - ICE cars can apply brakes to a slipping tire just as well as an EV, and instant torque doesn't feel like it would do anything positive for tire wear).
Fitting lower rolling resistance tires on ICE cars would provide any of the same benefits that EVs receive.
Part of the issue is that modern run-flat tires have stupidly low lifespans, like 20K miles. I have a Tesla and opted for non-run-flats with my latest change and I don't think my tires wear any faster than other cars I've had.
Tesla != EV. My Ford Focus EV, while having annoyingly skinny tires have lasted 60k mi and 5+ years. It's no slouch and I'm a lead-foot.
That Tesla is pushing run-flats may be why they wear out so ridiculously fast.
That Tesla is pushing run-flats may be why they wear out so ridiculously fast.
> This was, in my experience, not true. Ask most Tesla owners as well.
I suspect "ludicrous mode" will be less likely in semis. Truckers have a pretty good incentive to maximize cost savings; they don't need crazy acceleration like a high-end consumer sedan might want.
I suspect "ludicrous mode" will be less likely in semis. Truckers have a pretty good incentive to maximize cost savings; they don't need crazy acceleration like a high-end consumer sedan might want.
Sure, it helps. However not only are EVs heavier, but there's a significant incentive to use narrow tires (for the weight) to increase efficiency and range.
As a result, while not skidding, it's easy to accelerate, brake, or decelerate enough to scrub the tires hard enough to wear quickly.
It's pretty well known that Teslas are hard on tires. One benefit is I rarely use brakes instead of regenerative braking. Having AWD does seem to help on that front.
As a result, while not skidding, it's easy to accelerate, brake, or decelerate enough to scrub the tires hard enough to wear quickly.
It's pretty well known that Teslas are hard on tires. One benefit is I rarely use brakes instead of regenerative braking. Having AWD does seem to help on that front.
Spinning the tires will obviously accelerate wear, but I don't think that's the source of most of the tire wear we see in the wild. Spinning the tires isn't all that common, but tires still wear down.
In addition to this, people are aware of the existence of regenerative braking, and that it works better when decelerating less aggressively, so they do. Which puts less wear on the tires.
Sounds like shit to me.
How much time do you spend spinning your tyres and braking so hard you skid?
How much time do you spend spinning your tyres and braking so hard you skid?
The tires cannot generate any longitudinal acceleration with zero slippage. This slippage is what causes wear. (As a driver, though you perceive there to be zero slippage without wheelspin or sliding the tires, there is slippage between the road and tire anytime the tire is exerting a longitudinal force on roadway.)
You don't have to fully skid the thing to see a benefit from better control over the breaking process.
From the skid marks I've seen on the highway, rare skids seem to pull off a significant amount of rubber in one incident.
From the skid marks I've seen on the highway, rare skids seem to pull off a significant amount of rubber in one incident.
[deleted]
Anecdotal evidence: I regularly manage to (unintentionally) spin the wheels in a petrol car, but I have never managed to do it in an electric car yet, despite trying out the full acceleration. So while the torque is undeniably greater, apparently the motor management control is also better, so it can deliver maximum acceleration without increased tire wear - at least in the electric cars I have been driving (mostly BMW i3).
Absolutely. I have an EV that has an "aggressive regenerative braking" setting where pulling your foot off the accelerator slows the car considerably. In that setting I almost never touch the brake.
Putting your foot on the brake pedal has almost nothing to do with whether the friction brake is engaged in an EV or hybrid. A computer decides when and how much to pressurize the friction brakes.
That's true, but my point is that, at least in my car, taking your foot off of the accelerator does not ever engage the friction brakes, and when I drive it's nearly 100% "one pedal driving".
What you're saying, that when you do press the brakes that a computer decides how much to apply regen vs friction, is true, but again, my point is that I don't touch the brakes.
What you're saying, that when you do press the brakes that a computer decides how much to apply regen vs friction, is true, but again, my point is that I don't touch the brakes.
Depends on the car, the Tesla default setting is not use brakes when you life the throttle or use regeneration when you hit the brake. This lets you control how you slow down, which makes it easier to be nearly 100% regenerated.
Quick google says regenerative breaking has ~65% efficiency at energy recovery, but that includes the 10-20% lost when converting stored energy back into kinetic energy.
So it sounds like regenerative breaking would covert ~75%-85% of kinetic energy into stored chemical energy. I'd expect to see similar reduction in tire and brake wear as well, maybe even more it probably depends on how break dust is generated, if it has a curve where more is generated with greater breaking force applied, by dropping the force on a break pad to 15% of it's previous value we might see an even greater reduction.
This is all speculation though, I am not a physicist.
So it sounds like regenerative breaking would covert ~75%-85% of kinetic energy into stored chemical energy. I'd expect to see similar reduction in tire and brake wear as well, maybe even more it probably depends on how break dust is generated, if it has a curve where more is generated with greater breaking force applied, by dropping the force on a break pad to 15% of it's previous value we might see an even greater reduction.
This is all speculation though, I am not a physicist.
The energy efficiency of turning regenerative braking into energy isn’t really related to how regenerative braking can fully stop a vehicle without using the brake pads. Even if the regenerative braking energy efficiency were 1% - if it fully stops the car without using a brake pad that entire wear & tear (& dust) goes away.
Thanks for pointing this out. Many arguments here are about regenerative braking - which does not the address the issue of tire wear.
Regenerative braking will reduce brake pad wear since part of the power otherwise dissipated as braking friction between pad and disc/drum is captured by the motor/generator, converted to electrical power and stored.
Tire wear should be unaffected provided the e-car has a "freewheeling" feature whereby braking is not applied unless the driver hits a brake pedal. If the e-car is set to always run in a regenerative braking mode (brake goes on if driver eases off the "gas" pedal) then the braking will actually increase tire wear.
Tire wear should be unaffected provided the e-car has a "freewheeling" feature whereby braking is not applied unless the driver hits a brake pedal. If the e-car is set to always run in a regenerative braking mode (brake goes on if driver eases off the "gas" pedal) then the braking will actually increase tire wear.
Brakes certainly, but all motion still needs to be stopped through friction against the ground. EVs are significantly heavier for the time being, so if anything they have greater wear on tires all else equal.
Some EVs are significantly heavier, but it's not all doom and gloom. Doesn't a basic Model 3 tip the scales at about 3500 pounds or so (maybe it went up a bit for the LFP version)? That's pretty much par for the course in a car that size. Heck, a Mustang GT weighs more than that.
The Nissan LEAF and Versa are substantially equivalent cars, one BEV and one ICE.
The LEAF curb weight is 3,516 to 3,919 lbs, while the Versa is 2,599 to 2,729 lbs
At the midpoint, the LEAF is over 1000lbs or about 40% heavier.
The LEAF curb weight is 3,516 to 3,919 lbs, while the Versa is 2,599 to 2,729 lbs
At the midpoint, the LEAF is over 1000lbs or about 40% heavier.
No wonder Nissan is ditching the Leaf in favor of a ground-up EV design.
Nissan Ariya (all new, ground-up EV): 4771# (2WD) - 5055# (AWD).
Nissan Rogue (similar sized ICE): 3457# (2WD S) - 3713# (Platinum AWD)
1328 lbs, 37% more.
Nissan Rogue (similar sized ICE): 3457# (2WD S) - 3713# (Platinum AWD)
1328 lbs, 37% more.
data from an unknown reliability source has EVs about 8% heavier.
2020 Tesla Model 3 = 1584 kg curb weight [1]
2019 BMW 320i = 1470 kg curb weight [2]
[1] https://www.cars-data.com/en/tesla-model-3-standard-range-pl...
[2] https://www.cars-data.com/en/bmw-320i-specs/80498
2020 Tesla Model 3 = 1584 kg curb weight [1]
2019 BMW 320i = 1470 kg curb weight [2]
[1] https://www.cars-data.com/en/tesla-model-3-standard-range-pl...
[2] https://www.cars-data.com/en/bmw-320i-specs/80498
I could believe 10%. It's not an easy apples to apples comparison, of course, because even a basic RWD Model 3 is considerably higher performance than a base model 320i. We may just have to accept that, however, since it's too easy to make EVs a lot faster than ICEVs at the same price point.
> but all motion still needs to be stopped through friction against the ground
But that's not really true, either with an EV with regen braking or standard brakes. With standard brakes, it's the friction and heat at the brake pads that causes deceleration. With regen braking, the energy of deceleration is going to charge the batteries.
But that's not really true, either with an EV with regen braking or standard brakes. With standard brakes, it's the friction and heat at the brake pads that causes deceleration. With regen braking, the energy of deceleration is going to charge the batteries.
In both cases you need traction and tire wear to slow down. The tires don't care if it's brake pads getting hot or batteries being charged to accomplish it.
Is that true though? Energy has to go somewhere, but if you store a large part of that energy into batteries, doesn't that take away from what you have to expend on friction with the road?
After all, energy can't be created or destroyed. So if you're storing it in batteries, it's coming out of your forward momentum.
After all, energy can't be created or destroyed. So if you're storing it in batteries, it's coming out of your forward momentum.
> Is that true though?
100%. Brakes do not stop a car, tires do. Brakes just manage the energy. Putting it back into a battery so it can be used to accelerate again is great, but it's still the tires stopping the car.
100%. Brakes do not stop a car, tires do. Brakes just manage the energy. Putting it back into a battery so it can be used to accelerate again is great, but it's still the tires stopping the car.
Brakes _do_ stop a car. You're converting energy of motion into heat. That is not the tires doing that. You are not transferring significant amounts of energy into the road or into heating up the tires.
Now in the case of regenerative braking, the losses from the charging do also dissipate the energy, but most of it goes back into the battery to be used for driving which, over time, is transferred into the tires and the air.
It's important to remember that ideal wheels are not actually moving with respect to the surface they roll over. From the tire's perspective the road is not moving in any direction other than up and down, repeatedly touching the tire and then not touching it again at different points. As long as you maintain static friction when braking and don't start skidding, for ideal wheels, you're not transferring any energy to the tire or to the road.
Now, real tires are not ideal wheels so there's some differences, but those are minor components compared to the majority of energy being dissipated in charging the battery or into heating up/wearing down brakes. And indeed when driving, the majority of loss of energy is from air resistance, not the tires.
Now in the case of regenerative braking, the losses from the charging do also dissipate the energy, but most of it goes back into the battery to be used for driving which, over time, is transferred into the tires and the air.
It's important to remember that ideal wheels are not actually moving with respect to the surface they roll over. From the tire's perspective the road is not moving in any direction other than up and down, repeatedly touching the tire and then not touching it again at different points. As long as you maintain static friction when braking and don't start skidding, for ideal wheels, you're not transferring any energy to the tire or to the road.
Now, real tires are not ideal wheels so there's some differences, but those are minor components compared to the majority of energy being dissipated in charging the battery or into heating up/wearing down brakes. And indeed when driving, the majority of loss of energy is from air resistance, not the tires.
> Brakes _do_ stop a car.
Sure, from a lay perspective. Though I stop my car routinely without ever touching the brakes. Even my gas car does a non-trivial amount of braking without using friction pads. But the point stands. Brakes don't touch the road, the tire does, so it matters not at all how you apply force to the wheel, from the perspective of the tire-to-road interface it's all the same.
If we want to have some fun with the physics, brake pads don't use dynamic friction to stop the car, either. Not most of the time, at least. Which is why they last as long as they do.
Sure, from a lay perspective. Though I stop my car routinely without ever touching the brakes. Even my gas car does a non-trivial amount of braking without using friction pads. But the point stands. Brakes don't touch the road, the tire does, so it matters not at all how you apply force to the wheel, from the perspective of the tire-to-road interface it's all the same.
If we want to have some fun with the physics, brake pads don't use dynamic friction to stop the car, either. Not most of the time, at least. Which is why they last as long as they do.
I was responding to the idea in the previous post that it was somehow that tires stop the cars rather than brakes or regenerative braking.
> Brakes don't touch the road, the tire does, so it matters not at all how you apply force to the wheel, from the perspective of the tire-to-road interface it's all the same.
This is not the case. Brakes (or regenerative braking) absorb the energy of motion into heat or stored chemical energy. The tires are not doing the stopping.
> brake pads don't use dynamic friction to stop the car
This is also incorrect. Brake pads are using almost completely dynamic friction to stop the car. From the perspective of the brake bads the tire is moving and from the perspective of the tire the brake pads are moving. There's no static friction involved there.
> Brakes don't touch the road, the tire does, so it matters not at all how you apply force to the wheel, from the perspective of the tire-to-road interface it's all the same.
This is not the case. Brakes (or regenerative braking) absorb the energy of motion into heat or stored chemical energy. The tires are not doing the stopping.
> brake pads don't use dynamic friction to stop the car
This is also incorrect. Brake pads are using almost completely dynamic friction to stop the car. From the perspective of the brake bads the tire is moving and from the perspective of the tire the brake pads are moving. There's no static friction involved there.
You aren’t regaining 100% of the kinetic energy so a significant part has to be lost somewhere else. Realistically regenerative braking is recouping energy that would be lost as heat when the friction brakes act on the wheels.
However it would not stop a vehicle on a zero friction surface, as a simple example, so no it doesn’t take away from the friction heat losses on the road.
However it would not stop a vehicle on a zero friction surface, as a simple example, so no it doesn’t take away from the friction heat losses on the road.
[deleted]
Energy that would normally have been lost in heating up/destroying the brake pads instead goes into the battery, of course. But I don't see why this alone would affect the tire tread.
There is 1x to 4x factor for tire emission from one model to another, so people so concerned about emission from 20% more mass seems a little silly when there is no test or emission standards for tire, but euro 7 will add it.
The obvious solution is to get rid of tyres and use tank treads instead.
Brake wear yes, but the resistance to forward motion still has to be transferred via that tires.
[deleted]
Brake wear for sure.
It seems like everyone has become an expert on tire particulates over the last five years. You can't read a thread about EVs without hearing about it. But NOx emissions are actually more strongly correlated with many health outcomes, e.g.:
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/3/754
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/3/754
Your study is only about asthma and bronchitis
This study estimates that the disability adjusted life years lost by PM2.5 are orders of magnitude higher than from NO2: https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/pdf/10.1289/ehp.1104035 see figure 3
I'm fully agreeing that electric cars reduce pollution, I also ordered one myself. But they do not fully solve the pollution problem and reducing our dependency on cars is the most effective way to reduce negative effects.
This study estimates that the disability adjusted life years lost by PM2.5 are orders of magnitude higher than from NO2: https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/pdf/10.1289/ehp.1104035 see figure 3
I'm fully agreeing that electric cars reduce pollution, I also ordered one myself. But they do not fully solve the pollution problem and reducing our dependency on cars is the most effective way to reduce negative effects.
With particulate sensors becoming a cool new toy, I think a lot of people have the misconception that all particulate matter is the same (because that is all they can measure, so they focus on that one number). They don't stop to think whether the particles themselves are water droplets, poisonous chemicals, or something in between.
I've had people tell me that campfire smoke is more deadly than cigarette smoke, because the campfire has more particles.
I've had people tell me that campfire smoke is more deadly than cigarette smoke, because the campfire has more particles.
About a decade ago I worked for 6 months in a temporary office near a very heavily trafficed overpass. This office didn't have AC (not exactly uncommon in the PNW) so we had the windows open during the summer.
The amount of particulate that would build up on everything in just an hour was pretty dumbfounding.
The amount of particulate that would build up on everything in just an hour was pretty dumbfounding.
EVs have next to zero brake wear. They do chew through tires faster due to increased torque.
A lot of the particulate consists of petroleum parts, catalytic converter, etc. Components that EVs just don't have.
A lot of the particulate consists of petroleum parts, catalytic converter, etc. Components that EVs just don't have.
Characterizing "a lot": according to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, particulate emissions from on-road gasoline vehicles consists of 20% tailpipe emissions and 80% brake, tire, and resuspended road dust.
> particulate emissions
I think that's kind of obvious, as most tailpipe emissions are gaseous, not particulates. What really matters, instead of blindly counting particles, is health outcomes. Nox fumes are strongly associated with negative health outcomes, even if it isn't strongly associated with a particulate count.[1]
[1]https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/3/754
I think that's kind of obvious, as most tailpipe emissions are gaseous, not particulates. What really matters, instead of blindly counting particles, is health outcomes. Nox fumes are strongly associated with negative health outcomes, even if it isn't strongly associated with a particulate count.[1]
[1]https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/3/754
Sure but NOx from on-road vehicles is on a strong down-trend and has been for many years. Here's a detailed treatment of health effects from air pollutants. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Resear...
I agree about tire and brake wear but the air in cities will be incredibly better with only electric cars.
You could just run ICE-powered cars on cleaner fuels like propane.
There's a reason warehouse forklifts - which drive around inside completely enclosed buildings - run on propane.
There's a reason warehouse forklifts - which drive around inside completely enclosed buildings - run on propane.
> You could just run ICE-powered cars on cleaner fuels like propane.
From my understanding a lot of the pollution is just from heating up the incoming air containing nitrogen. Unless you're taking your oxidizer with you rather than using the air to burn that propane, you're still going to produce toxic-to-humans nitrogen-based oxides (pollution) from exploding the gas in the presence of nitrogen. In fact depending on how you do it (for example if the combustion temperatures end up higher) you could have significant increases of such compounds versus gasoline combustion.
Best to keep the combustion vehicles to antiques/collectables and make all daily drivers use electricity.
From my understanding a lot of the pollution is just from heating up the incoming air containing nitrogen. Unless you're taking your oxidizer with you rather than using the air to burn that propane, you're still going to produce toxic-to-humans nitrogen-based oxides (pollution) from exploding the gas in the presence of nitrogen. In fact depending on how you do it (for example if the combustion temperatures end up higher) you could have significant increases of such compounds versus gasoline combustion.
Best to keep the combustion vehicles to antiques/collectables and make all daily drivers use electricity.
Burning propane in car engines produces carbon dioxide and water, no sulphur oxides (because there's no sulphur in the fuel, or such a tiny amount that it is negligible) and no nitrogen oxides.
You can actually measure this.
It burns leaner than petrol resulting in complete combustion so there's no CO or HC in the exhaust, either. Indeed, if there's enough CO and HC in the environment from other vehicles you'll actually be burning that too giving it (in a sense) negative emissions figures.
You can actually measure this.
It burns leaner than petrol resulting in complete combustion so there's no CO or HC in the exhaust, either. Indeed, if there's enough CO and HC in the environment from other vehicles you'll actually be burning that too giving it (in a sense) negative emissions figures.
I’d prefer nothing out of tailpipes vs “cleaner combustion”
One potential solution to tire particulates is direct capture. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/195595/worlds-first-device-c...
If these work and scale, it might behoove us to start requiring them in new cars, and maybe require retrofitting old cars.
If these work and scale, it might behoove us to start requiring them in new cars, and maybe require retrofitting old cars.
How do we reduce tire particles being released during regular operation? Better materials? It seems like there's only so much we can do about the asphalt ultimately having to make contact with something with high friction.
Smoother driving reduces particulates (e.g. no jackrabbit starts, smoother stops, less braking overall by avoiding situations like tailgating). I don't expect any humans to become better (they're getting worse), but self-driving cars will be much more fuel and braking efficient.
> Better materials?
It's possible there is a lot of low hanging fruit here, as tire particulate emission is not regulated.
It's possible there is a lot of low hanging fruit here, as tire particulate emission is not regulated.
That's a good point.
As long as the tire and brake wear isn't creating CO2 or methane, I'm not so worried about it.
I just spent a few days in Cairo. The air there was a good reminder of how bad the air can be with less stringent emission regulations. I can’t wait for the day when all cars are electric. There are other problems with cars in general but cities will become way nicer once ICE cars are gone.
Agreed. My mother’s family has lived in the Los Angeles area since the 1950s and there is this constant cycle where some improvement is proposed, people loudly proclaim the economy will be devastated, the change is made, the economy booms, and nobody wants to go back. My aunts remember not being able to see houses on the other side of the street due to smog, I remember visiting LA in the 80s and getting headaches every time, and I want the latter to be as alien an experience for my son as the former was for me.
What would also be ideal is that people use smaller, lighter vehicles, slower too, but max speeds should be regulated anyway. Electric energy really shines for light vehicles, not really in the Tesla trend (2T with 500kg batteries). It doesn't make a lot of sense to travel alone in 2Tonnes personal vehicles, for an average travel of a few kilometers, mostly in city
Range anxiety is going to drive battery weights up for a while still, probably. The only way people will adopt EVs than can only go 50 miles on a charge is if they become much cheaper than ICEs, IMO. Like, on the order of $5k. Even then, the fear of being crushed by an SUV would be a barrier to adoption.
These $5k cars already exist. The Hongguang Mini has about a 100 mile range and sells for about $5k in China. Let me buy one. The US has a high level of safety requirements on cars not just to protect people but also to protect domestic auto manufactures from cheap auto imports.
If your hypothesis was true then there wouldn't be similar safety requirements in most advanced countries, even those without local auto industries.
> the fear of being crushed by an SUV would be a barrier to adoption
or trucks and buses, as a cyclist the difference is even worse, but speed regulation really helps for that fear
or trucks and buses, as a cyclist the difference is even worse, but speed regulation really helps for that fear
Anecdotally, range anxiety drove me to pay an electrician to run a 50 amp circuit to my garage for faster charging, which has gotten us out of many "oh crap we have to leave in an hour and only have 10% charge" tight spots. It was crazy expensive since the electrician had to run a conduit around the entire house, but still an order of magnitude cheaper than buying a higher-range car.
You can buy a 19.2kW level 2 charger now that will add just over a mile a minute of range (though I don't believe any consumer EVs are on the market just yet which support that rate). For a few more bucks (more than a few, really, but still attainable) it's possible to install a 25kW DC charger at home that would probably work with most EVs today.
I've no need for it myself, we just charge at regular old 32A from a 14-50 wall socket, but it's interesting to watch the market evolve. Maybe 19.2kW will become the new normal.
I've no need for it myself, we just charge at regular old 32A from a 14-50 wall socket, but it's interesting to watch the market evolve. Maybe 19.2kW will become the new normal.
the 5k EV that can go 50 miles exists and is called an E-bike :)
I can't get groceries or ride to work in the rain on an ebike. And I've biked to work for years, I'm not antibike. But it doesn't solve the same issues.
If you exclude work and food, what's the remaining usage of a bike? leisure?
I've been 100% bike for all my adult life 20 years long, half of it commuting, half remote work, groceries up to 20kg (I carry crates on my handlebar), rain is annoying, but it's like people on motorbike, with proper clothes it's fine, but it's indeed less easy than a personal car. but not so much about natural elements, more because the cities are built for cars
I've been 100% bike for all my adult life 20 years long, half of it commuting, half remote work, groceries up to 20kg (I carry crates on my handlebar), rain is annoying, but it's like people on motorbike, with proper clothes it's fine, but it's indeed less easy than a personal car. but not so much about natural elements, more because the cities are built for cars
You can put groceries in an Organic Transit ELF or a BetterBikes PEBL. These are enclosed, recumbent, tadpole trikes with room for the driver along with two small children, one adult, or groceries.
You can get a cargo bike with a rack on the back or a tub in the front. My ebike can hold over 150lbs on the back and I took it grocery shopping back before I lived in walking distance of grocery stores
Totally. But I doubt those will see wide adoption either.
You mean the ultimate stage of vehicular evolution, the humble golf cart?
I lived in Italy for a couple of years and it appears to be the case there. The most popular SUV-ish car back then, as explained to me by my Italian friend, was the Qashqai. Anything larger is just awkward.
Also for cars they often shop local, because Italian brands know their customers well and offer vehicles which out of context are just plain weird, like the 4x4 Fiat Panda.
There's still a lot of congestion, but smaller cars manage it better because you can squeeze three of them in two lanes on intersections if need be.
Also with few SUVs on the road you see many more other modes like scooters and even Tuk-Tuks.
I lived in Italy for a couple of years and it appears to be the case there. The most popular SUV-ish car back then, as explained to me by my Italian friend, was the Qashqai. Anything larger is just awkward.
Also for cars they often shop local, because Italian brands know their customers well and offer vehicles which out of context are just plain weird, like the 4x4 Fiat Panda.
There's still a lot of congestion, but smaller cars manage it better because you can squeeze three of them in two lanes on intersections if need be.
Also with few SUVs on the road you see many more other modes like scooters and even Tuk-Tuks.
I can't figure out why vehicles all need to be massive living rooms on wheels.
People drive pickups to the office. Laptops must be a heavier load than I remember.
Ford won't even sell anything smaller than a compact SUV in North America.
Even discounting electric cars, imagine the environmental savings that could have been made if subcompacts became the norm instead?
People drive pickups to the office. Laptops must be a heavier load than I remember.
Ford won't even sell anything smaller than a compact SUV in North America.
Even discounting electric cars, imagine the environmental savings that could have been made if subcompacts became the norm instead?
> Ford won't even sell anything smaller than a compact SUV in North America.
It's easier to meet US fuel efficiency standards with larger cars. There's ramps on the standards, so small cars are disappearing; small trucks are already gone.
An 80s s-10 or similar with a regular cab and small engine is low weight, fairly small footprint, decent mpg, etc. A 2020 small truck built in the same footprint, but with a 40 year newer drivetrain would be pretty useful, but nobody will sell those in the US. Yes, you couldn't fit more than two people comfortably and three if you squeeze; yes, you couldn't (or shouldn't) tow anyhthing of stature; but it would be great for people who need an ocassional truck for furniture or dirt or etc, and don't need people carrying capacity. Light pickup truck hybrid could sip gas, and stuff the batteries under the bed for plug-in range, and also keep weight on the rear.
Kei trucks look fun too, but hard to import them.
It's easier to meet US fuel efficiency standards with larger cars. There's ramps on the standards, so small cars are disappearing; small trucks are already gone.
An 80s s-10 or similar with a regular cab and small engine is low weight, fairly small footprint, decent mpg, etc. A 2020 small truck built in the same footprint, but with a 40 year newer drivetrain would be pretty useful, but nobody will sell those in the US. Yes, you couldn't fit more than two people comfortably and three if you squeeze; yes, you couldn't (or shouldn't) tow anyhthing of stature; but it would be great for people who need an ocassional truck for furniture or dirt or etc, and don't need people carrying capacity. Light pickup truck hybrid could sip gas, and stuff the batteries under the bed for plug-in range, and also keep weight on the rear.
Kei trucks look fun too, but hard to import them.
> I can't figure out why vehicles all need to be massive living rooms on wheels.
Because we have a free market and that's what people buy. Unless you think you can gain enough political advantage to force people to bend to your will, persuasion is probably the best strategy. The top three vehicles by sales in the US are all light duty trucks, so to a rough approximation the people you need to convince are "everybody."
Because we have a free market and that's what people buy. Unless you think you can gain enough political advantage to force people to bend to your will, persuasion is probably the best strategy. The top three vehicles by sales in the US are all light duty trucks, so to a rough approximation the people you need to convince are "everybody."
The trucks aren't popular just because of the "free market", but because of abuse of a tax loophole called Section 179.
https://www.hotcars.com/heres-how-to-write-off-mercedes-g-wa...
https://www.hotcars.com/heres-how-to-write-off-mercedes-g-wa...
That's a big claim. Section 179 only applies if you have a business. Your average suburban neighborhood is filled with light duty trucks owned by regular people.
There are 30+ million small businesses in the USA, and they tend to be concentrated in the wealthier sort that a) live in suburbs and b) drive very expensive vehicles.
So your claim is that every single small business is buying a light duty truck every three years? I'd wager a good number of those small businesses don't make enough to take much of a deduction in any case.
No; the claim is that trucks are popular in part due to a tax loophole. It's a distorted market.
I have a small, fun to drive car for regular trips. I also have an SUV for when I need it - trips to home depot, camping trips with friends, picking up appliances, etc.
Homeowners will need a large vehicle with some regularity. Doubly so if you have kids. For people without the money to have multiple cars laying around, it makes sense to buy the one most useful vehicle - an SUV.
Homeowners will need a large vehicle with some regularity. Doubly so if you have kids. For people without the money to have multiple cars laying around, it makes sense to buy the one most useful vehicle - an SUV.
[deleted]
I'd bet it would be mighty difficult to unwind decades of auto marketing focused on speed, power, dominance, etc. to convince Americans that subcompacts are anything other than "cute" "practical" "kids" vehicles. I say this as a very satisfied Honda Fit owner.
> Ford won't even sell anything smaller than a compact SUV in North America.
Did they stop selling the focus? It’s among one of the best selling vehicles of all time.
Did they stop selling the focus? It’s among one of the best selling vehicles of all time.
Yes. The only cars Ford sells now are the Mustang and the Ford GT. Sales were slipping on the sedans and hatchbacks because the crossovers get good enough fuel efficiency in comparison but are a lot more useful as a daily driver.
Its because people need to win the collision game.
Electric cars are great and all, but there's a few things that keep me from buying one (so far).
First, there's the price. I know that some countries subsidize the purchase of an EV but without such support, electric cars are still targetting the upper end of the market when compared to traditional cars of the same size and with comparable features. Added to this is a latent feeling of mine that an electric car might lose value even faster than traditional cars already do. I mean, we all know from experience with battery powered devices (of the hand-held kind), how batteries deteriorate over time, and I think this impression is inevitably associated with electric cars, too, whether it's actually relevant in practice or not.
Second, but perhaps equally important, is that I currenly live in Europe. And unlike what you may be used to from suburban North America, I neither have a driveway here nor does my house come with an underground parking garage for its tenants. I park on the road. Sometimes quite a distance away from my house. So, charging over night is out of the question - which means that the only option for charging would be at the equivalence of a traditional gas station. Except, short of any super charger infrastructure in my vicinity, I have a hard time imagining spending 30 minutes every time the car runs empty. I have a larger family, and although 30 minutes might not seem much to you, it's definitely a considerable amount of time to me.
I realize there are quite a bit of advantages to EVs, and I would really love to enjoy them. But I just feel that these two points alone are sort of a deal breaker at the moment. I hope things are going to get better, though.
First, there's the price. I know that some countries subsidize the purchase of an EV but without such support, electric cars are still targetting the upper end of the market when compared to traditional cars of the same size and with comparable features. Added to this is a latent feeling of mine that an electric car might lose value even faster than traditional cars already do. I mean, we all know from experience with battery powered devices (of the hand-held kind), how batteries deteriorate over time, and I think this impression is inevitably associated with electric cars, too, whether it's actually relevant in practice or not.
Second, but perhaps equally important, is that I currenly live in Europe. And unlike what you may be used to from suburban North America, I neither have a driveway here nor does my house come with an underground parking garage for its tenants. I park on the road. Sometimes quite a distance away from my house. So, charging over night is out of the question - which means that the only option for charging would be at the equivalence of a traditional gas station. Except, short of any super charger infrastructure in my vicinity, I have a hard time imagining spending 30 minutes every time the car runs empty. I have a larger family, and although 30 minutes might not seem much to you, it's definitely a considerable amount of time to me.
I realize there are quite a bit of advantages to EVs, and I would really love to enjoy them. But I just feel that these two points alone are sort of a deal breaker at the moment. I hope things are going to get better, though.
I'm in the market for a new car after living car-free downtown for several years. Interestingly I actually have some anxiety about the resale value of ICE cars - when I sell in 5 or 10 years, the value will be inherently tied to the price of gas, and how widespread the electric car roll-out ends up being.
If gas spikes again like this year and some pending ICE sale and area bans come to fruition... I have trouble seeing ICE valuations keeping up with electric.
That said I'm a bigger proponent of investment in transit over perpetuating car dominance, but that's a different thread to pull on.
If gas spikes again like this year and some pending ICE sale and area bans come to fruition... I have trouble seeing ICE valuations keeping up with electric.
That said I'm a bigger proponent of investment in transit over perpetuating car dominance, but that's a different thread to pull on.
In Amsterdam you just charge on the street. Almost every street has 2 or 4 charging parking spots.
[deleted]
Is that also true for rural areas of the Netherlands?
Rural places will only have family houses where you can just have one at home, or request one from the municipality in the street.
It’s all heavily subsidized.
Most office buildings, malls, and (tourist)attractions have stations.
It’s all heavily subsidized.
Most office buildings, malls, and (tourist)attractions have stations.
> electric cars are still targetting the upper end of the market when compared to traditional cars of the same size and with comparable features.
There are downmarket electric cars, such as China’s $5000 Wuling Mini EV (https://www.wired.com/story/review-wuling-hongguang-mini-ev/...), which could perhaps best be described as “a golf cart with doors.”
There are downmarket electric cars, such as China’s $5000 Wuling Mini EV (https://www.wired.com/story/review-wuling-hongguang-mini-ev/...), which could perhaps best be described as “a golf cart with doors.”
Long-term the most likely charging location will be at work. Electric cars go a long way to solve the "doesn't generate at night" problem of solar, because you can charge them during the day, which generally coincides with being at work.
Also keep in mind that many electric cars have a range in the neighborhood of 300 miles, but the average European drives around 20 miles a day, so you'd only need to charge once every two weeks.
Also keep in mind that many electric cars have a range in the neighborhood of 300 miles, but the average European drives around 20 miles a day, so you'd only need to charge once every two weeks.
I'm working from home at least three days out of five these days. I cannot imagine going back to a fully corporate work-on-premises model.
Yep, they're definitely not a silver bullet for every use case. Cities have started recognizing the limits to electrification for people with cars and without dedicated parking and have began installing charging infrastructure street-side though, so that's one possible way forward.
https://trojan.energy/products/hub
https://trojan.energy/products/hub
We bought our Electric (a 2012 Nissan Leaf) in 2015 - after it had come off of a lease and the owner didn't want to buy it out. There were piles of early Leafs on dealer lots. Drivers had finished their leases, which had been incredibly attractive, and they all came up at the same time. So the prices were reasonable, and the cars were really nice (all top trim)
I don't think EVs have commoditized and hit true economies of scale. Aside from the supply issues related to the pandemic, the only thing I see slowing it down is if governments fail to push Automakers to start making more.
I don't think EVs have commoditized and hit true economies of scale. Aside from the supply issues related to the pandemic, the only thing I see slowing it down is if governments fail to push Automakers to start making more.
Why did that comment get downvoted?
I wouldn't mind owning an EV, but every time I've looked into buying a used one, it's never made more financial sense than keeping my ICV. The same can be said about buying a used ICV, albeit at to a lesser degree.
Millions upon millions of ICVs will remain on the road regardless of any sort of ban on the sale of new ones in the next decade (if that actually comes to fruition). If you can get an EV then more power to you, but a future where enough EVs are on the road that particulate pollution is nearly gone is much further away than people think. This is especially true if existing electrical infrastructure proves to not support millions of electric vehicles charging. I've heard people make up reasons for why the infrastructure isn't a problem, but something about California's handling of the electrical grid doesn't give me confidence.
In the meantime, ICVs should be kept on the road as long as they can no longer function without serious repair. If it's both particulate pollution and climate change people are concerned with, then we can make more progress during the gradual shift to EVs by converting existing ICVs to run ethanol-based fuel like E85.
Hold on to your butts, because there is a TON of misinformation about ethanol fuel. Here's my case for why we should be converting existing ICVs to support ethanol:
- Ethanol is produced from fermenting the starches and sugars from plant material. Those plants pulled carbon out of the atmosphere to make its structure and the carbohydrates.
- Ethanol burns far cleaner than gasoline. The carbon returns to the atmosphere where it just came from, whereas burning fossil fuel releases carbon that has spent millions of years underground. There is always some carbon from ethanol production that doesn't return to the atmosphere. In other words, it's far better for the climate than gasoline.
- Leftover grains from fermentation of ethanol make excellent animal feed. Ethanol production doesn't compete with food production. It creates better food. Anything remaining can be either hydrolyzed to make more ethanol or burned to contribute to the distillation process.
- The vast majority of vehicles manufactured after 2000 can handle a substantial ratio of ethanol with no other changes to the vehicle. Most can run E30 (30% ethanol) without any problems at all, and some even go up to E50.
- Most gas cars are capable of running on E85 with either a conversion kit or even a software update to the ECU.
- Most gas cars don't require changes to the fuel system to run E85. Outside of high performance applications, the only thing that may need to happen is the fuel injectors need to be on a wider pulse width.
- Your vehicle may already be a "Flex Fuel" vehicle and you don't even know it. Many people are unaware of or forgot that they own a Flex Fuel vehicle.
- The gas in your car today already contains 10% ethanol. Modern fuel systems are designed to tolerate ethanol extremely well.
- Unlike gasoline, ethanol doesn't need to contain added carcinogens like "BTEX", benzene, tuolene, etc.
- No, ethanol will not rust your fuel tank or your fuel rail. Ethanol from a gas station is anhydrous.
- No, ethanol won't blow up your engine because of water. Ethanol has to sit a long time to absorb enough water to create a bad situation for your engine. In Brazil, they run cars with hydrous ethanol (~95%) just fine. If there's too much water, it has to have been added when it shouldn't have been.
- Ethanol is a good cleaner. Your engine may have a longer life on ethanol because you won't get carbon deposits like with gasoline.
- Ethanol burns cooler than gasoline. Cooler = better for your engine.
- Ethanol resists engine knocking and early ignition better than gasoline.
- Ethanol production can be decentralized and done on smaller scales.
---
Like I said, I think EVs probably will be the eventual future. I don't see them being the majority of vehicles on the road any time soon. Maybe, idk. Until that happens, we need to rethink ethanol fuel if we want to mitigate climate change and air pollution.
Millions upon millions of ICVs will remain on the road regardless of any sort of ban on the sale of new ones in the next decade (if that actually comes to fruition). If you can get an EV then more power to you, but a future where enough EVs are on the road that particulate pollution is nearly gone is much further away than people think. This is especially true if existing electrical infrastructure proves to not support millions of electric vehicles charging. I've heard people make up reasons for why the infrastructure isn't a problem, but something about California's handling of the electrical grid doesn't give me confidence.
In the meantime, ICVs should be kept on the road as long as they can no longer function without serious repair. If it's both particulate pollution and climate change people are concerned with, then we can make more progress during the gradual shift to EVs by converting existing ICVs to run ethanol-based fuel like E85.
Hold on to your butts, because there is a TON of misinformation about ethanol fuel. Here's my case for why we should be converting existing ICVs to support ethanol:
- Ethanol is produced from fermenting the starches and sugars from plant material. Those plants pulled carbon out of the atmosphere to make its structure and the carbohydrates.
- Ethanol burns far cleaner than gasoline. The carbon returns to the atmosphere where it just came from, whereas burning fossil fuel releases carbon that has spent millions of years underground. There is always some carbon from ethanol production that doesn't return to the atmosphere. In other words, it's far better for the climate than gasoline.
- Leftover grains from fermentation of ethanol make excellent animal feed. Ethanol production doesn't compete with food production. It creates better food. Anything remaining can be either hydrolyzed to make more ethanol or burned to contribute to the distillation process.
- The vast majority of vehicles manufactured after 2000 can handle a substantial ratio of ethanol with no other changes to the vehicle. Most can run E30 (30% ethanol) without any problems at all, and some even go up to E50.
- Most gas cars are capable of running on E85 with either a conversion kit or even a software update to the ECU.
- Most gas cars don't require changes to the fuel system to run E85. Outside of high performance applications, the only thing that may need to happen is the fuel injectors need to be on a wider pulse width.
- Your vehicle may already be a "Flex Fuel" vehicle and you don't even know it. Many people are unaware of or forgot that they own a Flex Fuel vehicle.
- The gas in your car today already contains 10% ethanol. Modern fuel systems are designed to tolerate ethanol extremely well.
- Unlike gasoline, ethanol doesn't need to contain added carcinogens like "BTEX", benzene, tuolene, etc.
- No, ethanol will not rust your fuel tank or your fuel rail. Ethanol from a gas station is anhydrous.
- No, ethanol won't blow up your engine because of water. Ethanol has to sit a long time to absorb enough water to create a bad situation for your engine. In Brazil, they run cars with hydrous ethanol (~95%) just fine. If there's too much water, it has to have been added when it shouldn't have been.
- Ethanol is a good cleaner. Your engine may have a longer life on ethanol because you won't get carbon deposits like with gasoline.
- Ethanol burns cooler than gasoline. Cooler = better for your engine.
- Ethanol resists engine knocking and early ignition better than gasoline.
- Ethanol production can be decentralized and done on smaller scales.
---
Like I said, I think EVs probably will be the eventual future. I don't see them being the majority of vehicles on the road any time soon. Maybe, idk. Until that happens, we need to rethink ethanol fuel if we want to mitigate climate change and air pollution.
> I wouldn't mind owning an EV, but every time I've looked into buying a used one, it's never made more financial sense than keeping my ICV. The same can be said about buying a used ICV, albeit at to a lesser degree.
I've had the opposite problem. I just bought another car, and I saw some great ICE options that seemed really appealing. Very long range, great utility, etc. But when I priced in the cost of gas (currently $3.5 here but it's been much higher as recently as a year ago) versus the cost of the electricity (4.2 cents/kWh in the middle of the night), I couldn't make the numbers work. Given that it's an appliance for the family and not my personal hot rod, I couldn't justify spending extra for ICE. We'll suck it up and deal with DC fast charging on road trips.
I've had the opposite problem. I just bought another car, and I saw some great ICE options that seemed really appealing. Very long range, great utility, etc. But when I priced in the cost of gas (currently $3.5 here but it's been much higher as recently as a year ago) versus the cost of the electricity (4.2 cents/kWh in the middle of the night), I couldn't make the numbers work. Given that it's an appliance for the family and not my personal hot rod, I couldn't justify spending extra for ICE. We'll suck it up and deal with DC fast charging on road trips.
Biofuels are basically dead because they cost more to produce than gasoline and people aren't going to accept an increase in energy costs. Electric vehicles are now viable specifically because they have a lower cost per mile than gasoline. The use case for biofuels may be specific applications were electric vehicles haven't been made to work, like aviation.
The average car is around 12 years old, implying that if we replaced all new cars with electric, we'd have replaced at least half of them within 12 years.
Finding a good deal on a used electric car isn't that easy right now because there aren't that many of them, which changes the more new cars are electric.
The average car is around 12 years old, implying that if we replaced all new cars with electric, we'd have replaced at least half of them within 12 years.
Finding a good deal on a used electric car isn't that easy right now because there aren't that many of them, which changes the more new cars are electric.
> Biofuels are basically dead because they cost more to produce than gasoline and people aren't going to accept an increase in energy costs.
That's simply not factual for ethanol.
Also, the blanket term "biofuels" isn't particularly useful here because it can mean many things. I'm talking strictly about ethanol. Not biodiesel, not methanol, not LPNG.
> Electric vehicles are now viable specifically because they have a lower cost per mile than gasoline.
Even if that were to remain true, sorry, I'm not getting another car loan to replace a car that's already working. That's the reality for the vast majority of people. EVs need to come further down in price by far.
> The average car is around 12 years old, implying that if we replaced all new cars with electric, we'd have replaced at least half of them within 12 years.
Half of people aren't going to trade in for EVs within 12 years unless the price is right. The prices for even used EVs aren't anywhere near where they need to be for people who live outside the elite bubble. As long as used cars and aftermarket parts can be sold, people will run all the remaining ICVs into the ground, and that can take a very long time with modern vehicles even when treating them like crap.
> Finding a good deal on a used electric car isn't that easy right now because there aren't that many of them, which changes the more new cars are electric.
Those deals have never been easy to find, but the promise of affordable EVs has always been "just around the corner." I'll wait for EVs to make financial sense in the short term future, but I won't count on it.
That's simply not factual for ethanol.
Also, the blanket term "biofuels" isn't particularly useful here because it can mean many things. I'm talking strictly about ethanol. Not biodiesel, not methanol, not LPNG.
> Electric vehicles are now viable specifically because they have a lower cost per mile than gasoline.
Even if that were to remain true, sorry, I'm not getting another car loan to replace a car that's already working. That's the reality for the vast majority of people. EVs need to come further down in price by far.
> The average car is around 12 years old, implying that if we replaced all new cars with electric, we'd have replaced at least half of them within 12 years.
Half of people aren't going to trade in for EVs within 12 years unless the price is right. The prices for even used EVs aren't anywhere near where they need to be for people who live outside the elite bubble. As long as used cars and aftermarket parts can be sold, people will run all the remaining ICVs into the ground, and that can take a very long time with modern vehicles even when treating them like crap.
> Finding a good deal on a used electric car isn't that easy right now because there aren't that many of them, which changes the more new cars are electric.
Those deals have never been easy to find, but the promise of affordable EVs has always been "just around the corner." I'll wait for EVs to make financial sense in the short term future, but I won't count on it.
> That's simply not factual for ethanol.
It is if you take away the subsidies.
> Even if that were to remain true, sorry, I'm not getting another car loan to replace a car that's already working. That's the reality for the vast majority of people. EVs need to come further down in price by far.
The base Model 3 costs less than the average new car. You don't have to get another car loan, you can keep driving the car you have for another ten years, then buy a ten year old EV which someone else is buying new today.
It's the elites who buy new cars. You still end up driving an EV in ten years.
> Those deals have never been easy to find, but the promise of affordable EVs has always been "just around the corner."
EVs have only very recently been produced in volume and are still only ~6% of new cars, and a far lower proportion of used cars. The thing that makes them affordable as used cars is to be a high proportion of new cars and then wait five or ten years.
It is if you take away the subsidies.
> Even if that were to remain true, sorry, I'm not getting another car loan to replace a car that's already working. That's the reality for the vast majority of people. EVs need to come further down in price by far.
The base Model 3 costs less than the average new car. You don't have to get another car loan, you can keep driving the car you have for another ten years, then buy a ten year old EV which someone else is buying new today.
It's the elites who buy new cars. You still end up driving an EV in ten years.
> Those deals have never been easy to find, but the promise of affordable EVs has always been "just around the corner."
EVs have only very recently been produced in volume and are still only ~6% of new cars, and a far lower proportion of used cars. The thing that makes them affordable as used cars is to be a high proportion of new cars and then wait five or ten years.
Just the reduction in noise and air pollution is more than enough to justify banning new ICE cars. Anyone who lives anywhere near a big highway knows what I'm talking about. For instance: When a car shakes your windows because some jerk thinks it's okay to turn his car into a fog horn.
What are the effects of the mining, reconditioning and disposing of battery minerals?
I ride a bicycle, so the effects of that are easy to imagine, some steel, some rubber, etc. But in wanting an electric car, I get stopped by the worry about children and the disadvantaged being the ones mining these resources at their own peril, and 20 years from now being the ones shipped our recycled batteries.
Playing that game gets complex. Do you count 9/11 as a ICE externality because it partially stems from US/Saudi relations due to the oil market?
The reduction in CO2 emission resulting from EV's is definitely a win for the environment. What I didn't see from the article or its linked report was anything surrounding the effects of increased battery waste resulting from popularizing EV's.
I keep wondering where the idea that people would just start dumping EV batteries into the trash comes from. This is not the case right now. (Totaled EVs from car crashes, with still working batteries, often go for tens of thousands of dollars.) EV batteries are full of extremely valuable materials. They can either be taken apart and used directly or at the very least, act as very high grade metal ores for further refinement into batteries. If people are paying money to dig significantly lower concentration metal ores out of the ground for turning into batteries, why would you scrap an existing battery instead of extracting the resources back out of them?
There's already multiple companies making cash flow positive money, without government subsidies, on recycling the very few EV batteries that are on the market (keep in mind that most EV batteries that have been manufactured are currently still in EVs). This is a great mini-documentary from CNBC on EV battery recycling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLr0GStrnwQ
It's just not economical to just dump EV batteries so I find this common fear to be rather unfounded and I personally suspect it's rooted in campaigning by oil companies to prevent EV adoption.
There's already multiple companies making cash flow positive money, without government subsidies, on recycling the very few EV batteries that are on the market (keep in mind that most EV batteries that have been manufactured are currently still in EVs). This is a great mini-documentary from CNBC on EV battery recycling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLr0GStrnwQ
It's just not economical to just dump EV batteries so I find this common fear to be rather unfounded and I personally suspect it's rooted in campaigning by oil companies to prevent EV adoption.
A lot of those batteries are going to find a second use in home powerbanks. They remain useful in that scenario (where remaining power-to-weight ratio matters less) much longer than in vehicles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNbsiZcwGSY
(I also suspect a significant portion of the "what about EV externalities?!" concern got seeded by the oil industry.)
(I also suspect a significant portion of the "what about EV externalities?!" concern got seeded by the oil industry.)
The oil industry is throwing stones in glass houses when they try to bring up externalities about renewables. Nobody has ever invaded another country over their solar, wind, or even hydroelectric resources.
Source of EV's electricity matters too. In Mexico lots of electricity comes from burning heavy crude oil so If we switched magically in a day to EVs we would just be offshoring the emissions.
Governments need to realize that just pushing EV is not going to make it alone.
Governments need to realize that just pushing EV is not going to make it alone.
Only around 15% of Mexico's electricity comes from burning oil. The vast majority of it (over 50%) comes from burning natural gas.
Further, even with a high CO2 content electricity grid it is still cleaner to produce that electricity in power plants, because of the significantly more efficient burning that happens in large power stations versus the over 50% of energy wasted in an internal combustion engine.
In Mexico's case though with it's high natural gas content grid, switching to EVs is vastly better for CO2 pollution and general road pollution in general.
Further, even with a high CO2 content electricity grid it is still cleaner to produce that electricity in power plants, because of the significantly more efficient burning that happens in large power stations versus the over 50% of energy wasted in an internal combustion engine.
In Mexico's case though with it's high natural gas content grid, switching to EVs is vastly better for CO2 pollution and general road pollution in general.
If we ran the entire grid on coal, it would still be something like 15-20% cleaner to use EVs. But since the US gets just about a fifth of its electricity from coal, with the number dropping practically every day, this is no longer something to concern ourselves with. EVs are strictly better for emissions regardless of how the power is generated.
What battery waste? Batteries are highly recyclable.
Are they?
Old lead battery are highly recyclable but AFAIK the type used in EV's (and in many electronic devices such as laptops and phones) such as Li-Ion are not (easily) recyclable right now.
Hopefully by the time discarded batteries will increase in number there will be solutions, but right now there are only some "pilot" plants/technologies, see:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56574779
And:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29110314
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29128408
Old lead battery are highly recyclable but AFAIK the type used in EV's (and in many electronic devices such as laptops and phones) such as Li-Ion are not (easily) recyclable right now.
Hopefully by the time discarded batteries will increase in number there will be solutions, but right now there are only some "pilot" plants/technologies, see:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56574779
And:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29110314
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29128408
It is not particularly economical to recycle EV batteries yet because they're still worth a lot more on the secondary market for non-mobile use. When we have a surplus of them, it will be cheaper to reclaim the lithium from the old batteries than it is to mine new lithium.
An electric truck can cover a lot less ground with a full battery charge than a diesel truck with a full tank am I right? What happens to the price of essential goods like food and medicine since the cost of transportation to poorer areas? Does it prevents more deaths or does it exacerbates issues like infant mortality on poor areas?
The cost per mile for electric vehicles is lower, not higher, and improves the more miles you put on them.
Do you have a source on that? I understand diesel is a very efficient fuel.
Diesel is slightly more power dense than gasoline, but usually more expensive to purchase. The capital costs are much higher, as are the maintenance costs. You don't buy a diesel to save money, you buy it for torque.
Electric is so much cheaper that the only reason EVs haven't abruptly taken >50% of the market is because capital cost remains fairly high and charging availability is still low compared to liquid fuels. Normally, efficiency improvements significantly smaller than the EV advantage result in dramatic movements in buying patterns.
Electric is so much cheaper that the only reason EVs haven't abruptly taken >50% of the market is because capital cost remains fairly high and charging availability is still low compared to liquid fuels. Normally, efficiency improvements significantly smaller than the EV advantage result in dramatic movements in buying patterns.
Here's some of the math on diesel vs. electric: https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2022/12/08/teslas...
Ask any trucker or do basic MPG math. Moving a loaded semi 500 miles is like $260-350 in diesel. Moving the tesla semi 500 miles is like $50 at $0.13 per kWh.
> An electric truck can cover a lot less ground with a full battery charge than a diesel truck with a full tank am I right?
No. The 500ish mile range on these roughly corresponds to the maximum amount of time drivers are legally permitted to do in one go, and most trucking is short-haul routes.
No. The 500ish mile range on these roughly corresponds to the maximum amount of time drivers are legally permitted to do in one go, and most trucking is short-haul routes.
This probably explains why the Tesla semi has only one seat (as a practical matter) and no sleeper cabs. True long range trucks will remain diesel for some time, and drivers swap more quickly than batteries fill.
I think we should spend a lot more effort on last-mile trucking first. To be fair, I think that's exactly what's happening. With the arrival of the Tesla semi, there are now two class 8 electric trucks, but there are definitely more than that already in the medium duty space.
I think we should spend a lot more effort on last-mile trucking first. To be fair, I think that's exactly what's happening. With the arrival of the Tesla semi, there are now two class 8 electric trucks, but there are definitely more than that already in the medium duty space.
Team trucking is not at all uncommon when freight is somewhat time-sensitive, but still wants to go over the road rather than in an airplane.
Legally where? I'm not talking about west Europe or coastal US.
Where are you imagining a combination of minimal road safety regulation and rapid EV semi adoption?
> Electric cars – and their continued sales growth – are expected to have a greener, cleaner influence on air pollution and reduce human mortality in most, if not all, U.S. metropolitan areas, according to Cornell research published in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (March 2023).
US truck drivers work under a 14 hour daily limit. A full diesel tank can cover that. Can electric do the same without decreasing the cargo capacity in favor of bateries?
US truck drivers work under a 14 hour daily limit. A full diesel tank can cover that. Can electric do the same without decreasing the cargo capacity in favor of bateries?
> US truck drivers work under a 14 hour daily limit.
11 hours of that is permitted to be driving time, and you must take a 30 minute break after eight. (Good time to charge!)
8 x 55mph average speed = 440 miles. Perfect.
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/Dri...
> This window is usually thought of as a “daily” limit even though it is not based on a 24-hour period. You are allowed a period of 14 consecutive hours in which to drive up to 11 hours after being off duty for 10 or more consecutive hours.
> The hours-of-service regulations require that if more than 8 consecutive hours have passed since the last off-duty (or sleeper-berth) period of at least half an hour, a driver must take an off-duty break of at least 30 minutes before driving. For example, if the driver started driving immediately after coming on duty, he or she could drive for 8 consecutive hours, take a half-hour break, and then drive another 3 hours for a total of 11 hours. In another example, this driver could drive for 3 hours, take a half-hour break, and then drive another 8 hours, for a total of 11 hours.
11 hours of that is permitted to be driving time, and you must take a 30 minute break after eight. (Good time to charge!)
8 x 55mph average speed = 440 miles. Perfect.
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/Dri...
> This window is usually thought of as a “daily” limit even though it is not based on a 24-hour period. You are allowed a period of 14 consecutive hours in which to drive up to 11 hours after being off duty for 10 or more consecutive hours.
> The hours-of-service regulations require that if more than 8 consecutive hours have passed since the last off-duty (or sleeper-berth) period of at least half an hour, a driver must take an off-duty break of at least 30 minutes before driving. For example, if the driver started driving immediately after coming on duty, he or she could drive for 8 consecutive hours, take a half-hour break, and then drive another 3 hours for a total of 11 hours. In another example, this driver could drive for 3 hours, take a half-hour break, and then drive another 8 hours, for a total of 11 hours.
Weird headline.
[deleted]
The best really would be to keep cars out of highly populated areas and provide good public transportation and provide walkable and bicycle-safe infrastructure.