No surprises.
No matter how we look at it, EVs are much friendlier and safer to the environment. Some people argue the source of electricty can be contested against because that involves fossil fuel burning again, but in today's world we are rapidly moving away from it and towards nuclear/hydel/wind methods for generating power.
I hope ICE cars completely become a thing of the past in the next couple of decades to come.
The number of ICE cars I get stuck behind from time to time that just REEK is amazing. I’m in a decently well off area too.
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.
Even modern cars pollute a lot (especially in winter) because you need a certain temperature for the cats to start working. On short city trips it happens frequently that you never reach proper operating temperatures.
Speaking of smells....
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)
I'd say that putting off sooth clouds is a way to sequester carbon (which obviously failed to burn). Such over-enriched fuel mixes must generate much more CO though, and I wonder if those who "tune" their cars like so take care about the catalytic converter :(
The health consequences of inhaling exhaust particulates are far more harmful than the equivalent CO2 contribution to greenhouse effect warming unfortunately.
All in all, a well tuned ICE is better for everyone than a poorly tuned one, if you had to pick between the two.
Many car enthusiasts remove the catalytic converter for a combination of additional power and/or better sound. It has a massive impact on emissions and what you might be smelling is hydrogen sulfide which is normally converted to sulfur dioxide which is orderless.
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.
Besides the crap they pump into the air, they also excrete gunk onto the road. It’s so primitive.
tragically, because of efficiency standards, modern engines are known to burn oil .
Otherwise you may be smelling cars who have had the cats stolen.
Stolen cars, exhaust leaks before the cat, incomplete combustion so bad the cat can’t cover it up. I assume it’s stuff like that.
It’s not whatever tiny bit of oil gets burned in a healthy engine.
Incomplete combustion will ruin a cat. That's not its purpose, it's there to reduce NOx emissions.
A lot of old cars also since new cars are so expensive.
Yep. My newest car is over 20 years old. May be a bit more polluting (though it doesn't smell or smoke) but I've in theory saved the environmental impact of the manufacture of one or two new cars by keeping the old one.
I'm not spending $30-40k or more on a car. That just isn't going to happen.
I think expense is basically the problem.
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.
A lot of Americans take their cat off on purpose for louder noises.
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.
> A lot of Americans take their cat off on purpose for louder noises.
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.
> Nobody is doing it for louder noises because the muffler portion is what dampens the sound.
Cats also act as mufflers, they significantly reduce the sound coming out the exhaust.
I know a LOT of people personally who swap their exhaust in and out just for emissions inspections. That's the meta.
a lot of people have custom exhausts, particularly catback systems that don't affect emissions. A lot of people are definitely not rolling coal.
Yeah, it's definitely a small percent of people. But i do wonder how many there really has to be to have an outsized effect. One of those lifted kid killers blowing black smoke for the entire duration of the bicycle pack is definitely more than 3 of my tiny honda civics, i wonder how many it really is, and how much those modifications increase the "resting emissions rate"even when not blowing shit. Should be illegal, likely is.
I’ve run into a few of those. They’re generally pretty obvious. Usually a big truck, lots of MAGA & adjacent bumper stickers.
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.
That's framing the topic completely out of the issue with global impacts of humanity on ecosystemic sustainability, including biodiversity.
Less commut and more collective transportation is going to be far more significant in term of global impact, whatever the engine type.
The surprising part to me is that there are now enough EVs to make a measurable difference, since I kept thinking they are still relatively rare. The linked study has this piece of data:
From 2019 to 2023, ZEVs increased from 2.0% (559943 of 28237734) to 5.1% (1460818 of 28498496).
It really feels like more than 1 in 20 driving around the 101/280
Probably because Santa Clara County has more EV sales compared to its neighbors, according to this map:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/zero-e...
Even if the fossil fuel argument at the source was/is valid, it's infinitely more efficient to do it at the source than in a car. You can extract far more energy and do better to mitigate byproducts.
We are about 2-3x battery capacity to never look back at ICE vehicles ever again. That or 5 min to 80% charge times with current capacity.
The current generation of Lucid, BMW, etc. are 400+ mile vehicles.
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.
Based on my firsthand experience, cold weather (big one) or hauling/towing significantly reduces that 400 mile range (sometimes by 50%+). Yes to comfortably get 400-500 miles per charge in the worst case scenario it needs to be atleast 2x.
If you're saying 100% only EVs with no use cases whatsoever for gasoline, then I suppose so. I don't think that's a smart goal, though.
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?
> No surprises.
What about all the resources and people used to develop the cars?
Six months break even and then it’s more carbon friendly than an ICE for the rest of its working lifetime
It’s probably still more net efficient in the long run. Besides, the main advantage EVs bring isn’t being more environmentally friendly. The main advantage is that it allows a nation to have more flexibility with its energy sources. i.e. an EV can run on anything that can generate electricity like coal or natural gas, while ICE cars mostly only run on gasoline.
Even if you power a typical EV from 100% coal, it pencils out as about equivalent to a late model Prius. And any improvements in the energy mix take it further.
I don't think many people really understand how awful automobile-scale internal combustion engines are at efficiency. The only reason they work at all is thanks to the absurd energy density of the fuels they burn.
I just hope "dumb" EV's become a thing soon. I cannot and will not own a smart car any more I want to own a smart TV or smart fridge or smart toaster.
Post crash connectivity (as well as complex video classification) are part of the ncap standards now.
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.
Connect and infotainment must be firewalled from the engine computer for security reasons. It’s not like two raspberry pis are that expensive.
I hate that. If I live in the country, my car spies on me. If I live in the city everyone spies on me. One value I agree with the libertarians on is, I just want to be left alone.
Why? Are you worried from a liberty/privacy standpoint? "Smart" EV's are demonstrated to be significantly safer than "dumb" EVs. Waymo’s 2025/2026 data shows an 80–90% reduction in injury-causing crashes compared to human drivers in the same cities. [1, 2, 3, 4]
[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...
Personally I’m not very keen on owning a vehicle the manufacturer can completely brick at will
So liberty then. I don't disagree with you, but this modern flashpoint in the classic debate between individual liberty and collective safety does bring up the question what is saving 50,000+ lives annually actually worth in terms of loss of personal freedoms? I am personally struggling with this debate having lost loved ones in this manner.
Remote bricking of cars does not save 50,000 lives.
That is not the argument being made. We are discussing how "dumb" vehicles (e.g. vehicles that contribute to 50,000+ fatalities annually) provide independence, privacy and freedom that "smart" vehicles (e.g. vehicles with self-driving that can be bricked at will) do not ensure.
Also you are conflating thing the poster may not have intended. I’ve not heard anyone complain about collision avoidance systems, antilock brakes etc. But spying packages, and touchscreen dash, hell no.
That actually is exactly the argument. GP posted about liberty concerns, he was met with claims of saving 50,000 lives.
I assume GP meant cars with internet connectivity features, not (real) self driving tech.
The assertion that 'I just hope "dumb" EV's become a thing soon' led me to a different assumption. The ultimate aspiration of a "smart" EV is self-driving, which incorporates Internet connectivity features (e.g. digital mapping, over the air updates, etc).
"Smart" in all other classes of purchases typically means IoT / Internet connected.
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.
We'll probably see the death of the dumb ICE car first.
Just get a used one that’s a decade old. The cell providers will all move on past 3g/4g etc and the cars won’t be able to connect. Plus I’m sure no one is paying to keep a cell connection going for a decade old EV.
Slate, or pull the cellular connection: http://techno-fandom.org/~hobbit/cars/ev/offnet.html
Are EVs more “smart” than comparably priced ICE vehicles?
Typically, yes. Although I chalk much of that up to traditional ICE companies being extremely slow to adopt new technology and implementating it poorly or only superficially.
Not really, they are just newer than the average ICE car. Parent wants an EV from the early 2000s or the 1990s.
Depends. They get a virtually continual supply of standby power that can last for months if left untouched. So from a technology standpoint that enables them to do many things - from being connected to the network, aware of their location on the map, recording camera footage and other remote capabilities. ICE cars do have some of these but the huge battery packs on EVs make these very feasible.
Do they?
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.
Well that was what I meant - the battery pack meaning the entire system of batteries, be it 1 or 2 or 3.
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.
In theory. In practice, a lot of EVs (and hybrids, which could do the same thing to a more limited extent) ship with the same cheap flooded lead acid 12v batteries that ship with ICE cars and don't handle constant charging/discharging well.
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.
you are mistaken. Not a single EV or hybrid car uses power directly from the traction battery for the 12 V system.
It depends on your definition. Tesla Model 3 has a dedicated low-current connection to the high-voltage battery that bypasses the main contactors, specifically to power the 12V system.
Have you met https://slate.auto ? :)
Doesn't even have automatic windows.
Ah yes, the previously-marketed $20,000 Slate which is actually $30,000 now, still comes with nothing, and hasn't hit production yet. If only BYD could come in and destroy the non-smart/budget EV market.
I mean, dude asked for a non-smart car.. BYD isn't fitting that either.
Jesus Christ... this entire thing looks like such a far-fetched dream to me. I am worried for the VCs that dumped their money into this idea.
Jeff Bezos was one of them. He’ll be ok.
I don't love smart TVs either, but why not just buy a smart TV and not use the smart features? I have a few "smart TVs", but I haven't even connected them to Wi-Fi, and I instead opt for an Nvidia Shield TV or just a laptop computer plugged in instead.
Depending on the TV, it will still kick you to their bloated “smart” interface all the time, instead of just simply cycling through inputs.
The differentiating factor is not EV vs ICE. All cars have or will soon have telematics and such.
Does the 2026 Nissan Leaf meet your criteria for a dumb car?
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.
Does Nissan still not put telematics in the base model in 2026?
Looking at the specs page the base model includes "Dual 12.3" widescreen displays" Why? What the hell is wrong with modern cars?
Lots (most?) cars are going to LCDs for the instrument panel. The second screen is the infotainment.
My previous car had its infotainment system reboot several times while I was on the expressway. The idea of my instrument panel, or other more critical systems, crashing and rebooting while driving terrifies me.
The infotainment is not connected to the ECU and other car control electronics. At least not on my Tesla nor my F150 Lightning. You can reboot them to your hearts content while driving down the road.
Yes, but it is still rather unnerving when part of the car goes dark. It also makes me question the QA on this stuff. If that is crashing, will the other systems be crashing at some point as well? Is there redundancy? These are the questions that went through my mind while hoping the screen would come back on before I missed my exit. Even knowing the systems are completely separate, it spoke to overall quality.
Backup cameras are an enormous safety improvement. Plus touchscreens are much cheaper than buttons and knobs.
> Backup cameras are an enormous safety improvement.
Sure, however....
> Plus touchscreens are much cheaper than buttons and knobs.
And how much LESS safe is using a touchscreen while operating a motor vehicle? Its literally no different from using an iPad.
Does Nissan still air cool their batteries or have they wised up?
The 2026 redesign has put in a proper liquid cooling loop.
(Battery heating is inexplicably an extra $300 option, and not available on the base trim AFAICS?)
Just buy one and remove the SIM card.
They often have eSIMs I think, but (depending probably on the car) pulling the modem's fuse can be safe. That's the case for the VW ID.4 at least.
If the modem has no fuse, physically damaging the NIC chip in the module will also work.
I want the car to be able to contact emergency services, but not to otherwise be able to use the cellular network. Is there a good way to sabotage the eSIM, without otherwise breaking the modem? (This would still allow the car to be tracked via IMEI, but I'm not too worried about that: anyone capable of that is also capable of tracking my actual phone, and anyone buying that data will already know what car I own.)
why do you want your car to contact emergency services? the people around you can do that just fine and very reliably.
How on earth did we survive as a species before our cars could make automated phone calls?
The parent comment is interested in the survival of themselves and passengers. The survival of the human race is a low bar to pass.
Have you been in the new Model Y? I was all for the „dumb car” until I tried one of those. Never going back.
You only want „dumb” bc the other car companies fk’d it all up.
Other car companies fucked it up is funny way to put it. Tesla hasn’t made a new car in a decade and the whole lineup is for my 80-year old Dad. I have 2014 Tesla S, my neighbour 2025, same car. Tesla X is from a decade ago, Tesla 3 is basically Toyota Corolla and Y is basically Model 3 that was pumped up a bit to look like a “crossover”
> I just hope "dumb" EV's become a thing soon
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...
The business case is that I will actually buy it. I won't buy "consumer electronics" garbage when I want to buy safe and reliable transportation.
That hasn’t worked for TVs. Or phones. Or plenty of other things.
Not sure what your point is when we're talking about cars, where fixed physical controls are demonstrably more usable and safer for drivers that need to keep their eyes on the road. Multiple manufacturers have pulled back from excessive touch controls (not just touchscreens, but capacitive buttons and sliders) and reinstated more traditional buttons and dials.
Physical controls and smart cars are not mutually exclusive. That’s why they’ve been fixing that.
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 declined the master data agreement when Toyota updated it, and my car hasn’t connected to the Internet since. They also wanted to charge me like $20 a month for stuff like bothering me with notifications that my wife has failed to lock the car when I’m halfway across the city after the first year of ownership.
I suppose they could still remote kill the car though, and have no idea what would happen if I hit the emergency button.
Oh, true. I got sidetracked by alephnerd's argument about touchscreens.
The business case is the same as every “dumb” device since the dawn of time, up until maybe 10 years ago.
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.
The case is that you’ll sell more cars giving people options. Slate is bucking the trend, we’ll see if successful.
> Some people argue the source of electricty can be contested against because that involves fossil fuel burning again
I would argue that this provides us the possibility of energy flexibility, which is a good thing given the current global geopolitical situation
i moved to beijing in 2015.. and i have to buy a air purifier, prepare masks for winter. pepople talks about air polutions so much, it feels like we are struggle, not living a life. i remember one day, it was so bad, i have to wear gas mask to go outisde, i know it's rare, and people are staring, but yes, its that hard.
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%.
Factories were one source, but in-home coal furnaces were a gigantic pollutant source in aggregate. I read articles about villagers banned from this who couldn't afford cleaner heat sources. Is that still the case?
Yes. This issue was exposed by netizens on social media and has been widely reported by numerous media. The local government has now lowered natural gas prices and increased subsidies. but i think the cost is still likely higher than burning coal. Hopefully they will continue to improve this situation.
I want the future to focus more on the brakes and tire dust, and the increase in cancers and other problems by people who live near busy roads or highways experience. Nobody studies this, and combustion or battery, everyone is affected by it. Even playgrounds are filled with shredded tires, which borders on biohazard.
It gets studied. EVs are often heavier, which is worse for tire wear, but use regenerative braking, which is better for brake dust.
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...
> but use regenerative braking, which is better for brake dust
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.
Braking from regen or braking from a brake pad has the same net impact on tire wear. EVs can coast too and don’t apply full regen the moment you apply brakes. Some even have brake coach alerts to get you to gradually apply the brakes to maximize energy return.
> EVs can coast too
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.
The tires and their dust don't care whether you're braking by regen or friction. The reason there's more dust is from the increased weight of the EV not because of regen braking. You can coast in EV as well, that is not exclusive to ICE.
> The tires and their dust don't care whether you're braking by regen or friction.
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.
But ICE vehicles can be in engine breaking mode. You pretty much never "coast" (e.g. put the vehicle in neutral or hold the clutch in). I get what you're saying but it feels like it's way in the margin if an effect at all. Do you have some reference? People keep talking about tire wear but my model 3 tires (which are relatively high performance soft tires) aren't wearing any faster than the wear I used to get on my Subaru before. I just don't drive aggressively. Flooring the accelerator must be the big difference. I don't think the weight difference is that large, certainly compared to trucks.
This will be met with consternation, not appreciation. The people who comment about brake dust in EV topics are the people who complain about birds when talking about windmills.
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.
Plug-in hybrids are a wonderful middle point on the Pareto frontier.
Wikipedia lists the 3rd-gen Prius Prime at roughly 3,500 pounds curb weight, and the Tesla Model Y at 4,100-4,600 pounds, I assume depending on the battery it's equipped with.
The Prius Prime has 40+ miles of all-electric range, and it can reach highway speeds with the gas engine off. So your day-to-day driving is all electric, then you still have 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.
Hybrids don't solve the main problem which is global warming, which demands zero carbon, not 50MPG gas cars.
EVs should do much better on brake dust thanks to regenerative braking, no?
But heavier so worse on the tires.
It isn’t intuitive that they’d be better off, and they might be worse on this particular dimension.
Yes current EVs are heavy. It's not at all clear that this will prevail as solid state batteries evolve to become standard. It is highly possible that EVs will soon be lighter than comparable ICE vehicles [1]
No no no. Sure, there might be a future where solid state batteries become the standard for electric vehicles, but you cannot link to Donut Lab's announcement from this month. There is no credible evidence they've achieved the holy grail of batteries so far until they actually deliver these motorcycles in hand and people independently verify them.
> Nobody studies this
> 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.)
The best solution is to build walking or biking environments.
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.
Walking and biking environments result in ghettoes, since you become essentially tied to one spot. Biking is _especially_ bad, a bike lane network is a kiss of death for social mobility.
Buses suck (for the reason you gave), and lightweight EVs are the best option.
It's great to see a reduction in local pollution but it is worth remembering the electric vehicles ultimately have zero impact on climate change and petroleum consumption (which as continue to rise year-over-year).
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.
> Oil not used in ICE cars is just used someplace else.
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.
Anyone can argue ICE vs EV all night long but there's only 1 metric I care about, in favor of EV:
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.
I did daily (old station wagon in the rear facing seat), as well as school buses. Kindof liked the smell in moderation as a kid.
Still in favor of EVs, just a curiosity that this is so negative for you.
I suspect OP is considering health effects, not enjoyment.
Plenty of people like cigarettes and opium too, that doesn't mean you want your kid exposed to the smoke.
How long are you running the car in your garage? A minute of idling isn't going to cause any problems.
Most of the exhaust fumes your son smells near school is going to come from other people's cars though.
You can already tell how much of a difference it makes in a city. Visiting Boracay after visiting other philipin island is heaven. I heard some Chinese cities are basically just EV, I can’t imagine how much nicer it could be to walk through New York without all that noise pollution
This study is about air quality in neighborhoods. So it would show the same thing even if EVs just moved pollution from where people use their cars to where power plants get placed, because that's not the question it's addressing.
People live in neighborhoods.
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?
Even if all the electricity for EVs came from a centralized coal plant (it doesn't) it would be better than using combustion in individual vehicles. Centralized pollution in one area is better than attempting to mitigate diffuse pollution everywhere.
Coal power plants are also massively more efficient than ICE cars. They can run consistently at their optimum rpm rather than start stop usage.
One other decent argument I heard in favor of EVs is that they’re agnostic to where that power is generated. So once that coal plant is replaced with natural gas, solar, wind, or whatever, all the EVs in that area will instantly become cleaner without everyone having to buy a new car after the changes is made.
OK but we already know that EVs don't just move pollution around.
AIUI there are still disagreements about how to calculate that exactly. This study doesn't (and doesn't try to) provide any input towards settling that.
There are no reputable studies that show EVs having anything like the harms of legacy cars. The worst you can get is that if you're on a carbon-intensive grid, a Hummer EV might be as bad as a compact gas car.
there are no disagreements about the fact that any electric is FAR more efficient than any combustion car.
Having spent a significant amount of time in Bangkok - the city center (and many urban hubs) is an amazing walkable place with pedestrian walkways suspended above major roads, lots of frequent public transit (metro, skytrain) that honestly makes my home city of Sydney feel like a developing country.
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
To me, Bangkok feels very much like a developing country.
If you go to Chinese cities, the EV adoption has incredible positive effects to the vibe, though. Shanghai’s French concession is so quiet and peaceful now that most cars are EVs.
Try walking around Newtown in Sydney haha. "Charming" multi-million dollar "victorian-style" shanties with public transit that are a 30 minute walk away and break down every few days.
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.
Those cities used to be filled with smokey two-stroke motorbikes and mopeds. One of those is worse than a dozen of normal cars, to say nothing of EVs.
Western countries will never match the new East Asian cities. All cities decay as the residents begin to oppose change. All residents begin to oppose change as they age and become wealthier. So whatever you become before the population gets rich is what you will remain.
There will be no new fast subway in San Francisco and there will be no maglev in NYC. There will be no autonomous buses in Sydney and London will be 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.
Hmmm. Do we have to do a study of that? The AQI around LHR was 3 when I went there last year. Then realized all gas cars are banned at the airport.
What's the reasoning for banning the cars specifically at an airport? Don't the airplanes burn way more fuel?
Aircraft burn more fuel, but they do so far from where people are, and Jet A burns more cleanly than gasoline from a particulate perspective.
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.
But don’t they cause higher pm2.5 and pm10 pollution from braking due to the fact that EVs are heavier than vehicles powered by internal combustion ?
1 pedal braking means evs often dont need new brake pads for 150K miles
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.
Maybe if they used their brakes all the time, but they don't. (Regen braking uses no brakes). That's why EVs, while heaver, require fewer brake pad replacements than ICE cars.
I'm no EV expert, but I almost never use my EV's brakes — it mostly brakes using regenerative braking.
Something that needs to be pointed out, especially for those who want to push back against findings like this and essentially defend ICE vehicles:
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
Kind of funny anecdote, as a bit of a car enthusiast.
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.)
> Who would actually decide to switch from a modern EV to gasoline on purpose of their own choice?
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.
Anyone remember yellow-orange skies before emissions standards?
Tires and brakes still contribute to a lot of particulate matter pollution even from EV's, but they're at least a step up. The best EV's are still eBikes though.
Tires yes, but EVs tend to have regenerative braking which will reduce brake particulates significantly.
The study is about NOx levels which have nothing to do with tires or brakes.
I mean, it kind of is. But I'd say the framing is about general air pollution, and they happen to use NOx levels as proxy indicator. So from that perspective, I think it is important to note that there are other types of pollution that go up with electric cars.
I was out skating today. Everyone was having a fun time until a diesel truck simply drove down the nearby road. It stunk up and polluted the frozen lake air for a solid few minutes. I hate diesel trucks with a passion and if I live long enough to see it happen, I will celebrate the day they become defunct. Tesla's EV trucks need to deal the same hard kick to diesel trucks that they did to cars.
Ev trucks have already reached 50%+ sales in China this year so diesel truck will be gone soon but unlikely to be Tesla trucks though.
Here in Japan as well delivery companies are all moving to EVs, which is great in the neighborhoods where they idle their trucks in the summer when hopping out to make a delivery. Yamato using Mitsubishi Fuso eCanter trucks[0] and Japan Post adopting Mitsubishi Minicab EVs[1] and Honda EV bikes.
[0] https://www.yamato-hd.co.jp/news/2023/newsrelease_20230912_1...
[1] https://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/jp/newsroom/newsrelease/20...
I see the BYD utes are increasingly common in Australia now.
Electric seems like a pretty clear winner now.
Just when I was thinking about Tesla’s main failure being their pickup truck you remind me how they completely missed the obvious delivery van market for which EVs are ideal.
And the semi is such vaporware that I forgot it was even a thing.
yeah, its an interesting analogy with smokers and the smell and pollution they spread. they dont seem to notice it themselves, but the non smokers around them and up to 100 meters away all notice them.
I’m not sure that’s really the case here. There’s simply no way you can’t notice bad pollution from vehicles.
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.
> Tesla's EV trucks need to deal the same hard kick to diesel trucks that they did to cars
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.
The post-cancellation EREV Lightning is 99% an EV, for the purposes of air pollution. Agree with everything else.
That's why I said (ish). I agree, it's predominantly an EV. I hope they backpedal on the decision a bit and offer both an EREV and a regular EV at the same time. I'm quite happy with my Lightning and will buy another, but I'm not super interested in the EREV as it just adds expense, complexity, and maintenance requirements without offering me much additional functionality for my use case.
I thought the whole point of an EREV is to reduce expense by having less battery in the vehicle.
Has the study made an effort to exclude any other factors? For example, a reduction in commute during the covid years?
> For the analysis, the researchers divided California into 1,692 neighborhoods, using a geographic unit similar to zip codes. They obtained publicly available data from the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles on the number of ZEVs registered in each neighborhood. ZEVs include full-battery electric cars, plug-in hybrids and fuel-cell cars, but not heavier duty vehicles like delivery trucks and semi trucks.
> 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.
I see. Thanks for the quote. I missed that part in the press release.
It also causes roads to be damaged/destroyed FAR faster due to the vehicales on average weighing significantly more.
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.
Only poorly designed EV's are significantly heavier.
A Tesla 3 and a BMW 3 are about the same weight.
BMWs are all pigfat today. Compare it to a proper sports car like a Miata.
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.
BMW has hardware and software bloat for sure, I hate driving them. But sedans, even the heavy ones, don't really hurt roads much compared to a lorry.
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.
The lithium mining is surely not causing anywhere near as much pollution as fossil fuel burning. If you think it's actually significant, please show relevant studies and/or analysis.