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.
Even if we still make a mess I think centralization of the mess is better than distributing it - what I mean is that polluting cities where millions sleep, eat, drink and breathe will probably be worse, net effect, than containing energy pollution to select places.
Running EVs in densely populated regions is probably a lot better for the population on the whole even if the net pollution would stay the same, IMO.
Still no EV is even better, but we’ve created a world where transport is often required so, one step at a time I guess.
The 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.
My city is covered by a low emissions zone so the odd van polluting sticks out. I was in Athens recently and the pollution from so many old rough cars was so noticeable (and quite unpleasant).
Reminds me of how I didn't really notice cigarettes until they were banned from public spaces and the base level of normal was recalibrated.
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.
I used to work for the Air Resources Board of California, and while there is a warm-up period, modern ice cars are so profoundly cleaner than cars even from the early 2000s. It’s pretty stunning.
Regardless, there’s nothing cleaner than no combustion, and I can’t wait until EV‘s have replaced them all
There's nothing cleaner at the locus of measurement. Great. But, prove that you are not moving emissions up the supply chain to make your argument. Only then can chemists like myself agree that you aren't just sniffing your own marketing. Because to me as a chemist it looks like you don't understand the environment and you're just pedaling marketing while treating science as if it is a religion that doesn't require any proof. As if politics alone determines what's good for the environment. That's wrong. I believe in science and I'm offended that you think you're so well educated that your opinion, without a chemistry degree, governs the air that my children will be breathing. Because as a scientist, I believe you're dramatically more destructive than the efforts you're arguing against.
In my expert opinion ICE is far more environmentally friendly when compared with most large grid solutions, as best I can tell. That's especially true when considering loss of energy due to simple transduction across the grid to charge EVs.
Tell me I'm wrong, but don't try to prove it with some marketing bullshit. Give me real science, that includes the entire supply chain and all the energy chain from the source without relying on media marketing and news sources owned by the same economic powers that control the media and the large grid power providers (same people). I want the math. Please eat shit if you can't produce the math.
Please, convince me. Because as a trained environmental chemist I hate everything you're supporting. And I want to prevent you from spreading more misconceptions that have nothing to do with environmentalism and everything to do with making more money for evil energy companies milking tax incentives towards "green initiatives" that are anything but good for the environment.
Please show all of us scientists how you're smarter. Please do your best to be scientific if you are actually interested in responding. Because I have every intention of responding with stoichiometric realities that are not going to vibe with your bullshit.
Thanks for considering deeply if your response is actually scientifically sound before you attempt to respond.
Openly, my point, is that so many of you act like you're on the side of science, when in fact you're buying a religion from a media outlet named "science" which is in fact unscientific.
And I fully intend to challenge your idiocy with actual science.
I'm excited to have anyone respond here, especially environmental chemists with a degree in the field.
Looking forward to it.
Every single survey that I'm aware has concluded that by any measure EVs are more environmentally friendly than ICEs. The only caveat is that the "startup" footprint of an EV is higher (because batteries), but the ongoing cost is far lower, even with polluting electricity sources like coal, because it's still way more efficient to burn coal in a proper power plant than it is to ship around gasoline and burn it badly in ICEs. The breakeven point (depending on your assumptions and driving habits) is a couple of years in, and after that EVs wipe the floor with ICEs.
Keen to hear your expert opinion on what (eg) the International Energy Agency got wrong.
Is every single survey you're aware of conducted by actual scientists? Are you sure? I'm asking honestly. How is it that every day people like yourself without a science degree are so sure of that fact?
You should be ashamed. How are you so sure that you know what science looks like? Are you trained in the field?
Be honest. How do you know that the articles you're subscribed to are provided by actual scientists and not funded by political efforts geared towards profiteering?
As an expert in the field, I'm trying to tell you that you're wrong. The "science" you're pedaling doesn't withstand basic scientific rigour. And I'm so excited to show you how stupid the article that you listed is.
But before I do that, are you really willing to accept that you're about to be dunked on? Or are you going to recoil into a politically media made safe space where your argument is immediately infallible because you don't actually believe in science?
Let me know before I proceed because if you actually can't be convinced then just admit you're not a scientist and recuse yourself.
Are you a scientist or a politician?
Yes, any cyclist daring to drive in winter can easily confirm this. It is so disgusting (and unhealthy) having to stand behind a ICE car on a traffic light and being behind a electric car is such a relief, that thoughts of wishing to ban all ICE cars as soon as possible (at least in cities) come automatically.
Modern ICE cars have auto start/stop systems, so on a traffic light it has as much exhaust as an EV.
> auto start/stop systems
Most start stop systems will disable themselves when the heater of the car is turned ON and the car engine not hot enough yet.
As a cyclist (or motorbike owner), it is pretty usual in city to have >50% cars with engines ON at traffic light in cities when temperature are low.
Also when the temperature is really low? Does not seem like it.
Also at some point they will start their engines again. Guess who will inhale that?
Ironically though, cyclists inhale less pollution than drivers (who inhale the most)!
But not every car on the road is modern, and it smells like crap as a result
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)
As the fleet of EV's age, I'm sure we'll see equivalents...
"The high voltage wires were just dragging on the street sparking, presumably with all the safety features disabled"
"They were driving with a 10 gallon coolant tank on the roof, presumably because the coolant loop had a big leak and needed continuous topping up".
You're not allowed to drive cars like that in a functional society. When you go for your compulsory car checkup it wouldn't pass the required safety standards.
while I agree, there's many places where the compulsory car checkup is tied to your relationship with the mechanic. I don't think my parents ever had a "valid" car but the certificate always was. It never felt wrong (although I think it is) but more like mutual aid or service.
Where I live there are yearly check ups that you need to do, or you simply cant legally drive your car
Are those even user serviceable? So, it won't stop everyone but it will stop most of them.
Most EVs have lockouts that will be very hard to bypass for things like this.
It’s more ‘I could have replaced a few cells in my battery pack, but the car bricked itself when I opened the pack! Assholes!’.
Notably many recent ICE cars aren’t much better.
I'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.
> The health consequences of inhaling exhaust particulates are far more harmful than the equivalent CO2 contribution to greenhouse effect warming unfortunately
Short term for the individual definitely, but long term for all individuals affected?
I know in some car tuning circles, or even just blue collar Joes in some places, will recommend removing the catalytic converter. Supposedly it makes the car use less fuel at the cost of worse emissions, and can make it sound better for those who care about that.
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.
For every car enthusiast there are probably a hundred poorly maintained vehicles on the road. Black smoke is likely soot, and white smoke is almost certainly an oil leak.
Oil in the exhaust in quantities high enough to produce acrid white smoke is extremely common on a number of ICE engines, like blown head gaskets on E25s (found in most Subarus before their Toyota involvement in 2010) for example
> 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.
Do you mean minimal impact?
Probably. I read it as “had an impact but kept the performance stayed nominal.”
> get stuck behind from time to time that just REEK is amazing
It’s crazy. How do we even allow selling cars without HEPA filters.
HEPA filters stop dust particles and not those tiny organic molecules that cause the smells. Filters for these exist as well, usually used in respirators, but those need to be exchanged pretty frequently and are not cheap.
We love privatising the benefits and socialising the harms of everything.
If the exhaust had to go through the cabin so the driver got the worst of it, car exhaust would be the cleanest air on the planet within months and/or alternatives to cars would rocket.
But as long as it’s other peoples health affected, meh.
tragically, because of efficiency standards, modern engines are known to burn oil .
Otherwise you may be smelling cars who have had the cats stolen.
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.
Some states handle this by requiring cars over a certain age to be emission checked before you can renew its registration. Failing cars have to be fixed and rechecked before you can get your tags.
I think they stop checking cars after a certain year. Like, if you are driving a 1980 Buick, they won’t make you scrap it because it’s emission tech is way out of date.
I can only speak about Germany. Here the technical safety and exhaust check are mandatory every two years. The exhaust check is relative to what the manufacturer specified when they first started selling the car. No one is getting their car taken away because technology improved but you can‘t let your car degrade (or modify it) so it becomes more dirty.
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 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 had downvotes on this post until you (and the other car enthusiasts) pointed this out / saw this.
HNs lack of knowledge around cars is sort of frightening.
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'd wager it's largely disruptive and dangerous in a highly localized way due to the small percentage of folks doing it. Doesn't make it an acceptable practice though. One person "rolling coal" can temporarily blind 3 or 4 cars back and several across depending on wind conditions, etc.
In terms of NOX it can be a factor of 100. If 1% drive without cats they produce half the NOX emissions. In reality it is probably less since there are other old cars as well that have higher emissions
I live in a progressive state and unfortunately encounter "coal rolling" regularly. I also assume that's the point. Someone has to "own all the libs" as it were
However, I do agree that there aren't enough folks "rolling coal" in aggregate to really move any needles on planet-scale environmental impacts though. Just VERY unpleasant to be caught behind.
I’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.
[deleted]
Besides the crap they pump into the air, they also excrete gunk onto the road. It’s so primitive.
Even if the electricity source would burn similar fuel, just the fact that you don't pullote right in the middle of population centers makes a huge difference. In reality, it's not only that, but _also_ that they use cleaner methods of energy production.
[dead]
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).
So 1 out of 20 cars in California is an EV.
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:
And newer cars get driven more than old cars on average so 1/20 cars being EVs will do more than 1/20th of the miles.
Between 1 in 4 and 1 in 3 in Norway.
Germany maybe 1 in 5 to 1 in 7 ( at least in the south ). I drive mostly the commuter schedule and I am amazed how many are driving the EVs.
Truth is: for commuting up to 100kms, the EVs are wastly cheaper long run ( you have to factor everything ! )
Is that true? EV have much higher emissions of micro plastics and pfas (or variations thereof) due to increased tier degradation. EVs are typically way heavier than similar ICE due to the batteries and combined with the higher torques, tires wear faster.
I have a heavy and high performance EV (Tesla Model S) and I have replaced my tires twice in the last six years. So it’s about the same as an ICE vehicle in that regard.
One thing that differs is brake wear. My car is ten years old and still on its original brake pads and discs. The regen braking is amazing for avoiding mechanical braking. So that means less particle emission from brakes, compared to ICE.
>"I have a heavy and high performance EV (Tesla Model S) and I have replaced my tires twice in the last six years. So it’s about the same as an ICE vehicle in that regard."
Well no, it's not "the same". We have things like physics to tell us that more torque and more weight means more tire wear, despite your anecdote. There are even studies on this. They also have a greater impact on road wear.
EVs have many advantages over ICEs. I don't understand why people have to lie and say they are worse nowhere.
It is amazing the amount of bs and grasping at straws that the oil company will push to keep their amazing polluting stuff going on
No I'm sure fracking and pipelines and all the crap the oil industry needs just to exist does not have any pfas or micro plastics
Micro plastics pollution is a relatively new problem and thus many direct and indirect effects are not yet fully understood. Moving emissions from CO2 (gas) to micro particles (solid), means emissions will be deposited more local to roads. Moving emissions from 'big oil' installations to the road, means more local emissions/deposits nearer to your home and backyard.
Additionally, due to the fourth power law [0], you only need 20% weight increase to obtain a 2x road wear. Asphalt/concrete production is also accompanied with substantial emission, although progress is made to reduce it [1].
Is there a break-even for weight vs emission reduction? And if so, is it somewhere between personal and cargo vehicles or is it 'EV always better'?
Are we trading 'well-known and bad for global environment'-emission for 'poorly-understood and possibly very bad for local environment on a global scale'-emission?
Of course, with the available information EVs seem to be the better solution, but it should not prevent us from researching/solving unknown effects or being careful choosing a single solution on such a large scale.
"The oil companies! The oil companies!". Yeah, they only lie, nobody needs their products! We all hate it! Buy a car from a good company with honest leadership, like Tesla (made of oil products)!
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.
You can do both! Better trains and more EVs replacing gas cars can be done simultaneously!
You forget the most important aspect of policy: it can't cost a single dime, and everyone must lie about that. Read the first sentence of the article:
"When California neighborhoods increased their number of zero-emissions vehicles"
Obviously neighborhoods/cities/states didn't increase anything. It was just rich people living there buying fancy cars. Of course, this needs to be described as a great accomplishment of local government.
And nowhere in the article is the obvious solution even suggested: advancing electric car technology so they're cheaper than ICE cars. And I don't mean charging extra tax while cutting public transport to make sure poor people don't go anywhere anymore, I mean fixing the technology so everyone has transport, for less money.
> Some people argue the source of electricty can be contested against because that involves fossil fuel burning again
FYI, if you want to search for this, it is called "The long tailpipe" theory (1) or "long tailpipe fallacy".
And it is a fallacy for obvious reasons, including
a) electricity generation is more flexible, and rapidly shifting to solar and other non-polluting sources.
b) Moving pollution away from people is better. Cars are inherently around people, streets, residences etc.
c) One centralised plant with no weight restrictions is easier to control for emissions and efficiency than many thousands of mobile, weight-constrained power plants.
d) Wikipedia: "The extraction and refining of carbon based fuels and its distribution is in itself an energy intensive industry contributing to CO2 emissions."
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.
Also, an EV is as green as the grid. Hamburgs public transportation is heavily investing into electrical busses, because a bus is expected to function for 10 - 15 years. Meaning, a diesel bus built today will be as polluting in 2035 as it is today, though they are also looking at alternatives there. But an electrical bus will become cleaner and cleaner over time.
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.
> 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 hope ICE cars completely become a thing of the past in the next couple of decades to come.
for this to happen the EVs depreciation needs to drastically improve compared to ICE. I don't see this. On top of this EVs tend to push ideas from Software/Tech companies, such as recurring revenues (because the underlying technology lends itself to it better).
Personally I'm unsure that this will be accepted by all consumers as much as is needed. After all the automotive marketing has since Ford insisted that driving was about "freedom". So some pivot needs to happen in the messaging. Suppose decades is a lot of time to change it. Personally I think EVs are nonsense, and a better utopia would be making sure public transport is abundant, high-quality and free.
Public transport will never recreate the freedom of car ownership.
It’s a collectivist dream not rooted in reality.
I’m not going to try to convince you that you can’t control your immediate environment better in a car, but not having to deal with parking or insurance or traffic is quite freeing.
Yep and politicians believe they can recreate utopian Singapore wherever they are governing. Regarding eliminating car use.
Rarely in everyday life situations do I feel as claustrophobic as being in a car in traffic in a typical road.
Can’t change direction (one lane no junctions), can’t change speed (vehicles in front and behind), can’t stop (flow of traffic), can’t break concentration (driving), can’t change body position (car cabin is tiny, seats and hand/feet controls are fixed, no space to stand), can’t look away for more than a moment (responsibility of driving).
And the only places to go are on the predetermined road, from a car park, to a car park, following a lot of strict prescribed rules about how.
This meme of “freedom” is brainwashing and marketing (which has been picked up as an identity thing by the right wing recently).
There’s nothing free about having to use a $20,000 vehicle to buy bread because no other options are available.
I do not own a vehicle, and most of my life I've depended on public transit. Lately, I take Waymos or I ride scooters, or use public transit as usual.
Sometimes, for special errands, I rent a car. For example, I intended to move across town last year, so I rented a car for 3-4 days.
It was the most excruciating pain I could have. I chose a little Mitsubishi Mirage, and firstly, it was the middle of July in the Sonoran Desert, and the A/C hardly worked, so I was sweating, and the car would heat up real good in parking lots. No sun shades, dark upholstery. Also, the USB connection was flaky, so sometimes my phone didn't charge, and whether or not, it was directly exposed to the Sun and overheating.
By the second day, my legs hurt a lot. I had spent an unexpected amount of time on my feet and walking around, despite the vehicle. Do you know how big parking lots are these days?!
I tried sitting down at every opportunity. I have a running gag/dispute at my bank to see whether they will allow me to "sit down" at the "ADA/Disabled" teller window.
Driving home at night on the last night, my leg cramped up really bad. I was in such pain, I nearly pulled over because it was my accelerator/brake leg and I was going to lose control of the car.
Thankfully I was able to hold it together, and returned the car the next day, but boy I did not want such a vehicle ever again. And it was not a stick-shift; it was an automatic transmission.
Next time I'm going to be really sure that the USB and A/C work. And that my legs are super-comfortable and has cruise control.
[deleted]
What a hilarious post.
Buddy, the world is a bigger place than the 4 square miles around your downtown studio. How do you plan on visiting without entering one of these claustrophobic compartments, be it plane, train or automobile? The fact that you think you're "free" because you can walk around a little bit...well that's as brainwashed as it gets.
No one is forcing you to drive if you have these peculiar feelings about it.
That’s not true, that’s your mental gymnastics to try to defend the ideology you have taken on.
While there are no alternatives with similar funding and societal support to driving, car dependency forces many people to drive even for trivial things. Most car journeys are less than three miles. That’s a bonkers state of affairs for the planet and for human history.
All 110 billion humans who ever lived couldn’t possibly be considered “not free” because they didn’t have cars to get to the nearest stream or nut tree. Wild animals aren’t considered to have “no freedom” because they don’t own cars.
> Hey! Stop right there! Do you have a license and registration for that freedom?
God I love freedom so much.
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.
Not remotely true; Look up "one chip" designs.
Yes, there are some security threats, but solving them is more valuable than trying to design a car around true firewalls.
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.
Amusingly my Cupra Born in Australia is a “dumb” EV, because Cupra/VW didn’t put a SIM in the car in this country. It’s quite lovely really, though it means I have to go to Cupra for a firmware update.
We'll probably see the death of the dumb ICE car first.
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]
> "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.
It's important to realize the reason for that.
Crashes by human drivers are hugely disproportionately by people who are driving drunk or with insufficient sleep or significant distractions etc. In other words, it's not a difference in the cars, it's a difference in the drivers. Waymo can beat a drunk driver, and therefore can beat the human driver arithmetic mean which has the drunk drivers averaged in.
That doesn't mean it's any safer than driving an ordinary car when you're not drunk.
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.
Waymos are driverless vehicles. We're talking about always-connected human-driver vehicles. The comparison is not apt.
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.
We just bought a Cupra Tavascan; turns out VW Group Australia decided to forgo connected car features for EVs (or at least the ones we looked at).
Win.
Cupra Born in aus, same thing here haha
Though it means connected charging via API stuff doesn’t work. Not that it’s mattered to me!
Not happening any time soon, sorry. Car manufacturers want that sweet sweet subscription revenue.
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.
EVs use 12V for standby just like ICEs. I guess it could occasionally recharge it from the main battery, but needing a jump is a thing for EVs also in theory. I’ve also had issues with the 12V disabling remote systems because of abnormal discharge (well, BMW has an issue with their lock on weak away in that it keeps drawing power if the fob gets near even if the car is locked).
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.
> They rely on a 12 V battery or a 48 V battery like a normal car.
Which leads to "fun" situations when that battery runs out, like not being able to get into your car or start it. However not much power is needed, so a tiny portable jump pack is enough to get things going.
Both me and my sister has experienced this, me a Nissan Leaf and her a VW ID.4, good times.
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.
Even those models still include a 12 V battery. The point stands - the traction battery is not a replacement and larger energy source in any car.
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.
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.
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.
Did the new Leaf get dumber? I have an old 2019 model and it’s connected. In the mobile app I see its location, turn on AC etc.
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.
Backup cameras are an enormous safety improvement.
You know that a backup camera can be added to practically any car right? My ~2002 Toyota has a Pioneer deck from around 2007 (I guess?) that supports reversing camera input. My wifes 2012 Toyota hybrid has a reversing camera using some POS cheap Chinese deck that's so shit it doesn't even support Bluetooth audio.
No part of reversing cameras are dependent on any of the "modern" trends in cars that are being discussed here.
I responded to a comment about screens.
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?)
The differentiating factor is not EV vs ICE. All cars have or will soon have telematics and such.
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.
There's often been a few cases of "disappeared" people who went missing and it turns out they actually crashed off the road somewhere and weren't found for a week or two.
That's extreme of course but there are probably a lot of accidents that happen in low-density rural country areas or late at night when there aren't many people around. The automatic e-call from the car gives exact GPS coordinates and severity of the accident, even if you are unconscious or if your phone that was neatly in the cup holder before the crash was flung somewhere else (potentially even flew out of the car etc) and you're trying to find it while someone might be dying in the seat next to you etc.
People didn't survive before all this. It's a mandatory feature now because it's so effective at saving lives. 2 to 10% reduction in fatalities and serious injuries apparently. Would you also question why we have mandatory airbags and traction control?!
[deleted]
I don’t give rats shit about species when it’s my safety involved. What even is this type of virtue signalling??
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.
A few years ago it came out that one of the manufacturers (my hunch is Samsung but I don't remember the specifics) had their "smart" tvs aggressively try connecting to any and all networks it can find in range, if you didn't connect it to one.
I reluctantly bought an LG with webOS (least bad option available) a couple of years ago. For some reason they weren't content to let the TV menu/remote work with up/down/left/right buttons.
That's too fucking predictable, and anyone who's used a tv in the last 2 decades could use it....
Let's give it a fucking nipple, just like those horrific fucking IBM/Lenovo laptops.
Then of course it also tries to "help" by detecting HDR content and change view mode... while something is playing.... which makes the screen go black for several seconds.
> 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.
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.
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”
Wow. This comment makes me wonder if really earth is flat.
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?
It depends on your lifestyle. I haul my RV around sometimes two weekends a month. In my F-150 lightning I get around 100 miles between charges which is pretty dismal. I’m assuming you live in a city or in Europe. Where I live people regularly haul RVs, boats etc. I also frequently drive long distances and even in the best case scenario 2.5 hours of driving followed by 40 minutes of charging is a pain. These aren’t unusual driving patterns where I live.
I recently did a day trip of 800km while it was freezing and snowing. Yes the range is impacted, so i never did more than 200km in one go. Then a quick 15 minutes break to recharge and continue. It takes a bit longer, but not bad enough to go back to ICE cars. EV drives so much nicer.
No need to double twice. 250 miles (~4 hours of driving) is about what you want. Pretty much everybody needs to bathroom at least that often. And nowhere on a road in the continental US is more than 150 miles from a charger.
So yes, you want 400-500 miles of range, but that's because you've doubled the 250 for weather, safety margin, etc.
[deleted]
> 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
Now do the same for internal combustion cars. What a silly argument.
Yes do the same for ICE - very constructive suggestion. Completely unnecessary to call the argument silly though..
There are marked differences in what's needed in an EV vs an ICE, most obvious of which is the giant battery with a very different supply chain.
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.
The pollution and grime that cars produce comes from tires rubbing off, not exhaust. (The exhaust pollution is mostly invisible.)
Electric cars are heavier and produce more tire grime.
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%.
Both ICE and EV cars require a support infrastructure. As sales trends change, so the emphasis on support infrastructure changes, and that accelerates the trend.
For example EVs depend on charging, so we're seeing more public charge points, as well as more home chargers, work chargers and so on.
ICE depends on gas stations (which is the tip of the gasoline distribution industry.) It also depends on ICE mechanics. As demand for those services drop off, so they'll become harder to find. (To be clear, that's not happening soon, there are a LOT of ICE cars out there...)
But 50 years from now most of that ICE infrastructure will have disappeared.
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.
The real scandal isn’t just battery degradation… it’s that manufacturers have zero incentive to solve it. Your car becoming worthless after a decade suits them down to the ground.
Battery swapping changes the game entirely. Imagine a national network of exchange stations (co-located with existing petrol infrastructure, you can use the overhead canopy for solar). Standard pack sizes scaled by vehicle class: compact cars get 2 cells, vans get 4, lorries get 8.
Whoever owns these battery packs now has skin in the game for longevity. Their profit depends on keeping packs in service for 20+ years, not selling you a new car.
Suddenly the R&D money flows towards batteries that last, obsolescence now costs them money, and isn’t a happy accident that keeps you hooked on buying more cars.
You’d still have the option to buy your own packs outright if you only ever charge at home, but the network creates the economic pressure for genuine improvement of longevity in battery tech that’s completely missing today.
I’m aware that a company called “Better Place” failed. But they were a startup trying to strong-arm the automotive industry. A nationally coordinated infrastructure concern is different, and the air quality data from this study suggests we can’t afford to keep muddling through - and I really think that peoples concerns about batteries are not misplaced.
Perfect is the enemy of good, but damned if we can’t at least align incentives for better.
It is a horrible setup that the manufacturers would much rather sell you a new car than a new battery.
We saw this play out with phones. We used to have easily swappable batteries. And since battery chemistry was (and hopefully still is and will continue) improving, by the time you actually swapped the battery there were ones around with a higher capacity than the battery the phone shipped with. And typically for little money.
Now everything is glued and messy to swap so the manufacturer can sell you a battery swap for much much more money than it used to cost.
I believe cars should have swappable somewhat standardized batteries. Even if not swappable by the user, it should not be a more than 1h job at the mechanic (ANY mechanic, not just the manufacturer).
Imagine picking a car and not caring about battery at all. You want a Tesla but BYD batteries are better - so get a Tesla without a Battery and put a BYD one it it. Or maybe Tesla has the best batteries right now, so you get that. And once you have to swap the battery, you again just pick the best manufacturer at the time - who might not even be a car manufacturer at all but rather someone specialized in batteries exclusively.
And since hopefully 10 years have passed since you bought the last battery, chemistry has improved so you pick from options that are all (hopefully a lot) better than the battery you had initially.
We could have some proper competition where manufacturers would have to compete on pricing and performance.
But car manufacturers don't care. They want as much of your money as they can get. And opening their cars to third party batteries and not keeping up as many walls as they can is the opposite of that.
So until forced by regulation every manufacturer will continue to put batteries in their cars that only they themselves will sell and put a slightly different one in every car. So guess what, even if you swap your battery in 10 years, they will sell you the same battery you can buy right now. Because the newer stuff is for new cars only and compatible with your car.
I get what you’re saying but I think it misses that battery longevity can be a competitive advantage for the companies with better technology.
The Nissan Leaf 15 years ago came with a 5-year/100,000km battery warranty, now Toyota are at 10-year/1,000,000km.
You’d be proving me wrong with this fact if the data showed that they’re moving more units because of this marketing.
As it stands the Nissan Leaf is an outlier only in Norway, where it was practically a free car due to subsidies, otherwise their growth is pretty much in line with other EVs.
I was giving the Leaf as an example of a worse warranty offering from 15 years ago sorry. Toyota now have the longer warranty compared to all the others, and even as a fairly poor EV they’re hugely popular with taxi drivers etc.
I’m a bit EV obsessed so spend a lot of time answering questions about them online, the longer warranty is 100% impacting buying choices.
This seems like something EV buyers would care about. If they don't, it raises the question of why a solution is needed at all.
“I’ll sell my car before it becomes an issue” - common statement I’ve heard.
It needs to be fixed, because aside from someone being left with the economic bag of disposing of the vehicle, it is actually an environmental issue to build these batteries.
Just not as bad of an issue as running ICE cars for the same period of time.
People tend not to think more than a certain amount of time away for some reason.
[deleted]
Battery degradation is largely overhyped and there is growing real world data to illustrate that in practice it's not a dealbreaker. Million mile batteries now exist.
Show me a million mile gas/diesel engine.
Also let's not forget that Toyota has a well funded corporate program rewarding employees to spread anti-EV propaganda.
It will take a regulator fix. Likely from the EU, who brought us USBC instead of plugpack hell.
So you don't think the free market will force manufactures to compete on better batteries? I always thought the benefit of the free market was that it forced companies to compete on product quality... /s
To be honest with you, the free market does work when incentives are aligned.
If you get maximum profit from the maximum social good, people will do that (or find a way to cheat); but as it stands, theres money to be made in not doing this and the consumer won’t care too much if its 9 years or 10 years that their car lasts, so its not hurting sales to not fix this (even if fixed perfectly, it would take 10 years to prove after all!).
I think I’m dreaming, the investment would have to be enormous, who wants to hold stock of so many batteries? Who will convince manufacturers to integrate standardised batter packs instead of the more profitable “built-in phone style” that is used today, and the automotive marketing machine is really strong and will (correctly) lean on the idea that by having the battery replaceable would require less rigid car bodies, so their current incentive would be to fight this initiative and they would probably lead with the safety angle.
The anti-EV propaganda already works pretty well with the very little it has to work with (farming batteries is harmful), so, imagine what they could do with something of actual substance.
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.
ICE cars also require large and heavy trucks to transport fuel around constantly.
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.
Hi, I’m indeed the same person. I also hate oversized trucks. I’m generally against things that make the world worse for marginal benefits.
The cybertruck clocks in at around the same weight as oversized trucks. Whenever I see people alone in either, I’m pretty annoyed.
Semis for long haul are also annoying and we should substantially increase rail infra in the US
Isn't brake pollution a lot less with EVs?
I'm the person who commented it and I don't appreciate your straw man here.
Please don't downvote comments because you don't agree with the argument. Downvotes should be for comments that add little to the discussion.
I agree that discussing weight with regard to EVs, without acknowledging that (in the US) the fashion is for big heavy ICE cars is just as polluting is disingenuous.
That said, outside the US the trend is for smaller cars, and equally the weight of a small EV is not hugely dissimilar to a common ICE car.
Frankly I'm not sure there's a whole lot to say about tire dust- cars need tires. EVs generate less brake dust. If there's a tire dust discussion to be had, then that discussion is independent of the vehicle fuel source.
And wouldn't you say that when a comment is made in bad faith, or misrepresents (deliberately or not) a major component of its argument, that it adds little to the discussion?
It's all well and good to have high-minded ideals of pure intellectual discussion, but in the real world, there are many people who are coming into the comments with a strong political agenda in mind, and are both willing and able to make disingenuous and bad-faith comments to support that agenda.
Presenting the increased tire dust of heavier vehicles as being an exclusive property of EVs—a bright-line differentiator between them and ICE cars—is disingenuous and misrepresents the facts. I think it's reasonable to say that makes it "add little to the discussion".
I understand that it can feel like you're having to make the same point over and over (I certainly feel like that sometimes) but personally I'm more inclined to give the person the benefit of the doubt when it comes to good faith.
Out in the world there are common misconceptions which are propagated by vested interests and believed by many at first glance.
Having the opportunity to see those arguments, and rebuff them , (over and over again) is key to balancing the public discourse.
I agree, some argue in bad faith, that's going to be true in some cases. But I think most times it's honest misconceptions.
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.
I looked into PHEVs on my last vehicle shopping go-round, since few pure EVs met my cargo size requirements (stroller/baby life is a whole thing).
Ultimately, it was way more worth it to go all the way up to an F150 Lightning than to go with a good PHEV, partly due to up-front cost, but mostly due to ongoing cost: I will need to change the oil on the electric motors maybe every 150,000miles, and I never need an emissions test again. PHEVs require keeping the gas engine up, and getting it emissions-tested.
A whole category of cost just straight-up disappeared, for cheaper than I could get a RAV4 Prime too.
PHEVs are a very interim solution. There are some advantages while range anxiety is an issue.
Yes, EVs have a weight penalty of ~250-500kg of battery currently.
Battery technology is rapidly advancing, when Na-ion batteries are introduced more widely, the whole range anxiety issue will become moot, because a recharge will take as long as refueling an ICE vehicle.
The weight difference will also start to reduce, both due to newer batteries, but also moving to lighter weight construction and increased use of alternatives to steel.
Arguing for ICE technology in 2025 is like Blackberry/Nokia users complaining about the loss of keyboards & T9 texting.
Hybrids don't solve the main problem which is global warming, which demands zero carbon, not 50MPG gas cars.
> 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 default setting just moves the coast point to a slightly depressed accelerator. This is because EVs typically have lower drag, so this behavior mimics a higher drag vehicle. If you use the accelerator to achieve the desired speed, you will coast when possible. You can also monitor the display to see the coast point. My 2013 plug in hybrid only supports this style of operation.
Modern EVs have easy adjustment for this. The Hyundai/Kia EVs for example have shift style paddles for adjusting this on the fly which includes a mode for regen only when depressing the break pedal.
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.
The amount of braking force needed to take a car of X weight from Y miles per hour to zero in a given amount of time is the same whether by friction brakes or regen brakes.
You can reduce the total braking force needed by extending the time, in which case aerodynamic forces and rolling resistance will contribute some more to the reduction in speed.
In an EV with one-pedal driving you can still stop quickly or slowly. In an ICE car you can stop slowly with more coasting or quickly with more braking force.
I don't see how the drivetrain is going to make a difference to the amount of braking needed to stop and thus force exerted on the tire. The added weight of most EVs would be the larger factor.
> 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
Hyundai and Kia EVs have a 5 level setting for what happens when you lift up on the accelerator, either partially or fully.
At level 0 the regeneration is so low that I don't notice a difference between that and being in neutral. It slows down way less than an ICE does when not in neutral.
> If you just take your foot off the accelerator, any modern EV will apply some amount of regenerative braking. It's not really possible to hold the accelerator pedal at the exact position where you are not applying motor power but also have 0kW of regen braking, certainly for any extended period of time.
Tire wear is not a linear function of acceleration. Is there any reason to believe that variations from not being able to hold your foot perfectly steady, assuming you aren't have spasms, will be big enough and/or last long enough to make a non-trivial difference?
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.
The amount of engine braking applied by an automatic transmission ICE vehicle when you take your foot off the gas is an order of magnitude less than the regen braking applied when you take your foot off the accelerator on your Model 3.
First off, my Renault Megane e-Tech has paddles that allow me to change the regen strength on the fly. I use it actively when driving.
But anyway, I find I drive differently with an EV. I don't let off the throttle unless I want to slow down. If I want to coast, I just reduce my throttle input to where its coasting.
I tend to agree with your overall point, but if we're talking about a 1-2 kW of "standby" regen, surely the rolling resistance of any kind of vehicle is in the same ballpark anyway (source: it takes multiple people to push a broken down car).
The bearings and whatnot that cause rolling resistance on an ordinary car also exist in EVs; this is 1-2kW on top of that, when the car is in Drive. Furthermore, it's common to use one pedal driving- it's generally much more than 1-2kW.
>> Nobody studies this
Tire dust has been studied for decades and the most recent research I've seen suggests the issues are less concerning than previously estimated.
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.
Time will tell on their battery, especially if the bike they're putting it on delivers. I think the overall point could be that there's active R&D in trying to find geopolitically sustainable materials, and lowering the weight of materials used.
> 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.
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.
That 4th power law works both ways. A 40 ft bus 2 axle bus with 80 passengers will weigh about 40 000 pounds. The axle weight is 20 000, so by the 4th power law the damage is proportional to 2 x 20 000^4 = 3.2 x 10^17.
If instead those 80 passengers each drove alone in a Kia Niro EV it would be about 4 000 pounds each, so an axle weight of 2000, so the damage would be proportional to 160 x 2000^4 = 2.56 x 10^15.
That's 125 times less road damage than the bus!
Another interesting 4th power calculation is EV vs ICE. My car is available as an ICE, a hybrid, or an EV. I've got the EV which weighs more than the ICE.
Based on the 4th power law I should be doing about 40% more damage than I would if I had bought the lighter ICE model.
But wait! With the ICE model I'd need to regularly by gasoline, and that gasoline is delivered by a tanker truck. Tanker trucks, especially when they are traveling between wherever they load and wherever they unload, are very heavy.
I calculated what would happen in a hypothetical city where everyone drove the ICE version and then all switched to the EV version, and how many tanker truck gas deliveries that would eliminate. I don't remember the exact numbers but it was something like if mid sized tankers were used for gas delivery then if they had to drive more than a few miles from wherever they loaded up to wherever they unloaded the elimination of those trips by everyone switching to EV would reduce road damage by more than the damage caused by the EVs being heavier than the ICE cars.
[flagged]
> "Walking and biking environments result in ghettoes"
I must admit this viewpoint is one I have never seen before! Instead I've heard many arguments that bike lanes and pedestrianization are forms of gentrification, but resulting
"ghettoes?" +1 for creativity!
That's a ... take.
What a ridiculous take. There are many, many cities and towns worldwide that are primarily walk/bike friendly and they seem to do very well in terms of quality of life.
I know I will be damned for this comment but nevertheless even EVs produce pollution with regard to tire abrasion. Tire abrasion itself is the main contributor to microplastics
Recent research suggests the issues are much less concerning than previously estimated.
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 have another one: _I_ don't have to smell your gas and fumes when I bike behind you!
Most of the exhaust fumes your son smells near school is going to come from other people's cars though.
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.
[deleted]
I want and EV but I don't have a charger and I cant have a charger since I live in an apartment.
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.
They are still a luxury item, only affordable by a few.
Although to be fair new ICE cars are also a luxury item. Most people can only buy used ICE cars these days
That used to be true; it no longer is. In the EU, some of the cheapest cars on the marker in 2026 are now electric. There are a few nice options in the 15K-20K Euro segment. These are the opposite of luxury cars. There are a quite a few new more joining the half dozen or so that were for sale last year. The trend here is that EVs are becoming the cheapest option.
A few cars from Stellantis that are available in ICE and EV variants are now actually cheaper in the EV variant. This reflects the reality that batteries are now cheap and EVs don't have a lot of moving parts. So, they should be easier and cheaper to assemble. That's a trend that is spreading across all price segments in the next few years. Driven by component and cheap battery availability.
Used EVs are widely available now as well. You can get some amazing deals on cars that mostly still have their drive trains + batteries under warranty. Lots of cars coming out of lease programs are sold on second hand. EVs have been very popular for car leasing for the last 6-7 years now. These are mostly still the relatively expensive models from a few years ago.
The cheap EVs that are now on the market will inevitably start penetrating the second hand market in larger and larger numbers. Cheap ICE cars are disappearing rapidly from the market as models are being discontinued by manufacturers and as the market shares for ICE vehicles keep on shrinking. That means they'll also start getting more scarce in the second hand market in a few years. You'll still be able to get your Ford Fiesta. But it will be a model from before it was discontinued a few years ago. Or the new electric model that they are rumored to launch soonish.
In the US, that is. In China, several EV models sell for under $10k, with some, like the Wuling Hongguang Mini EV, starting as low as $4k [0].
Talking generally and depending on many factors the fossil fuel yearly energy consumption for private transportation is similar with that of home heating. ICE cars are replaced with electric and boilers with heat pumps. Both help, may be the same, but in the latter case the increase in average temperature of the last three years adds to the mix.
I love EVs, ever since I test drove an BMW i3 in 2012. Quiet with high drag - of course this is the future.
BUT I don't think switching to EVs will help reduce CO2 in any way - not even if all the EVs are charged using 100% solar/wind. The narrative usually is "I get an EV instead of an ICE, charge it with regenerative energy and have 0 emissions, thus not burning oil and saving on CO2".
But that is not how a globalized world with free markets works. In order to save on CO2, we would need to keep that oil not burned by the EV underground, but that does not take place. The market reality is that oil price will just drop with less demand from ICE vehicles. But with falling prices, other business models that require refined oil will become viable and the oil is still burned - just somewhere else. No one so far has made a good argument why the Saudis or Russians would leave their ressources underground, just because demand from ICE vehicles drop.
What you're missing here is that oil production and processing has huge fixed costs. Producers can't just pump out infinite oil at zero cost. The economies of scale break down and fuels become more expensive as demand drops.
Cars do zero Carbon capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS). The potential is there to emit negligible CO2 when it's only energy-intensive large industry doing the fuel burning.
Having said that, the path being taken in some countries to remove ICE is simply pushing large swathes of the population out of the car market. I don't support that, although I'm sure there are many people who do.
Reduced demand for oil reduces the quantity of oil extracted and purduced. The price drops and hardwr to extract oil stops being produced
> Reduced demand for oil reduces the quantity of oil extracted
That is not true. Reduced price leads to higher demand. This is economics 101.
> The price drops and hardware to extract oil stops being produced
Oil extraction costs differ vastly amongst countries, and there is a lot of potential for increased productivity and efficencies when the margins become lower - price pressure is a driver for innovation. And countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia have a very high incentive to keep extracting oil and sell it, because their economy relies on it.
> This is economics 101.
OK.
And did you go to Economics 201?
Because there, you might have learned that the basic economic principles you describe as "economics 101" are the equivalent of the "spherical cow in a frictionless vacuum"-type examples you get in introductory physics classes.
In the real world, demand is affected by all kinds of things, and sometimes, a product or service is just no longer desired by the population. Do you think that if you were selling buggy whips for $0.05 each, you'd be able to make a profit on them today? Of course not, because people don't need them. You'd barely sell any, and those purely as a novelty.
While there's still a lot of work to do to make it fully possible, and certain political groups are actively working against it, the world at large recognizes that getting off of fossil fuels is an important goal. Demand for oil is going to continue to drop—maybe not monotonically, but overall—regardless of what the price of oil does.
Which businesses will become viable that will consume oil at this scale?
Aviation industry comes to mind. The price of an airline ticket is mostly the fuel. With cheaper airline tickets, more people can afford to fly (especially in developing countries). And also, poor countries suddenly are able to get oil cheaper and built their industries just as we did 50 years ago.
If you live in North America and have a house or townhouse get a Tesla. It is such a no brainer. $5 for 500km vs $100 for 500km (gas) is just too good
Sorry but where in the US does electricity cost under 10c/kWh (assuming something like 80kWh for 500km)? And 100$ for 30-40l of petrol? That'd be over 10$ per gallon
Or, y'know...get literally any other EV.
One that doesn't support a neo-Nazi trying to wreck America's economy and political system for his own gains.
I hear the Hyundai Ioniq is supposed to be pretty good.
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
Personally, I hope EV adoption (in Indonesia) improves, as they mostly come from China and challenge the status quo of Japanese cars.
Chinese cars are a "better deal" because they give more bang for the buck. Japanese cars, on the other hand, are very "stingy" due to decades of near monopoly.
Yeah, this kind or Validate my own Beliefs that EV won't solve the fossil fuel burning. But they can at least make energy used by vehicle independent of the source used to generate the energy.
Basically, the government and private sector can switch to renewable energy at some point even if they are using Fossil fuels today.
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.
That doesn't make much sense to me. HK added transit long after it was a big city. Tokyo added transit. Heck, all the cities of Europe started long before transit became a thing and then added it later.
I agree it seems hard in NYC, SF, etc but other cities have added transit
Anyone know how far off economical EV motorcycles are? They'll be game-changers for many south east asian cities where traffic is 90% motorcycles, which seem to pollute as much (/more ?) than cars.
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.)
I'd call the that country that adopted EV's first and gasoline second... extinct after WW2. If nothing because the country wouldn't be able to launch an airforce to counter the bombers hitting your power plants. If not that then there's the constant contention of having to pull power lines forward and leaving them vulnerable to artillery fire while the petrol tank hit and run with impunity.
Plus now you have problems moving tonnes of food, water, ammunition on BEV vehicles that no longer have reliable charging access. Being unable to supply your military is more or less a death knell for any fighting force.
Even setting aviation aside, a lot of the reason why gas engines were adopted was because agriculture was among the first to do so, they were less finicky then ox and horses. Rural areas didn't have access to electricity like cities did at the time though; It was a lot easier to have a tin of whatever liquid fuel (gasoline was a byproduct of kerosone production at the time).
> Baker Electric type of stuff
In the 1920s, a lot of auto startups had a unique idea. Then they got crushed by Henry Ford's and GM's production lines. And then the depression.
The Model T was a farm car. 50% of the population lived in rural areas, and they didn't have electricity. There was a market for an urban electric short-range car, it just didn't hit the economy of scale at the right time. But not because it was a bad idea.
I think the problem with this hypothetical is that technology was the main constraint back in 1900, not marketing.
Battery technology was significantly much worse. Lithium batteries were only discovered in the ‘70s.
Gas engines were far more polluting but way less complex in 1910.
> 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.
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.
Assuming LHR is London Heathrow then ICE cars are not banned there. I drove and parked in short stay parking just a few weeks ago.
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.
[deleted]
Comparison with the lockdown data would be interesting.
For the environmental impact within a specific region, electric vehicles are indeed much better than cars. However, when it comes to things like greenhouse gases and global warming, that's likely just Elon Musk's lie.
I have got 15kw solar and EV, barely pay more than 50 bucks a months and that too mostly consists of daily supply charges.
Anyone remember yellow-orange skies before emissions standards?
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.
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.
[deleted]
The problem is battery recycling. It's highly polluted and a huge source of lead and lithium exposure.
How isolated is that compared to air pollution?
We have a huge power source called the sun, but our greed is not letting us use it fully.
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 ?
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.
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.
You’re right but one pedal drive is the wrong term. Regen braking is what you’re thinking of.
One pedal drive can still use the brake pads, regen braking is what saves brake usage regardless of one pedal drive being on or not.
I'm no EV expert, but I almost never use my EV's brakes — it mostly brakes using regenerative braking.
Who could have possibly anticipated this?
They’ve just moved the pollution out of the gentrified areas that can afford to purchase EVs at scale. Which was part of the initial goal when pushing for this insanity, as the plebs were polluting with the air of the much better off by using their 20-years old clunkers (or at least that was the discourse here in Europe). Mission about to be accomplished, those plebs now can take the bus if they still want mobility.
[flagged]
I've had quite a few folks in my semi-rural north Georgia deep-red county (where our congressional rep wins landslide elections while literally saying Trump is like Jesus) who are convinced by my F150 Lightning.
It's not a hard sell: no more oil changes, no more annual emissions-testing bill, no transmission to ever worry about, and a massive chunk of storage under the hood where the gas engine would be – plus a bunch of outlets all over for powering or charging tools. When I then tell them that I spend about $30/month on charging the thing (at home) compared to my former gas budget of ~$150-200/month, it becomes even more of a no-brainer.
And none of this has anything to do with climate change. It's just plain and simple practicality.
They tend to ask about range. I get around 300 miles on a full charge when road-tripping, and Buc-ees has some pretty cheap chargers (still cheaper than gas would be) that get me back on the road in about the time it takes me to use the bathroom, grab and eat some brisket, and change the baby's diaper. I've done some shortish road-trips a few times now, and not had any problems. I've got some longer ones planned this year, now that I know that I can find chargers along the way.
It also causes roads to be damaged/destroyed FAR faster due to the vehicales on average weighing significantly more.
It also simply moves the pollution to places like Africa where the extremely dirty lithium mining is externalized away from wealthy westerners.
Environmental externalization.
And gasoline just magically appears at the gas station? Wars over oil are being fought for decades and nothing similar has happened over Lithium yet?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Recent research suggests the issue is much less concerning than previously estimated.
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.
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.
Because this is HN, (in Allo Allo's Michelle Dubois voice...) "I shall say this only wonce": If you're curious, have a look at Earth's historical temperature and co2 data going back millions of years. What you'll notice is that there's always been oscillations, like a more or less predictable wave. Human activity is polluting the Earth, yes, but this fixation on co2 and other gases (cow farts, really?) is unhealthy to put it mildly.
I'd like to see the same attention being given to plastics (so much single-use crap and how much of it can be recycled?), synthetic clothing, and all kinds of other chemicals including the ones we put in ourselves (pharma, food) and the environment, like fertilizers or the byproducts of mining today's fashionable minerals like lithium. Not to mention the explosion in electromagnetic frequencies activity, which somehow is taken as normal and ok by the same scientific establishment which accepts thousands(?) of fake papers every year for publication. You just have to love the irony when something like Science is deemed 'settled'-- in that regard, it's almost as if we went back a few centuries.
There's certainly a lot to be said for humans needing to take better care of the planet. Co2 just gets a little too much attention for my taste. And don't take from this that I love oil. I find fracking to be abominable and another big factor in polluting the land and the water tables.
> There's certainly a lot to be said for humans needing to take better care of the planet. Co2 just gets a little too much attention for my taste.
GHG are a matter of life or death for hundreds of millions living in poverty in coastal areas or living from their own agriculture.
Of course you live in a 1st world country and it likely won't kill you, just cost you tons of money
It's not about "take better care of the planet", whatever you think that means
> notice is that there's always been oscillations
There's always been oscilations, true, but the rate o change and trend on those oscilations is the real issue.
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.
Even if we still make a mess I think centralization of the mess is better than distributing it - what I mean is that polluting cities where millions sleep, eat, drink and breathe will probably be worse, net effect, than containing energy pollution to select places.
Running EVs in densely populated regions is probably a lot better for the population on the whole even if the net pollution would stay the same, IMO.
Still no EV is even better, but we’ve created a world where transport is often required so, one step at a time I guess.
The 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.
My city is covered by a low emissions zone so the odd van polluting sticks out. I was in Athens recently and the pollution from so many old rough cars was so noticeable (and quite unpleasant).
Reminds me of how I didn't really notice cigarettes until they were banned from public spaces and the base level of normal was recalibrated.
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.
I used to work for the Air Resources Board of California, and while there is a warm-up period, modern ice cars are so profoundly cleaner than cars even from the early 2000s. It’s pretty stunning.
Regardless, there’s nothing cleaner than no combustion, and I can’t wait until EV‘s have replaced them all
There's nothing cleaner at the locus of measurement. Great. But, prove that you are not moving emissions up the supply chain to make your argument. Only then can chemists like myself agree that you aren't just sniffing your own marketing. Because to me as a chemist it looks like you don't understand the environment and you're just pedaling marketing while treating science as if it is a religion that doesn't require any proof. As if politics alone determines what's good for the environment. That's wrong. I believe in science and I'm offended that you think you're so well educated that your opinion, without a chemistry degree, governs the air that my children will be breathing. Because as a scientist, I believe you're dramatically more destructive than the efforts you're arguing against.
In my expert opinion ICE is far more environmentally friendly when compared with most large grid solutions, as best I can tell. That's especially true when considering loss of energy due to simple transduction across the grid to charge EVs.
Tell me I'm wrong, but don't try to prove it with some marketing bullshit. Give me real science, that includes the entire supply chain and all the energy chain from the source without relying on media marketing and news sources owned by the same economic powers that control the media and the large grid power providers (same people). I want the math. Please eat shit if you can't produce the math.
Please, convince me. Because as a trained environmental chemist I hate everything you're supporting. And I want to prevent you from spreading more misconceptions that have nothing to do with environmentalism and everything to do with making more money for evil energy companies milking tax incentives towards "green initiatives" that are anything but good for the environment.
Please show all of us scientists how you're smarter. Please do your best to be scientific if you are actually interested in responding. Because I have every intention of responding with stoichiometric realities that are not going to vibe with your bullshit.
Thanks for considering deeply if your response is actually scientifically sound before you attempt to respond.
Openly, my point, is that so many of you act like you're on the side of science, when in fact you're buying a religion from a media outlet named "science" which is in fact unscientific.
And I fully intend to challenge your idiocy with actual science.
I'm excited to have anyone respond here, especially environmental chemists with a degree in the field.
Looking forward to it.
Every single survey that I'm aware has concluded that by any measure EVs are more environmentally friendly than ICEs. The only caveat is that the "startup" footprint of an EV is higher (because batteries), but the ongoing cost is far lower, even with polluting electricity sources like coal, because it's still way more efficient to burn coal in a proper power plant than it is to ship around gasoline and burn it badly in ICEs. The breakeven point (depending on your assumptions and driving habits) is a couple of years in, and after that EVs wipe the floor with ICEs.
Here's a bunch of those surveys: https://evcentral.com.au/which-is-best-for-the-environment-e...
Keen to hear your expert opinion on what (eg) the International Energy Agency got wrong.
Is every single survey you're aware of conducted by actual scientists? Are you sure? I'm asking honestly. How is it that every day people like yourself without a science degree are so sure of that fact?
You should be ashamed. How are you so sure that you know what science looks like? Are you trained in the field?
Be honest. How do you know that the articles you're subscribed to are provided by actual scientists and not funded by political efforts geared towards profiteering?
As an expert in the field, I'm trying to tell you that you're wrong. The "science" you're pedaling doesn't withstand basic scientific rigour. And I'm so excited to show you how stupid the article that you listed is.
But before I do that, are you really willing to accept that you're about to be dunked on? Or are you going to recoil into a politically media made safe space where your argument is immediately infallible because you don't actually believe in science?
Let me know before I proceed because if you actually can't be convinced then just admit you're not a scientist and recuse yourself.
Are you a scientist or a politician?
Yes, any cyclist daring to drive in winter can easily confirm this. It is so disgusting (and unhealthy) having to stand behind a ICE car on a traffic light and being behind a electric car is such a relief, that thoughts of wishing to ban all ICE cars as soon as possible (at least in cities) come automatically.
Modern ICE cars have auto start/stop systems, so on a traffic light it has as much exhaust as an EV.
> auto start/stop systems
Most start stop systems will disable themselves when the heater of the car is turned ON and the car engine not hot enough yet.
As a cyclist (or motorbike owner), it is pretty usual in city to have >50% cars with engines ON at traffic light in cities when temperature are low.
Also when the temperature is really low? Does not seem like it.
Also at some point they will start their engines again. Guess who will inhale that?
Ironically though, cyclists inhale less pollution than drivers (who inhale the most)!
Sources: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/10/08/report-drivers-arent-... which references the BBC
But not every car on the road is modern, and it smells like crap as a result
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)
As the fleet of EV's age, I'm sure we'll see equivalents...
"The high voltage wires were just dragging on the street sparking, presumably with all the safety features disabled"
"They were driving with a 10 gallon coolant tank on the roof, presumably because the coolant loop had a big leak and needed continuous topping up".
You're not allowed to drive cars like that in a functional society. When you go for your compulsory car checkup it wouldn't pass the required safety standards.
while I agree, there's many places where the compulsory car checkup is tied to your relationship with the mechanic. I don't think my parents ever had a "valid" car but the certificate always was. It never felt wrong (although I think it is) but more like mutual aid or service.
Where I live there are yearly check ups that you need to do, or you simply cant legally drive your car
Are those even user serviceable? So, it won't stop everyone but it will stop most of them.
Most EVs have lockouts that will be very hard to bypass for things like this.
It’s more ‘I could have replaced a few cells in my battery pack, but the car bricked itself when I opened the pack! Assholes!’.
Notably many recent ICE cars aren’t much better.
I'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.
> The health consequences of inhaling exhaust particulates are far more harmful than the equivalent CO2 contribution to greenhouse effect warming unfortunately
Short term for the individual definitely, but long term for all individuals affected?
I know in some car tuning circles, or even just blue collar Joes in some places, will recommend removing the catalytic converter. Supposedly it makes the car use less fuel at the cost of worse emissions, and can make it sound better for those who care about that.
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.
For every car enthusiast there are probably a hundred poorly maintained vehicles on the road. Black smoke is likely soot, and white smoke is almost certainly an oil leak.
Oil in the exhaust in quantities high enough to produce acrid white smoke is extremely common on a number of ICE engines, like blown head gaskets on E25s (found in most Subarus before their Toyota involvement in 2010) for example
> 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.
Do you mean minimal impact?
Probably. I read it as “had an impact but kept the performance stayed nominal.”
> get stuck behind from time to time that just REEK is amazing
It’s crazy. How do we even allow selling cars without HEPA filters.
HEPA filters stop dust particles and not those tiny organic molecules that cause the smells. Filters for these exist as well, usually used in respirators, but those need to be exchanged pretty frequently and are not cheap.
We love privatising the benefits and socialising the harms of everything.
If the exhaust had to go through the cabin so the driver got the worst of it, car exhaust would be the cleanest air on the planet within months and/or alternatives to cars would rocket.
But as long as it’s other peoples health affected, meh.
tragically, because of efficiency standards, modern engines are known to burn oil .
Otherwise you may be smelling cars who have had the cats stolen.
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.
Some states handle this by requiring cars over a certain age to be emission checked before you can renew its registration. Failing cars have to be fixed and rechecked before you can get your tags.
I think they stop checking cars after a certain year. Like, if you are driving a 1980 Buick, they won’t make you scrap it because it’s emission tech is way out of date.
I can only speak about Germany. Here the technical safety and exhaust check are mandatory every two years. The exhaust check is relative to what the manufacturer specified when they first started selling the car. No one is getting their car taken away because technology improved but you can‘t let your car degrade (or modify it) so it becomes more dirty.
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 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 had downvotes on this post until you (and the other car enthusiasts) pointed this out / saw this.
HNs lack of knowledge around cars is sort of frightening.
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'd wager it's largely disruptive and dangerous in a highly localized way due to the small percentage of folks doing it. Doesn't make it an acceptable practice though. One person "rolling coal" can temporarily blind 3 or 4 cars back and several across depending on wind conditions, etc.
In terms of NOX it can be a factor of 100. If 1% drive without cats they produce half the NOX emissions. In reality it is probably less since there are other old cars as well that have higher emissions
I live in a progressive state and unfortunately encounter "coal rolling" regularly. I also assume that's the point. Someone has to "own all the libs" as it were
However, I do agree that there aren't enough folks "rolling coal" in aggregate to really move any needles on planet-scale environmental impacts though. Just VERY unpleasant to be caught behind.
I’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.
Besides the crap they pump into the air, they also excrete gunk onto the road. It’s so primitive.
Even if the electricity source would burn similar fuel, just the fact that you don't pullote right in the middle of population centers makes a huge difference. In reality, it's not only that, but _also_ that they use cleaner methods of energy production.
[dead]
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:
So 1 out of 20 cars in California is an EV.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...
And newer cars get driven more than old cars on average so 1/20 cars being EVs will do more than 1/20th of the miles.
Between 1 in 4 and 1 in 3 in Norway.
Germany maybe 1 in 5 to 1 in 7 ( at least in the south ). I drive mostly the commuter schedule and I am amazed how many are driving the EVs.
Truth is: for commuting up to 100kms, the EVs are wastly cheaper long run ( you have to factor everything ! )
Is that true? EV have much higher emissions of micro plastics and pfas (or variations thereof) due to increased tier degradation. EVs are typically way heavier than similar ICE due to the batteries and combined with the higher torques, tires wear faster.
I have a heavy and high performance EV (Tesla Model S) and I have replaced my tires twice in the last six years. So it’s about the same as an ICE vehicle in that regard.
One thing that differs is brake wear. My car is ten years old and still on its original brake pads and discs. The regen braking is amazing for avoiding mechanical braking. So that means less particle emission from brakes, compared to ICE.
>"I have a heavy and high performance EV (Tesla Model S) and I have replaced my tires twice in the last six years. So it’s about the same as an ICE vehicle in that regard."
Well no, it's not "the same". We have things like physics to tell us that more torque and more weight means more tire wear, despite your anecdote. There are even studies on this. They also have a greater impact on road wear.
EVs have many advantages over ICEs. I don't understand why people have to lie and say they are worse nowhere.
https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2024-us-orig...
It is amazing the amount of bs and grasping at straws that the oil company will push to keep their amazing polluting stuff going on
No I'm sure fracking and pipelines and all the crap the oil industry needs just to exist does not have any pfas or micro plastics
Micro plastics pollution is a relatively new problem and thus many direct and indirect effects are not yet fully understood. Moving emissions from CO2 (gas) to micro particles (solid), means emissions will be deposited more local to roads. Moving emissions from 'big oil' installations to the road, means more local emissions/deposits nearer to your home and backyard.
Additionally, due to the fourth power law [0], you only need 20% weight increase to obtain a 2x road wear. Asphalt/concrete production is also accompanied with substantial emission, although progress is made to reduce it [1].
Is there a break-even for weight vs emission reduction? And if so, is it somewhere between personal and cargo vehicles or is it 'EV always better'?
Are we trading 'well-known and bad for global environment'-emission for 'poorly-understood and possibly very bad for local environment on a global scale'-emission?
Of course, with the available information EVs seem to be the better solution, but it should not prevent us from researching/solving unknown effects or being careful choosing a single solution on such a large scale.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law [1] https://www.pbl.nl/uploads/default/downloads/pbl-2022-decarb...
"The oil companies! The oil companies!". Yeah, they only lie, nobody needs their products! We all hate it! Buy a car from a good company with honest leadership, like Tesla (made of oil products)!
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.
You can do both! Better trains and more EVs replacing gas cars can be done simultaneously!
You forget the most important aspect of policy: it can't cost a single dime, and everyone must lie about that. Read the first sentence of the article:
"When California neighborhoods increased their number of zero-emissions vehicles"
Obviously neighborhoods/cities/states didn't increase anything. It was just rich people living there buying fancy cars. Of course, this needs to be described as a great accomplishment of local government.
And nowhere in the article is the obvious solution even suggested: advancing electric car technology so they're cheaper than ICE cars. And I don't mean charging extra tax while cutting public transport to make sure poor people don't go anywhere anymore, I mean fixing the technology so everyone has transport, for less money.
> Some people argue the source of electricty can be contested against because that involves fossil fuel burning again
FYI, if you want to search for this, it is called "The long tailpipe" theory (1) or "long tailpipe fallacy".
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_tailpipe
And it is a fallacy for obvious reasons, including
a) electricity generation is more flexible, and rapidly shifting to solar and other non-polluting sources.
b) Moving pollution away from people is better. Cars are inherently around people, streets, residences etc.
c) One centralised plant with no weight restrictions is easier to control for emissions and efficiency than many thousands of mobile, weight-constrained power plants.
d) Wikipedia: "The extraction and refining of carbon based fuels and its distribution is in itself an energy intensive industry contributing to CO2 emissions."
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.
Also, an EV is as green as the grid. Hamburgs public transportation is heavily investing into electrical busses, because a bus is expected to function for 10 - 15 years. Meaning, a diesel bus built today will be as polluting in 2035 as it is today, though they are also looking at alternatives there. But an electrical bus will become cleaner and cleaner over time.
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.
> 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 hope ICE cars completely become a thing of the past in the next couple of decades to come.
for this to happen the EVs depreciation needs to drastically improve compared to ICE. I don't see this. On top of this EVs tend to push ideas from Software/Tech companies, such as recurring revenues (because the underlying technology lends itself to it better).
Personally I'm unsure that this will be accepted by all consumers as much as is needed. After all the automotive marketing has since Ford insisted that driving was about "freedom". So some pivot needs to happen in the messaging. Suppose decades is a lot of time to change it. Personally I think EVs are nonsense, and a better utopia would be making sure public transport is abundant, high-quality and free.
Public transport will never recreate the freedom of car ownership.
It’s a collectivist dream not rooted in reality.
I’m not going to try to convince you that you can’t control your immediate environment better in a car, but not having to deal with parking or insurance or traffic is quite freeing.
Yep and politicians believe they can recreate utopian Singapore wherever they are governing. Regarding eliminating car use.
Rarely in everyday life situations do I feel as claustrophobic as being in a car in traffic in a typical road.
Can’t change direction (one lane no junctions), can’t change speed (vehicles in front and behind), can’t stop (flow of traffic), can’t break concentration (driving), can’t change body position (car cabin is tiny, seats and hand/feet controls are fixed, no space to stand), can’t look away for more than a moment (responsibility of driving).
And the only places to go are on the predetermined road, from a car park, to a car park, following a lot of strict prescribed rules about how.
This meme of “freedom” is brainwashing and marketing (which has been picked up as an identity thing by the right wing recently).
There’s nothing free about having to use a $20,000 vehicle to buy bread because no other options are available.
I do not own a vehicle, and most of my life I've depended on public transit. Lately, I take Waymos or I ride scooters, or use public transit as usual.
Sometimes, for special errands, I rent a car. For example, I intended to move across town last year, so I rented a car for 3-4 days.
It was the most excruciating pain I could have. I chose a little Mitsubishi Mirage, and firstly, it was the middle of July in the Sonoran Desert, and the A/C hardly worked, so I was sweating, and the car would heat up real good in parking lots. No sun shades, dark upholstery. Also, the USB connection was flaky, so sometimes my phone didn't charge, and whether or not, it was directly exposed to the Sun and overheating.
By the second day, my legs hurt a lot. I had spent an unexpected amount of time on my feet and walking around, despite the vehicle. Do you know how big parking lots are these days?!
I tried sitting down at every opportunity. I have a running gag/dispute at my bank to see whether they will allow me to "sit down" at the "ADA/Disabled" teller window.
Driving home at night on the last night, my leg cramped up really bad. I was in such pain, I nearly pulled over because it was my accelerator/brake leg and I was going to lose control of the car.
Thankfully I was able to hold it together, and returned the car the next day, but boy I did not want such a vehicle ever again. And it was not a stick-shift; it was an automatic transmission.
Next time I'm going to be really sure that the USB and A/C work. And that my legs are super-comfortable and has cruise control.
What a hilarious post.
Buddy, the world is a bigger place than the 4 square miles around your downtown studio. How do you plan on visiting without entering one of these claustrophobic compartments, be it plane, train or automobile? The fact that you think you're "free" because you can walk around a little bit...well that's as brainwashed as it gets.
No one is forcing you to drive if you have these peculiar feelings about it.
That’s not true, that’s your mental gymnastics to try to defend the ideology you have taken on.
While there are no alternatives with similar funding and societal support to driving, car dependency forces many people to drive even for trivial things. Most car journeys are less than three miles. That’s a bonkers state of affairs for the planet and for human history.
All 110 billion humans who ever lived couldn’t possibly be considered “not free” because they didn’t have cars to get to the nearest stream or nut tree. Wild animals aren’t considered to have “no freedom” because they don’t own cars.
> Hey! Stop right there! Do you have a license and registration for that freedom?
God I love freedom so much.
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.
Not remotely true; Look up "one chip" designs.
Yes, there are some security threats, but solving them is more valuable than trying to design a car around true firewalls.
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.
Amusingly my Cupra Born in Australia is a “dumb” EV, because Cupra/VW didn’t put a SIM in the car in this country. It’s quite lovely really, though it means I have to go to Cupra for a firmware update.
We'll probably see the death of the dumb ICE car first.
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...
> "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.
It's important to realize the reason for that.
Crashes by human drivers are hugely disproportionately by people who are driving drunk or with insufficient sleep or significant distractions etc. In other words, it's not a difference in the cars, it's a difference in the drivers. Waymo can beat a drunk driver, and therefore can beat the human driver arithmetic mean which has the drunk drivers averaged in.
That doesn't mean it's any safer than driving an ordinary car when you're not drunk.
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.
Waymos are driverless vehicles. We're talking about always-connected human-driver vehicles. The comparison is not apt.
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.
Slate, or pull the cellular connection: http://techno-fandom.org/~hobbit/cars/ev/offnet.html
We just bought a Cupra Tavascan; turns out VW Group Australia decided to forgo connected car features for EVs (or at least the ones we looked at).
Win.
Cupra Born in aus, same thing here haha
Though it means connected charging via API stuff doesn’t work. Not that it’s mattered to me!
Not happening any time soon, sorry. Car manufacturers want that sweet sweet subscription revenue.
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.
EVs use 12V for standby just like ICEs. I guess it could occasionally recharge it from the main battery, but needing a jump is a thing for EVs also in theory. I’ve also had issues with the 12V disabling remote systems because of abnormal discharge (well, BMW has an issue with their lock on weak away in that it keeps drawing power if the fob gets near even if the car is locked).
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.
> They rely on a 12 V battery or a 48 V battery like a normal car.
Which leads to "fun" situations when that battery runs out, like not being able to get into your car or start it. However not much power is needed, so a tiny portable jump pack is enough to get things going.
Both me and my sister has experienced this, me a Nissan Leaf and her a VW ID.4, good times.
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.
Even those models still include a 12 V battery. The point stands - the traction battery is not a replacement and larger energy source in any car.
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.
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.
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.
Did the new Leaf get dumber? I have an old 2019 model and it’s connected. In the mobile app I see its location, turn on AC etc.
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.
Backup cameras are an enormous safety improvement.
You know that a backup camera can be added to practically any car right? My ~2002 Toyota has a Pioneer deck from around 2007 (I guess?) that supports reversing camera input. My wifes 2012 Toyota hybrid has a reversing camera using some POS cheap Chinese deck that's so shit it doesn't even support Bluetooth audio.
No part of reversing cameras are dependent on any of the "modern" trends in cars that are being discussed here.
I responded to a comment about screens.
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?)
The differentiating factor is not EV vs ICE. All cars have or will soon have telematics and such.
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.
There's often been a few cases of "disappeared" people who went missing and it turns out they actually crashed off the road somewhere and weren't found for a week or two.
That's extreme of course but there are probably a lot of accidents that happen in low-density rural country areas or late at night when there aren't many people around. The automatic e-call from the car gives exact GPS coordinates and severity of the accident, even if you are unconscious or if your phone that was neatly in the cup holder before the crash was flung somewhere else (potentially even flew out of the car etc) and you're trying to find it while someone might be dying in the seat next to you etc.
People didn't survive before all this. It's a mandatory feature now because it's so effective at saving lives. 2 to 10% reduction in fatalities and serious injuries apparently. Would you also question why we have mandatory airbags and traction control?!
I don’t give rats shit about species when it’s my safety involved. What even is this type of virtue signalling??
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.
A few years ago it came out that one of the manufacturers (my hunch is Samsung but I don't remember the specifics) had their "smart" tvs aggressively try connecting to any and all networks it can find in range, if you didn't connect it to one.
I reluctantly bought an LG with webOS (least bad option available) a couple of years ago. For some reason they weren't content to let the TV menu/remote work with up/down/left/right buttons.
That's too fucking predictable, and anyone who's used a tv in the last 2 decades could use it....
Let's give it a fucking nipple, just like those horrific fucking IBM/Lenovo laptops.
Then of course it also tries to "help" by detecting HDR content and change view mode... while something is playing.... which makes the screen go black for several seconds.
> 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.
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”
Wow. This comment makes me wonder if really earth is flat.
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?
It depends on your lifestyle. I haul my RV around sometimes two weekends a month. In my F-150 lightning I get around 100 miles between charges which is pretty dismal. I’m assuming you live in a city or in Europe. Where I live people regularly haul RVs, boats etc. I also frequently drive long distances and even in the best case scenario 2.5 hours of driving followed by 40 minutes of charging is a pain. These aren’t unusual driving patterns where I live.
I recently did a day trip of 800km while it was freezing and snowing. Yes the range is impacted, so i never did more than 200km in one go. Then a quick 15 minutes break to recharge and continue. It takes a bit longer, but not bad enough to go back to ICE cars. EV drives so much nicer.
No need to double twice. 250 miles (~4 hours of driving) is about what you want. Pretty much everybody needs to bathroom at least that often. And nowhere on a road in the continental US is more than 150 miles from a charger.
So yes, you want 400-500 miles of range, but that's because you've doubled the 250 for weather, safety margin, etc.
> 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
Now do the same for internal combustion cars. What a silly argument.
Yes do the same for ICE - very constructive suggestion. Completely unnecessary to call the argument silly though.. There are marked differences in what's needed in an EV vs an ICE, most obvious of which is the giant battery with a very different supply chain.
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.
The pollution and grime that cars produce comes from tires rubbing off, not exhaust. (The exhaust pollution is mostly invisible.)
Electric cars are heavier and produce more tire grime.
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%.
Both ICE and EV cars require a support infrastructure. As sales trends change, so the emphasis on support infrastructure changes, and that accelerates the trend.
For example EVs depend on charging, so we're seeing more public charge points, as well as more home chargers, work chargers and so on.
ICE depends on gas stations (which is the tip of the gasoline distribution industry.) It also depends on ICE mechanics. As demand for those services drop off, so they'll become harder to find. (To be clear, that's not happening soon, there are a LOT of ICE cars out there...)
But 50 years from now most of that ICE infrastructure will have disappeared.
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.
The real scandal isn’t just battery degradation… it’s that manufacturers have zero incentive to solve it. Your car becoming worthless after a decade suits them down to the ground.
Battery swapping changes the game entirely. Imagine a national network of exchange stations (co-located with existing petrol infrastructure, you can use the overhead canopy for solar). Standard pack sizes scaled by vehicle class: compact cars get 2 cells, vans get 4, lorries get 8.
Whoever owns these battery packs now has skin in the game for longevity. Their profit depends on keeping packs in service for 20+ years, not selling you a new car.
Suddenly the R&D money flows towards batteries that last, obsolescence now costs them money, and isn’t a happy accident that keeps you hooked on buying more cars.
You’d still have the option to buy your own packs outright if you only ever charge at home, but the network creates the economic pressure for genuine improvement of longevity in battery tech that’s completely missing today.
I’m aware that a company called “Better Place” failed. But they were a startup trying to strong-arm the automotive industry. A nationally coordinated infrastructure concern is different, and the air quality data from this study suggests we can’t afford to keep muddling through - and I really think that peoples concerns about batteries are not misplaced.
Perfect is the enemy of good, but damned if we can’t at least align incentives for better.
It is a horrible setup that the manufacturers would much rather sell you a new car than a new battery.
We saw this play out with phones. We used to have easily swappable batteries. And since battery chemistry was (and hopefully still is and will continue) improving, by the time you actually swapped the battery there were ones around with a higher capacity than the battery the phone shipped with. And typically for little money.
Now everything is glued and messy to swap so the manufacturer can sell you a battery swap for much much more money than it used to cost.
I believe cars should have swappable somewhat standardized batteries. Even if not swappable by the user, it should not be a more than 1h job at the mechanic (ANY mechanic, not just the manufacturer).
Imagine picking a car and not caring about battery at all. You want a Tesla but BYD batteries are better - so get a Tesla without a Battery and put a BYD one it it. Or maybe Tesla has the best batteries right now, so you get that. And once you have to swap the battery, you again just pick the best manufacturer at the time - who might not even be a car manufacturer at all but rather someone specialized in batteries exclusively.
And since hopefully 10 years have passed since you bought the last battery, chemistry has improved so you pick from options that are all (hopefully a lot) better than the battery you had initially.
We could have some proper competition where manufacturers would have to compete on pricing and performance.
But car manufacturers don't care. They want as much of your money as they can get. And opening their cars to third party batteries and not keeping up as many walls as they can is the opposite of that.
So until forced by regulation every manufacturer will continue to put batteries in their cars that only they themselves will sell and put a slightly different one in every car. So guess what, even if you swap your battery in 10 years, they will sell you the same battery you can buy right now. Because the newer stuff is for new cars only and compatible with your car.
I get what you’re saying but I think it misses that battery longevity can be a competitive advantage for the companies with better technology.
The Nissan Leaf 15 years ago came with a 5-year/100,000km battery warranty, now Toyota are at 10-year/1,000,000km.
You’d be proving me wrong with this fact if the data showed that they’re moving more units because of this marketing.
As it stands the Nissan Leaf is an outlier only in Norway, where it was practically a free car due to subsidies, otherwise their growth is pretty much in line with other EVs.
I was giving the Leaf as an example of a worse warranty offering from 15 years ago sorry. Toyota now have the longer warranty compared to all the others, and even as a fairly poor EV they’re hugely popular with taxi drivers etc.
I’m a bit EV obsessed so spend a lot of time answering questions about them online, the longer warranty is 100% impacting buying choices.
This seems like something EV buyers would care about. If they don't, it raises the question of why a solution is needed at all.
“I’ll sell my car before it becomes an issue” - common statement I’ve heard.
It needs to be fixed, because aside from someone being left with the economic bag of disposing of the vehicle, it is actually an environmental issue to build these batteries.
Just not as bad of an issue as running ICE cars for the same period of time.
People tend not to think more than a certain amount of time away for some reason.
Battery degradation is largely overhyped and there is growing real world data to illustrate that in practice it's not a dealbreaker. Million mile batteries now exist.
Show me a million mile gas/diesel engine.
Also let's not forget that Toyota has a well funded corporate program rewarding employees to spread anti-EV propaganda.
You mean this, or something else; https://www.motorbiscuit.com/ev-battery-last-3-million-miles...
A theoretical battery that is not actively produced, let alone actually gone the distance…?
On the other side I can tell you at least SaaB has had a million mile ICE car, from 1989. There’s assuredly more than this.
> 1989 Saab 900 SPG - 1 Million Miles
https://www.saabplanet.com/1989-saab-900-spg-with-1-million-...
It will take a regulator fix. Likely from the EU, who brought us USBC instead of plugpack hell.
So you don't think the free market will force manufactures to compete on better batteries? I always thought the benefit of the free market was that it forced companies to compete on product quality... /s
To be honest with you, the free market does work when incentives are aligned.
If you get maximum profit from the maximum social good, people will do that (or find a way to cheat); but as it stands, theres money to be made in not doing this and the consumer won’t care too much if its 9 years or 10 years that their car lasts, so its not hurting sales to not fix this (even if fixed perfectly, it would take 10 years to prove after all!).
I think I’m dreaming, the investment would have to be enormous, who wants to hold stock of so many batteries? Who will convince manufacturers to integrate standardised batter packs instead of the more profitable “built-in phone style” that is used today, and the automotive marketing machine is really strong and will (correctly) lean on the idea that by having the battery replaceable would require less rigid car bodies, so their current incentive would be to fight this initiative and they would probably lead with the safety angle.
The anti-EV propaganda already works pretty well with the very little it has to work with (farming batteries is harmful), so, imagine what they could do with something of actual substance.
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...
ICE cars also require large and heavy trucks to transport fuel around constantly.
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.
Hi, I’m indeed the same person. I also hate oversized trucks. I’m generally against things that make the world worse for marginal benefits.
The cybertruck clocks in at around the same weight as oversized trucks. Whenever I see people alone in either, I’m pretty annoyed.
Semis for long haul are also annoying and we should substantially increase rail infra in the US
Isn't brake pollution a lot less with EVs?
I'm the person who commented it and I don't appreciate your straw man here.
Please don't downvote comments because you don't agree with the argument. Downvotes should be for comments that add little to the discussion.
I agree that discussing weight with regard to EVs, without acknowledging that (in the US) the fashion is for big heavy ICE cars is just as polluting is disingenuous.
That said, outside the US the trend is for smaller cars, and equally the weight of a small EV is not hugely dissimilar to a common ICE car.
Frankly I'm not sure there's a whole lot to say about tire dust- cars need tires. EVs generate less brake dust. If there's a tire dust discussion to be had, then that discussion is independent of the vehicle fuel source.
And wouldn't you say that when a comment is made in bad faith, or misrepresents (deliberately or not) a major component of its argument, that it adds little to the discussion?
It's all well and good to have high-minded ideals of pure intellectual discussion, but in the real world, there are many people who are coming into the comments with a strong political agenda in mind, and are both willing and able to make disingenuous and bad-faith comments to support that agenda.
Presenting the increased tire dust of heavier vehicles as being an exclusive property of EVs—a bright-line differentiator between them and ICE cars—is disingenuous and misrepresents the facts. I think it's reasonable to say that makes it "add little to the discussion".
I understand that it can feel like you're having to make the same point over and over (I certainly feel like that sometimes) but personally I'm more inclined to give the person the benefit of the doubt when it comes to good faith.
Out in the world there are common misconceptions which are propagated by vested interests and believed by many at first glance.
Having the opportunity to see those arguments, and rebuff them , (over and over again) is key to balancing the public discourse.
I agree, some argue in bad faith, that's going to be true in some cases. But I think most times it's honest misconceptions.
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.
Unfortunately most people's actual usage patterns for plug-in hybrids appear to make them worse than just a straight up ICE - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/oct/16/plug-in-...
I looked into PHEVs on my last vehicle shopping go-round, since few pure EVs met my cargo size requirements (stroller/baby life is a whole thing).
Ultimately, it was way more worth it to go all the way up to an F150 Lightning than to go with a good PHEV, partly due to up-front cost, but mostly due to ongoing cost: I will need to change the oil on the electric motors maybe every 150,000miles, and I never need an emissions test again. PHEVs require keeping the gas engine up, and getting it emissions-tested.
A whole category of cost just straight-up disappeared, for cheaper than I could get a RAV4 Prime too.
PHEVs are a very interim solution. There are some advantages while range anxiety is an issue.
Yes, EVs have a weight penalty of ~250-500kg of battery currently.
Battery technology is rapidly advancing, when Na-ion batteries are introduced more widely, the whole range anxiety issue will become moot, because a recharge will take as long as refueling an ICE vehicle.
The weight difference will also start to reduce, both due to newer batteries, but also moving to lighter weight construction and increased use of alternatives to steel.
Arguing for ICE technology in 2025 is like Blackberry/Nokia users complaining about the loss of keyboards & T9 texting.
Hybrids don't solve the main problem which is global warming, which demands zero carbon, not 50MPG gas cars.
> 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 default setting just moves the coast point to a slightly depressed accelerator. This is because EVs typically have lower drag, so this behavior mimics a higher drag vehicle. If you use the accelerator to achieve the desired speed, you will coast when possible. You can also monitor the display to see the coast point. My 2013 plug in hybrid only supports this style of operation.
Modern EVs have easy adjustment for this. The Hyundai/Kia EVs for example have shift style paddles for adjusting this on the fly which includes a mode for regen only when depressing the break pedal.
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.
The amount of braking force needed to take a car of X weight from Y miles per hour to zero in a given amount of time is the same whether by friction brakes or regen brakes.
You can reduce the total braking force needed by extending the time, in which case aerodynamic forces and rolling resistance will contribute some more to the reduction in speed.
In an EV with one-pedal driving you can still stop quickly or slowly. In an ICE car you can stop slowly with more coasting or quickly with more braking force.
I don't see how the drivetrain is going to make a difference to the amount of braking needed to stop and thus force exerted on the tire. The added weight of most EVs would be the larger factor.
> 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
Hyundai and Kia EVs have a 5 level setting for what happens when you lift up on the accelerator, either partially or fully.
At level 0 the regeneration is so low that I don't notice a difference between that and being in neutral. It slows down way less than an ICE does when not in neutral.
> If you just take your foot off the accelerator, any modern EV will apply some amount of regenerative braking. It's not really possible to hold the accelerator pedal at the exact position where you are not applying motor power but also have 0kW of regen braking, certainly for any extended period of time.
Tire wear is not a linear function of acceleration. Is there any reason to believe that variations from not being able to hold your foot perfectly steady, assuming you aren't have spasms, will be big enough and/or last long enough to make a non-trivial difference?
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.
The amount of engine braking applied by an automatic transmission ICE vehicle when you take your foot off the gas is an order of magnitude less than the regen braking applied when you take your foot off the accelerator on your Model 3.
Here's a reference for you: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/07/elect...
First off, my Renault Megane e-Tech has paddles that allow me to change the regen strength on the fly. I use it actively when driving.
But anyway, I find I drive differently with an EV. I don't let off the throttle unless I want to slow down. If I want to coast, I just reduce my throttle input to where its coasting.
I tend to agree with your overall point, but if we're talking about a 1-2 kW of "standby" regen, surely the rolling resistance of any kind of vehicle is in the same ballpark anyway (source: it takes multiple people to push a broken down car).
The bearings and whatnot that cause rolling resistance on an ordinary car also exist in EVs; this is 1-2kW on top of that, when the car is in Drive. Furthermore, it's common to use one pedal driving- it's generally much more than 1-2kW.
>> Nobody studies this
Tire dust has been studied for decades and the most recent research I've seen suggests the issues are less concerning than previously estimated.
https://www.ch.cam.ac.uk/news/illusion-truth-surrounds-inacc...
Brake dust is significantly reduced by EVs:
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/electric-cars/running/do-electri...
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]
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46505975
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.
Time will tell on their battery, especially if the bike they're putting it on delivers. I think the overall point could be that there's active R&D in trying to find geopolitically sustainable materials, and lowering the weight of materials used.
> 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.
That 4th power law works both ways. A 40 ft bus 2 axle bus with 80 passengers will weigh about 40 000 pounds. The axle weight is 20 000, so by the 4th power law the damage is proportional to 2 x 20 000^4 = 3.2 x 10^17.
If instead those 80 passengers each drove alone in a Kia Niro EV it would be about 4 000 pounds each, so an axle weight of 2000, so the damage would be proportional to 160 x 2000^4 = 2.56 x 10^15.
That's 125 times less road damage than the bus!
Another interesting 4th power calculation is EV vs ICE. My car is available as an ICE, a hybrid, or an EV. I've got the EV which weighs more than the ICE.
Based on the 4th power law I should be doing about 40% more damage than I would if I had bought the lighter ICE model.
But wait! With the ICE model I'd need to regularly by gasoline, and that gasoline is delivered by a tanker truck. Tanker trucks, especially when they are traveling between wherever they load and wherever they unload, are very heavy.
I calculated what would happen in a hypothetical city where everyone drove the ICE version and then all switched to the EV version, and how many tanker truck gas deliveries that would eliminate. I don't remember the exact numbers but it was something like if mid sized tankers were used for gas delivery then if they had to drive more than a few miles from wherever they loaded up to wherever they unloaded the elimination of those trips by everyone switching to EV would reduce road damage by more than the damage caused by the EVs being heavier than the ICE cars.
[flagged]
> "Walking and biking environments result in ghettoes"
I must admit this viewpoint is one I have never seen before! Instead I've heard many arguments that bike lanes and pedestrianization are forms of gentrification, but resulting "ghettoes?" +1 for creativity!
That's a ... take.
What a ridiculous take. There are many, many cities and towns worldwide that are primarily walk/bike friendly and they seem to do very well in terms of quality of life.
I know I will be damned for this comment but nevertheless even EVs produce pollution with regard to tire abrasion. Tire abrasion itself is the main contributor to microplastics
Recent research suggests the issues are much less concerning than previously estimated.
https://www.ch.cam.ac.uk/news/illusion-truth-surrounds-inacc...
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 have another one: _I_ don't have to smell your gas and fumes when I bike behind you!
Most of the exhaust fumes your son smells near school is going to come from other people's cars though.
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.
I want and EV but I don't have a charger and I cant have a charger since I live in an apartment.
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.
They are still a luxury item, only affordable by a few.
Although to be fair new ICE cars are also a luxury item. Most people can only buy used ICE cars these days
That used to be true; it no longer is. In the EU, some of the cheapest cars on the marker in 2026 are now electric. There are a few nice options in the 15K-20K Euro segment. These are the opposite of luxury cars. There are a quite a few new more joining the half dozen or so that were for sale last year. The trend here is that EVs are becoming the cheapest option.
A few cars from Stellantis that are available in ICE and EV variants are now actually cheaper in the EV variant. This reflects the reality that batteries are now cheap and EVs don't have a lot of moving parts. So, they should be easier and cheaper to assemble. That's a trend that is spreading across all price segments in the next few years. Driven by component and cheap battery availability.
Used EVs are widely available now as well. You can get some amazing deals on cars that mostly still have their drive trains + batteries under warranty. Lots of cars coming out of lease programs are sold on second hand. EVs have been very popular for car leasing for the last 6-7 years now. These are mostly still the relatively expensive models from a few years ago.
The cheap EVs that are now on the market will inevitably start penetrating the second hand market in larger and larger numbers. Cheap ICE cars are disappearing rapidly from the market as models are being discontinued by manufacturers and as the market shares for ICE vehicles keep on shrinking. That means they'll also start getting more scarce in the second hand market in a few years. You'll still be able to get your Ford Fiesta. But it will be a model from before it was discontinued a few years ago. Or the new electric model that they are rumored to launch soonish.
In the US, that is. In China, several EV models sell for under $10k, with some, like the Wuling Hongguang Mini EV, starting as low as $4k [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuling_Hongguang_Mini_EV
Talking generally and depending on many factors the fossil fuel yearly energy consumption for private transportation is similar with that of home heating. ICE cars are replaced with electric and boilers with heat pumps. Both help, may be the same, but in the latter case the increase in average temperature of the last three years adds to the mix.
I love EVs, ever since I test drove an BMW i3 in 2012. Quiet with high drag - of course this is the future.
BUT I don't think switching to EVs will help reduce CO2 in any way - not even if all the EVs are charged using 100% solar/wind. The narrative usually is "I get an EV instead of an ICE, charge it with regenerative energy and have 0 emissions, thus not burning oil and saving on CO2".
But that is not how a globalized world with free markets works. In order to save on CO2, we would need to keep that oil not burned by the EV underground, but that does not take place. The market reality is that oil price will just drop with less demand from ICE vehicles. But with falling prices, other business models that require refined oil will become viable and the oil is still burned - just somewhere else. No one so far has made a good argument why the Saudis or Russians would leave their ressources underground, just because demand from ICE vehicles drop.
What you're missing here is that oil production and processing has huge fixed costs. Producers can't just pump out infinite oil at zero cost. The economies of scale break down and fuels become more expensive as demand drops.
Cars do zero Carbon capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS). The potential is there to emit negligible CO2 when it's only energy-intensive large industry doing the fuel burning.
Having said that, the path being taken in some countries to remove ICE is simply pushing large swathes of the population out of the car market. I don't support that, although I'm sure there are many people who do.
Reduced demand for oil reduces the quantity of oil extracted and purduced. The price drops and hardwr to extract oil stops being produced
> Reduced demand for oil reduces the quantity of oil extracted
That is not true. Reduced price leads to higher demand. This is economics 101.
> The price drops and hardware to extract oil stops being produced
Oil extraction costs differ vastly amongst countries, and there is a lot of potential for increased productivity and efficencies when the margins become lower - price pressure is a driver for innovation. And countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia have a very high incentive to keep extracting oil and sell it, because their economy relies on it.
> This is economics 101.
OK.
And did you go to Economics 201?
Because there, you might have learned that the basic economic principles you describe as "economics 101" are the equivalent of the "spherical cow in a frictionless vacuum"-type examples you get in introductory physics classes.
In the real world, demand is affected by all kinds of things, and sometimes, a product or service is just no longer desired by the population. Do you think that if you were selling buggy whips for $0.05 each, you'd be able to make a profit on them today? Of course not, because people don't need them. You'd barely sell any, and those purely as a novelty.
While there's still a lot of work to do to make it fully possible, and certain political groups are actively working against it, the world at large recognizes that getting off of fossil fuels is an important goal. Demand for oil is going to continue to drop—maybe not monotonically, but overall—regardless of what the price of oil does.
Which businesses will become viable that will consume oil at this scale?
Aviation industry comes to mind. The price of an airline ticket is mostly the fuel. With cheaper airline tickets, more people can afford to fly (especially in developing countries). And also, poor countries suddenly are able to get oil cheaper and built their industries just as we did 50 years ago.
If you live in North America and have a house or townhouse get a Tesla. It is such a no brainer. $5 for 500km vs $100 for 500km (gas) is just too good
Sorry but where in the US does electricity cost under 10c/kWh (assuming something like 80kWh for 500km)? And 100$ for 30-40l of petrol? That'd be over 10$ per gallon
Or, y'know...get literally any other EV.
One that doesn't support a neo-Nazi trying to wreck America's economy and political system for his own gains.
I hear the Hyundai Ioniq is supposed to be pretty good.
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
Personally, I hope EV adoption (in Indonesia) improves, as they mostly come from China and challenge the status quo of Japanese cars.
Chinese cars are a "better deal" because they give more bang for the buck. Japanese cars, on the other hand, are very "stingy" due to decades of near monopoly.
Yeah, this kind or Validate my own Beliefs that EV won't solve the fossil fuel burning. But they can at least make energy used by vehicle independent of the source used to generate the energy. Basically, the government and private sector can switch to renewable energy at some point even if they are using Fossil fuels today.
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.
That doesn't make much sense to me. HK added transit long after it was a big city. Tokyo added transit. Heck, all the cities of Europe started long before transit became a thing and then added it later.
I agree it seems hard in NYC, SF, etc but other cities have added transit
Anyone know how far off economical EV motorcycles are? They'll be game-changers for many south east asian cities where traffic is 90% motorcycles, which seem to pollute as much (/more ?) than cars.
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.)
I'd call the that country that adopted EV's first and gasoline second... extinct after WW2. If nothing because the country wouldn't be able to launch an airforce to counter the bombers hitting your power plants. If not that then there's the constant contention of having to pull power lines forward and leaving them vulnerable to artillery fire while the petrol tank hit and run with impunity.
Plus now you have problems moving tonnes of food, water, ammunition on BEV vehicles that no longer have reliable charging access. Being unable to supply your military is more or less a death knell for any fighting force.
Even setting aviation aside, a lot of the reason why gas engines were adopted was because agriculture was among the first to do so, they were less finicky then ox and horses. Rural areas didn't have access to electricity like cities did at the time though; It was a lot easier to have a tin of whatever liquid fuel (gasoline was a byproduct of kerosone production at the time).
> Baker Electric type of stuff
In the 1920s, a lot of auto startups had a unique idea. Then they got crushed by Henry Ford's and GM's production lines. And then the depression.
The Model T was a farm car. 50% of the population lived in rural areas, and they didn't have electricity. There was a market for an urban electric short-range car, it just didn't hit the economy of scale at the right time. But not because it was a bad idea.
His wife Clara Ford drove an EV until the 1930s.
https://www.thehenryford.org/collections-and-research/digita...
I think the problem with this hypothetical is that technology was the main constraint back in 1900, not marketing.
Battery technology was significantly much worse. Lithium batteries were only discovered in the ‘70s.
Gas engines were far more polluting but way less complex in 1910.
> 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.
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.
Assuming LHR is London Heathrow then ICE cars are not banned there. I drove and parked in short stay parking just a few weeks ago.
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.
Comparison with the lockdown data would be interesting.
For the environmental impact within a specific region, electric vehicles are indeed much better than cars. However, when it comes to things like greenhouse gases and global warming, that's likely just Elon Musk's lie.
I have got 15kw solar and EV, barely pay more than 50 bucks a months and that too mostly consists of daily supply charges.
Anyone remember yellow-orange skies before emissions standards?
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.
The problem is battery recycling. It's highly polluted and a huge source of lead and lithium exposure.
How isolated is that compared to air pollution?
We have a huge power source called the sun, but our greed is not letting us use it fully.
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 ?
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.
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.
You’re right but one pedal drive is the wrong term. Regen braking is what you’re thinking of.
One pedal drive can still use the brake pads, regen braking is what saves brake usage regardless of one pedal drive being on or not.
I'm no EV expert, but I almost never use my EV's brakes — it mostly brakes using regenerative braking.
Who could have possibly anticipated this?
They’ve just moved the pollution out of the gentrified areas that can afford to purchase EVs at scale. Which was part of the initial goal when pushing for this insanity, as the plebs were polluting with the air of the much better off by using their 20-years old clunkers (or at least that was the discourse here in Europe). Mission about to be accomplished, those plebs now can take the bus if they still want mobility.
[flagged]
I've had quite a few folks in my semi-rural north Georgia deep-red county (where our congressional rep wins landslide elections while literally saying Trump is like Jesus) who are convinced by my F150 Lightning.
It's not a hard sell: no more oil changes, no more annual emissions-testing bill, no transmission to ever worry about, and a massive chunk of storage under the hood where the gas engine would be – plus a bunch of outlets all over for powering or charging tools. When I then tell them that I spend about $30/month on charging the thing (at home) compared to my former gas budget of ~$150-200/month, it becomes even more of a no-brainer.
And none of this has anything to do with climate change. It's just plain and simple practicality.
They tend to ask about range. I get around 300 miles on a full charge when road-tripping, and Buc-ees has some pretty cheap chargers (still cheaper than gas would be) that get me back on the road in about the time it takes me to use the bathroom, grab and eat some brisket, and change the baby's diaper. I've done some shortish road-trips a few times now, and not had any problems. I've got some longer ones planned this year, now that I know that I can find chargers along the way.
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.
And gasoline just magically appears at the gas station? Wars over oil are being fought for decades and nothing similar has happened over Lithium yet?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Recent research suggests the issue is much less concerning than previously estimated.
https://www.ch.cam.ac.uk/news/illusion-truth-surrounds-inacc...
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.
Ok, but tire pollution is still a problem:
https://grist.org/transportation/electric-vehicles-are-a-cli...
https://caltrout.org/news/did-you-know-your-cars-tires-could...
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.
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.
Because this is HN, (in Allo Allo's Michelle Dubois voice...) "I shall say this only wonce": If you're curious, have a look at Earth's historical temperature and co2 data going back millions of years. What you'll notice is that there's always been oscillations, like a more or less predictable wave. Human activity is polluting the Earth, yes, but this fixation on co2 and other gases (cow farts, really?) is unhealthy to put it mildly.
I'd like to see the same attention being given to plastics (so much single-use crap and how much of it can be recycled?), synthetic clothing, and all kinds of other chemicals including the ones we put in ourselves (pharma, food) and the environment, like fertilizers or the byproducts of mining today's fashionable minerals like lithium. Not to mention the explosion in electromagnetic frequencies activity, which somehow is taken as normal and ok by the same scientific establishment which accepts thousands(?) of fake papers every year for publication. You just have to love the irony when something like Science is deemed 'settled'-- in that regard, it's almost as if we went back a few centuries.
There's certainly a lot to be said for humans needing to take better care of the planet. Co2 just gets a little too much attention for my taste. And don't take from this that I love oil. I find fracking to be abominable and another big factor in polluting the land and the water tables.
> There's certainly a lot to be said for humans needing to take better care of the planet. Co2 just gets a little too much attention for my taste.
GHG are a matter of life or death for hundreds of millions living in poverty in coastal areas or living from their own agriculture.
Of course you live in a 1st world country and it likely won't kill you, just cost you tons of money
It's not about "take better care of the planet", whatever you think that means
> notice is that there's always been oscillations
There's always been oscilations, true, but the rate o change and trend on those oscilations is the real issue.