News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Worked for 52 Years, Still Running: 1912 C-T 4WD Electric... by macintux on Tuesday January 23, 2018 @01:13PM (#16215771)
This has always struck me as the most compelling argument for electric vehicles, and I've always been disappointed by people who can't see it.
Re:Worked for 52 Years, Still Running: 1912 C-T 4WD Electric... by tomcam on Tuesday January 23, 2018 @01:53PM (#16216233)
Perhaps because the pollution emitted by gas-powered vehicles is now essentially nil
Re:Worked for 52 Years, Still Running: 1912 C-T 4WD Electric... by macintux on Tuesday January 23, 2018 @02:14PM (#16216503)
At the expense of many layers of defensive mechanisms which a non-trivial number of people illegally modify, and I'm curious how close to "nil" it really is.
Re:Worked for 52 Years, Still Running: 1912 C-T 4WD Electric... by milesvp on Wednesday January 24, 2018 @10:35AM (#16223424)
My understanding is that, at least in the context of local polution emissions (mostly smog related?) is that the difference between emissions between electric and gas cars is dwarfed by the pollution effects of rubber and concrete particulate matter created by driving.

I'm not entirely sure how accurate my knowledge is though, it's based on a few sort of tangential comments that connected some other data points I know, and not from any one source I can cite.

Also, the impression I got was this ignores things like leaking oil, which isn't measured by my state's emissions test. So I'm not trying to make claims about overall pollution effects between gas and electric.