News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by yabones on Monday July 25, 2022 @10:12AM (#32224549)
EVs aren't going to save the world, but they will save the auto industry for a few years.
Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by Robotbeat on Monday July 25, 2022 @11:27AM (#32225715)
Basically no lefties/urbanites would’ve made that argument before Tesla made EVs viable and attractive to normies. Back in the “Who Killed the Electric Car” days, it would’ve been extremely odd for people with environmental concerns to be like that.

EVs are a massive, massive improvement, and while I like improving stuff (or using alternatives) to reduce further downsides, I don’t think we should look a gift horse in the mouth, here.

Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by culi on Monday July 25, 2022 @12:32PM (#32226768)
> EVs are a massive, massive improvement

To be honest even this is a bit of an overstatement. An MIT study found that a huge chunk of the lifetime emissions of a vehicle is in the production alone. EVs, mostly due to their batteries, have much much higher production emissions.

And given how dirty our current energy production is (and the added costs and inefficiencies of storing and transporting electricity) we won't feel the benefits of EVs offsetting the initial added costs for many many years

Also given how notoriously unreliable certain brands like Tesla have been (27th of 28 in Consumer Reports reliability index) it's possible that the added maintenance costs will push this break even point even further down the road

But as of right now all we've really managed to do is push these emissions from the first world (combustion emissions) to the third world (production emissions)

EDIT: link to MIT study: https://energy.mit.edu/research/mobilityofthefuture/

Around 40% of an EVs lifetime emissions are from production alone. Tesla's tend to be even higher because of the larger batteries and less efficient production

Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by nevereveragain on Monday July 25, 2022 @12:47PM (#32227032)
> For similar-sized vehicles in the U.S. today, per-mile lifecycle (including vehicle and battery production) greenhouse gas emissions for battery electric vehicles run on the present U.S.-average grid electricity are approximately 55% of the emissions from conventional internal combustion engine vehicles.

Electric vehicles have almost half the lifetime emissions. That's huge, no matter how you spin it.

Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by culi on Monday July 25, 2022 @01:26PM (#32227783)
Sure but with about 167% as many emissions from production, I'm just saying there's going to be an immediate increase in emissions.

Also one thing missing from this analysis is maintenance. The three factors taken into account are initial production (much higher for EVs), cost of fuel production (also much higher for EVs), and emissions from fuel combustion (0 for EVs). However batteries don't last forever and it still remains to be seen that EVs can reach the maintenance costs of combustion engine vehicles (with Tesla being a notable argument against EVs potential)

Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by Robotbeat on Monday July 25, 2022 @02:30PM (#32228824)
Fuel production is much cheaper for EVs, what are you talking about?

The batteries last longer than the 150,000km these studies assume. My 2013 Model S is at 209,000 kilometers and going strong with little (10% or less) range reduction.

I looked at the study a bit, and they use Model S-sized battery size and efficiency assumptions (about 3mi/kWh) to compare to a Camry. More appropriate would be Model 3 assumptions (4mi/kWh). The emissions factors are from a white paper 5 years ago, itself using older data. They assume 525grams of CO2 per kWh for the reference case going down to 345 in 2050, but the US already has emissions of about 375gramsCO2/kWh and falling. Just terrible assumptions. A bunch of stuff like that in the study.

And it compounds! A factor of 1.33 bigger battery (3mi/kWh instead of 4mi/kWh) whose manufacturing emissions are 1.41 times as high (525grams of CO2 per kWh vs 372, if we optimistically assume electricity is the main energy input but pessimistically assume the energy needed to make a kWh of capacity remains the same) means a factor of 1.9 exaggeration in manufacturing emissions. Plus the operating emissions per mile are also exaggerated by a factor of 1.9…

Finally: Batteries in modern EVs last the life of the vehicle. 500,000km or so. Potentially longer with LFP cells.

Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by culi on Monday July 25, 2022 @04:17PM (#32230359)
> Fuel production is much cheaper for EVs, what are you talking about?

No it's very much not. Please see chapter 4 of the linked MIT report:

  Fuel production emissions are also
  typically higher for BEVs (and FCEVs) because, on
  average, generating and delivering a megajoule of
  electricity or hydrogen to a vehicle battery or fuel
  cell consumes much more energy than producing
  and delivering a megajoule of gasoline to the fuel
  tank of an ICE
Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by Robotbeat on Monday July 25, 2022 @05:18PM (#32231069)
But you said “cheaper,” additionally this ignores the input fossil energy of the gasoline, and it’s per joule of thermal energy, not useful mechanical energy. It’s a weird metric that isn’t very enlightening. It’s mixing low-entropy electrical energy with high-entropy thermal “primary energy.” It’s also not what you actually said. The cost of energy (as well as emissions) per mile traveled is far, FAR less in electric vehicles.
Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by culi on Monday July 25, 2022 @07:48PM (#32232491)
Again, you're misunderstanding the point. I really recommend you just check out the first few pages of chapter 4 of the full MIT report. Yes the emissions per mile travelled is less in EVs. Nobody is arguing against that. There's 3 categories here:

1. Emissions from initial production

2. Emissions from fuel production

3. Emissions from fuel consumption

For EVs, emissions from 1 and 2 are higher. But this is more than offset by having 0 emissions from the third category. So yes, the emissions per mile traveled is less in EVs. However the cost of fuel production per mile traveled is still significantly higher (around 192% higher)

PS you're the only one who used the word "cheaper". I only used it when directly quoting you. I presumed we were still measuring by emissions and not by dollar cost, but I see now that you were talking about something else

EDIT: check out figure 4.6 on page 68

Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by Robotbeat on Tuesday July 26, 2022 @02:14PM (#32241781)
On the contrary, you made the false claim about fuel production cost being more expensive for EVs yourself here when not quoting me:

> “cost of fuel production (also much higher for EVs)”

Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by hedora on Monday July 25, 2022 @04:09PM (#32230253)
> * An MIT study found that a huge chunk of the lifetime emissions of a vehicle is in the production alone. EVs, mostly due to their batteries, have much much higher production emissions.*

At this point, that's only true if you're living in the dirtiest power grid in the US, are a low milage driver, and you junk your EV within two years of purchasing it new.

Also, the ICE car in this comparison has to be over a decade old (< 10% of the original embodied CO2 averaged out over the years), has to have top-tier fuel efficiency and also be much smaller than the EV.

The union of concerned scientists has a calculator for this based on zip code, and the exact model of EV.

Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by Robotbeat on Monday July 25, 2022 @02:41PM (#32229021)
> Tesla's tend to be even higher because of the larger batteries and less efficient production

This is false and actually the opposite is true. They actually used Model S sedan figures (3mi/kWh) for efficiency to compare to Camry sized vehicle. The more appropriate comparison is to a Model 3, which gets 4mi/kWh.

People underestimate how efficient Tesla’s powertrains are compared to most competitors. Tesla tends to do much BETTER at efficiency than their peers, not worse.

Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by hedora on Monday July 25, 2022 @04:27PM (#32230459)
I assumed Teslas had poor fuel efficiency due to their size, but then I found this:

https://evtool.ucsusa.org

The Model 3's (mid range 2020) MPGe-CO2 is a bit better than a BMW i3 (2018). The i3 is a little euro city car thing.

They carefully optimized the BMW for weight, and also have some funky custom ultra efficient tires. For example, the frame is made of (hemp - supposedly lighter) fiberglass and carbon fiber, and they didn't offer power seats. It has a tiny trunk / no front trunk. It only gets EPA 135 miles per charge.

The BMW and Tesla are both much better than a 2022 BMW i4, Nissan Leaf, or Polestar 2. They're a bit better than the most recent Fiat 500e, which is closer to the i3's size.

Tesla's energy efficiency vs. size is really impressive.

Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by culi on Monday July 25, 2022 @10:38PM (#32233629)
I'm not talking about efficiency per mile. I'm talking about manufacturing efficiency. Tesla pulls stunts like building a giga factory in AZ for the tax breaks. It makes economic sense but does not make sense when measuring by the added emissions necessary to concentrate all those materials so far away from the rest of the supply chain loop

They're also just... bad at making them. A 2020 survey by JD Power found that Tesla ranked last of the 38 brands they looked at in initial quality. It's a measurement of how many problems new vehicles face in the first 90 days of owning them

This is consistent with Consumer Reports rankings of Tesla as second to last in reliability

This is what I'm talking about when I say "inefficient manufacturing". Not fuel usage

Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by CalRobert on Monday July 25, 2022 @12:35PM (#32226812)
EV's are an improvement compared to "the same but with petrol" but the thing is, but we are squandering an opportunity to have cities where people can bike and walk places (the reason they can't is the cars) and other issues are coming to light, namely the heavier weights and faster acceleration making them even more dangerous for people using bikes and walking than fossil fuel cars.
Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by clairity on Monday July 25, 2022 @02:45PM (#32229076)
yes please. i have these conversations with people here in LA and they look at me like i'm an alien. but LA is really the perfect city for dense, multi-modal, mixed-use neighborhoods because of the perfect weather (esp. low humidity) and relatively flat terrain.

all we need to do is convert street parking into bike lanes, and build a few parking structures in the oldest neighborhoods that were built before onsite parking was common (this mitigates the biggest legitimate objection for getting rid of street parking).

Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by asdff on Monday July 25, 2022 @04:13PM (#32230295)
LA has a lot of low hanging fruit with the classic "two parking lane four car lanes and a center turning lane" arterial that is laid out about every half mile in the cardinal directions across the entire county. Just nix the turning lane and two car lanes, and turn the existing bus lines that run along those arterials into BRT and LA would become a model for the western world of how to run low cost transit.

It will never happen of course, because the city council and most wings of local government are openly corrupt with regular FBI indictments.

Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by clairity on Monday July 25, 2022 @04:34PM (#32230549)
yah, that's exactly the kind of change i advocate as well. it's low cost and high bang for buck. LA instead spends millions of dollars doing studies and community outreach and anything else before they actually implement these kinds of changes. and when they do, it's small, isolated and disconnected, and low utility as a result.
Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by asdff on Monday July 25, 2022 @04:38PM (#32230579)
And forever handicapped. The expo line takes about 15 minutes to go from Expo park to 7th street metro center two miles away. The last good piece of transit LA built has been the red line and that was over 25 years ago.
Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by clairity on Monday July 25, 2022 @05:07PM (#32230936)
right, they should have put it underground right before USC/expo park.
Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by bluecalm on Monday July 25, 2022 @12:43PM (#32226976)
Bike, walk or use lightweight electric vehicles (e-bikes, 3wheelers, mobility scooters) which need a small fraction of the power, fraction of the resources to produce, are safer, smaller (thus higher throughout on city roads) and quieter.

The problem with electric cars is that they are still cars.

Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by 11235813213455 on Monday July 25, 2022 @01:03PM (#32227372)
Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by Robotbeat on Monday July 25, 2022 @02:57PM (#32229268)
/comparable/ EVs are a massive improvement.
Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by 11235813213455 on Monday July 25, 2022 @03:11PM (#32229472)
if more than half PMs come from tires and dust, I'm not sure
Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by hedora on Monday July 25, 2022 @04:34PM (#32230543)
The emissions graph only considers particulates, so it's massively undercounting air pollution improvements from EVs.
Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by 11235813213455 on Monday July 25, 2022 @05:26PM (#32231148)
Do you have figures for this? it says: "non-exhaust par­ti­cles represent 59% of PM10 and 45% of PM2.5 emis­sions", so about half of fine particles are non-exhaust (brake, tires, road dust). If you also count the fabrication process, the batteries, the new infrastructures and electricity footprint, the additional weight (for the same size), it's possibly a small gain over thermic engines, but nothing super obvious
Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by giraffe_lady on Monday July 25, 2022 @11:47AM (#32226059)
As a city-dweller whose main practical problems with cars are around pedestrian and cyclist safety, noise pollution, and the hostility of car-centric infrastructure to human life in general, this sounds a lot like "you'll take what we give you and be happy about it."
Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by wongarsu on Monday July 25, 2022 @12:40PM (#32226904)
As a city-dweller, I'll be glad when the decline of ICE cars removes the loud sound of accelerating engines, and the reduction of PM2.5 particulates improves my health.

Sure, it's not a cure-all, and more pedestrian areas, better bicycle infrastructure, more medium-density housing with walkable neighborhoods, and heat-pumps instead of burning oil or gas are still important issues. But just switching from ICE to electric engines is a cheap win that I'm glad to get as well.

Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by asdff on Monday July 25, 2022 @04:19PM (#32230382)
As a city dweller I won't be so sure. Most of the noise I hear on the cement road is from the tires, and those big fugly tesla suv-sedan things are loud when they roll up with their 5000lb of weight. Most of the PM2.5 we are left with today is from tires anyhow thanks to the catalytic converter and unleaded fuel. That part isn't going away. To be honest I wish the climate crisis would promote people into lighter vehicles and mass transit versus just more of the same unsustainable patterns, but here we are. The green thing to do now is to replace your working car that is already built and delivered to your door with one 2000lbs heavier. Seems like green washing more than actual action to me. You would think bike lanes everywhere would be an easy win given how cheap they are, but its like no one really cares about doing anything but taking the car everywhere.
Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by hedora on Monday July 25, 2022 @04:43PM (#32230643)
A 2022 Model 3 weighs about 3700 pounds. A 2022 ICE Ford Mustang (the coupe, not the SUV) weighs 3850 lbs.

A 2022 Model Y (SUV) weighs 4400 pounds. A 2022 ICE Ford Explorer weighs 6100 pounds.

Maybe this is because Ford sucks at making reasonable-weight vehicles, right?

Well, a 2022 Ford Mustang Mach-E weighs 4700 pounds, which is a bit overweight vs. the Model Y, but still way lighter than their old flagship SUV.

I'm not sure how, but in the US, EVs are somehow lighter than comparable gas vehicles.

Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by dragonwriter on Monday July 25, 2022 @04:54PM (#32230768)
> I'm not sure how, but in the US, EVs are somehow lighter than comparable gas vehicles.

You are just using the wrong comparators. A Tesla Model Y is more comparable (for instance, it's a lot closer in dimensions) to the 3,700 lb Ford Escape SUV than the 4,400 Ford Explorer.

Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by giraffe_lady on Monday July 25, 2022 @04:08PM (#32230238)
It's better than nothing but I don't intend to be happy about it alone. I don't even think it'll be cheap in the end. Road maintenance is already expensive and neglected in cities. Making cars heavier is not going to help at all, it's just shifting the pain around.
Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by dahfizz on Monday July 25, 2022 @02:20PM (#32228677)
Imagine wanting to live in the same square mile as millions of other people and then getting upset that you have to deal with millions of other people trying to live their life.

If you require everyone around you to to have the same priorities as you, then you may be happier in a smaller town.

Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by 1270018080 on Monday July 25, 2022 @02:36PM (#32228934)
Are you suggesting car drivers move to smaller towns where it's actually economically efficient to use them? You wouldn't want car drivers imposing their noise, pollution, financial cost, infrastructure cost, and displacement on the millions of other people trying to live their life. It's very insightful of you to imply that cities should be designed for people, and not cars, so those millions can actually use the density to their advantage.
Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by hedora on Monday July 25, 2022 @04:48PM (#32230705)
How about this? Let's move the population of Dallas Fort Worth to San Francisco, and vice versa, and see how quickly people's opinions about vehicle ownership change.

The main issue with having cars (or not) is that infrastructure that costs many orders of magnitude more than the cars has to be rebuilt if you want to switch between car-dependent and walk/bike-everywhere.

Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by giraffe_lady on Monday July 25, 2022 @02:40PM (#32228995)
Yes absolutely, the only way for many people to live in one place is for them all to drive cars for all trips within that place. There are no other possible configurations.
Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by jeromegv on Monday July 25, 2022 @04:42PM (#32230635)
>Basically no lefties/urbanites would’ve made that argument before Tesla made EVs viable and attractive to normies.

May be you didn't pay attention? They were already protests in the 1970s to stop the non sense of building highways in the middle or urban centres. Jane Jacob was talking about it in the 1960s. It's not so much about environmentalists but urban designers have been talking of the negative impact of car culture on our society and way of life for decades.

Both things can be true. EVs are better than ICE cars. Not having your lifestyle and cities designed around cars for every single trip is better than EVs. And we can switch to EVs gradually while also making our dense communities more livable.

Not everything revolves around Elon Musk ideas, as much as he would like many to believe.

Re:Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature re... by ZeroGravitas on Monday July 25, 2022 @10:25AM (#32224736)
If the V for vehicle is taken literally, then they will do more good than just big BEV SUVs in cities designed around cars. Think delivery moped and ebike trikes, or commuter ebikes, trains and buses. Last mile delivery vehicles etc.

But, if the alternative to the BEV SUV is an ICE SUV then they'll still help a lot, saving lots of money and many lives.