Adoption of EVs tied to real-world reductions in air pollution: study

https://keck.usc.edu/news/adoption-of-electric-vehicles-tied-to-real-world-reductions-in-air-pollution-study-finds/

by hhs • 6 months ago

598 611 6 months ago

keck.usc.edu

1970-01-012• 6 months ago

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.

senectus1• 6 months ago

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.

MBCook13• 6 months ago

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.

rootusrootus10• 6 months ago

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.

loeg• 6 months ago

The post-cancellation EREV Lightning is 99% an EV, for the purposes of air pollution. Agree with everything else.

xbmcuser• 6 months ago

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.

kalleboo• 6 months ago

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...

Gigachad2• 6 months ago

I see the BYD utes are increasingly common in Australia now.

Electric seems like a pretty clear winner now.

dangus8• 6 months ago

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.

timbit42• 6 months ago

Not only is diesel exhaust more polluting than gasoline exhaust, but because it burns cooler than gasoline, the fumes remain near the ground longer, affecting people.

princevegeta894• 6 months ago

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.

ares623• 6 months ago

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.

shiftpgdn• 6 months ago

Just buy one and remove the SIM card.

ebiederm• 6 months ago

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.

alephnerd2• 6 months ago

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...

jayd16• 6 months ago

We'll probably see the death of the dumb ICE car first.

rootusrootus10• 6 months ago

The differentiating factor is not EV vs ICE. All cars have or will soon have telematics and such.

tshaddox• 6 months ago

Are EVs more “smart” than comparably priced ICE vehicles?

shmoe3• 6 months ago

Have you met https://slate.auto ? :)

Doesn't even have automatic windows.

tombert• 6 months ago

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.

stevenjgarner5• 6 months ago

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...

thegreatpeter• 6 months ago

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.

SloppyDrive2• 6 months ago

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.

pilingual• 6 months ago

Slate, or pull the cellular connection: http://techno-fandom.org/~hobbit/cars/ev/offnet.html

conk2• 6 months ago

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.

mnot• 6 months ago

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.

girvo3• 6 months ago

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.

rgmerk• 6 months ago

Not happening any time soon, sorry. Car manufacturers want that sweet sweet subscription revenue.

RobGR• 6 months ago

I have hopes that the Slate vehicle will turn out to be a dumb EV, but I'm cynical enough that I want to wait til it hits the market and someone does a tear-down. https://www.slate.auto/

MBCook13• 6 months ago

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.

tonymet2• 6 months ago

tragically, because of efficiency standards, modern engines are known to burn oil .

Otherwise you may be smelling cars who have had the cats stolen.

adrianN• 6 months ago

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.

andsoitis• 6 months ago

Besides the crap they pump into the air, they also excrete gunk onto the road. It’s so primitive.

nine_k• 6 months ago

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 :(

m463• 6 months ago

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)

Braxton19803• 6 months ago

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.

dzhiurgis3• 6 months ago

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.

srmarm• 6 months ago

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.

HPsquared2• 6 months ago

I could see a single "bad" ICE car being the equivalent of 100 "good" ICE cars. Even the VW emissions scandal (where the cars were still functioning as designed, just not as well as they should) had instances where pollutants were 35x higher than they should be. So I could see an emissions deleted diesel (of which there are many, i.e. catalytic converter and DPF removed) could easily have more than 100x the usual emissions of noxious substances. Maybe even more! Especially if (as is often the case) the DPF was removed because something is faulty on the engine and was overwhelming the capacity of the DPF in the first place.

You can smell these cars from halfway up the road sometimes, when they're 100 metres ahead.

cucumber37328427• 6 months ago

White smoke is water vapor. It's a normal byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion and tends to condense in the exhaust at low loads or immediately after exiting the exhaust, especially in colder temperatures, so you'll see a lot of it in stop and go traffic.

maxerickson2• 6 months ago

The exhaust from a well functioning modern ICE is likely enough to have less pollutants than the air. Of course it still has carbon dioxide, but less other pollutants.

Hikikomori• 6 months ago

We have mandatory inspection of road vehicles almost every year and we measure exhaust as part of it.

kemiller• 6 months ago

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.

cosmic_cheese2• 6 months ago

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.

omoikane2• 6 months ago

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.

justaboutanyone• 6 months ago

It really feels like more than 1 in 20 driving around the 101/280

ninalanyon• 6 months ago

Between 1 in 4 and 1 in 3 in Norway.

groundzeros20153• 6 months ago

No surprises.

What about all the resources and people used to develop the cars?

chaostheory2• 6 months ago

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.

dymk• 6 months ago

Six months break even and then it’s more carbon friendly than an ICE for the rest of its working lifetime

girvo3• 6 months ago

Now do the same for internal combustion cars. What a silly argument.

chaostheory2• 6 months ago

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

psychoslave• 6 months ago

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.

yen223• 6 months ago

You can do both! Better trains and more EVs replacing gas cars can be done simultaneously!

JamesTRexx• 6 months ago

Decent public transport makes all the difference. Luckily we have good transport here in the Netherlands and I haven't needed a car in 10 years. Also, the trains here have been running 100% on renewable energy since 2017.

dyauspitr4• 6 months ago

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.

neogodless3• 6 months ago

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.

SecretDreams• 6 months ago

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.

tetha• 6 months ago

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.

unglaublich3• 6 months ago

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.

kakacik• 6 months ago

This is only the issue if you are a city dweller and want to spend your whole life there. For rural folks this is actually best possible situation.

The pollution always goes somewhere, and its not like we have large swaths of useless places that we can pollute without consequences.

DyslexicAtheist• 6 months ago

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.

cbeach4• 6 months ago

Public transport will never recreate the freedom of car ownership.

It’s a collectivist dream not rooted in reality.

SideburnsOfDoom6• 6 months ago

For this to happen the EVs depreciation needs to drastically improve compared to ICE.

Define "improve" ?

One way for "ICE cars completely become a thing of the past" is for there to be lots of cheap, reliable, second-hand EVs. If you can buy a good used EV for less then yes, a barrier to quitting ICE cars has been removed.

That's an improvement. The car doesn't have to be an asset, it could be more like a utility.

EV depreciation seems to be driven by

1) rapidly advancing state of the art, which should eventually stabilise and

2) Fears of battery lifespan, which in current vehicles is largely unfounded

https://www.wired.com/story/electric-cars-could-last-much-lo...

https://insideevs.com/news/763231/ev-battery-degradation-lif...

memen3• 6 months ago

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.

cbeach4• 6 months ago

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.

raverbashing• 6 months ago

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

SideburnsOfDoom6• 6 months ago

While it is true that EVs are heavier than the equivalent ICE vehicle, and that this causes more tyre and road wear.

1) this is not the only or even the overriding factor when comparing the two. There are engine emissions (none for EVs) and braking (EVs have regen braking)

2) There is a trend for larger, heavier ICE vehicles in the USA as well. Big trucks and SUVs. It is very selective to argue against EVs in this way without also arguing against these.

jwr• 6 months ago

EV have much higher emissions of micro plastics and pfas (or variations thereof) due to increased tier degradation

I find those claims highly suspect: I own an EV and haven't had to change the tires more often than I did on a gasoline-powered car. My EV bought in 2021 still runs on original tires and they're fine (although I do change from winter to summer tires, so that's 2 sets technically).

I suspect black PR, and there is always a grain of truth in black PR: emissions are indeed likely to be higher. Probably not "much higher" and probably not in a way that really matters.

otabdeveloper42• 6 months ago

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.

jordanbeiber• 6 months ago

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.

SideburnsOfDoom6• 6 months ago

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."

ErroneousBosh8• 6 months ago

We're still burning massive amounts of fossil fuels as waste products from refining oil to make plastics and chemical feedstocks. A huge amount of that is propane that just gets flared off.

We could have been running cars on that for decades, but getting people to make their dirty polluting inefficient old petrol cars run on fuel that emits carbon dioxide and water with no HC, CO, SOx, NOx, or particulates was nowhere near as profitable as selling them lots of debt to buy cleaner greener diesels.

And we're burning the fuel they'd run on anyway.

paulryanrogers5• 6 months ago

Compressed propane is explosive, more so than liquid gasoline or batteries. Though batteries do burn hot and are hard to extinguish.

IngvarLynn• 6 months ago

I'm all for EVs, but half of PM10 pollution is independent of engine type as it comes from brake and tire wear: http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JR...

So direct environment impact is still huge for EVs and calling them ZEV is literally a scam.

testing223212• 6 months ago

You mean we can do something today that will reduce PM10 pollution by half?!

That’s fantastic news!

SideburnsOfDoom6• 6 months ago

Yes, that's why regenerative braking, which only EVs have, is so useful.

paulryanrogers5• 6 months ago

Don't EVs use resistive breaking to recharge their batteries? I would hope that reduces particle emissions.

Though I suppose that EVs and hybrids are heavier than similar gas powered counterparts, so tire wear is worse. At least until EVs can be made lighter.

catketch• 6 months ago

scam is a bit of hyperbole. also, ZEV has always explicitly referenced tailpipe emissions, which is also why there's been the odd sounding "partial zero emissions vehicle" category. It's certainly valid to be concerned about additional sources of fine particles, but eliminating engine emissions is not something to be dismissed as a scam.

Further, particle emission from brake dust is mitigated in EV's that use regen braking. One of my ev's can go days without phycical brake usage, and another uses the brake pads so infrequently it has an automatic mode to touch the discs occasionally just to keep them from building up rust.

tire particles --- different compounds can effect that, but will always be a side effect of tires on vehicles.

spooky_action• 6 months ago

Aren't fossil fuel plants much more efficient than ICEs for emissions per unit energy extracted?

Loudergood7• 6 months ago

Yes, a coal powered EV will be cleaner than the same vehicle burning gasoline under the hood.

rainsford• 6 months ago

Even if the source of electricity used to charge an EV is mostly generated by fossil fuels, EVs are still probably more energy efficient because gas powered cars are not particularly efficient at turning gasoline into useful energy compared to the efficiency of larger scale power plants.

Also as you point out, non-fossil fuel energy is becoming a larger part of the grid over time, so an EV you buy today will become cleaner over time, while the fossil fuel reliance of a gas car purchased today will never improve.

Honestly the biggest blocker for EVs from my perspective is charging infrastructure. Public fast charging sites are too uncommon compared to gas stations and a less than ideal solution to use for all of your charging needs and lots of people live in housing where installing a charger at home is difficult or impossible. Eventually both of those will change, but it will lag significantly behind the quality of the vehicles themselves.

The interesting thing to me is that even for people who can't charge at home, EVs and charging infrastructure have reached the tipping point where they're at least viable. They're less convenient in such situations than a gas powered car and so will be limited to people who are extra motivated for one reason or another. But the EV world is over the "possible" hurdle so the "practical" threshold seems inevitable.

apatheticonion3• 6 months ago

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

presentation3• 6 months ago

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.

apatheticonion3• 6 months ago

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.

SoftTalker3• 6 months ago

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.

litbear2022• 6 months ago

There is no place called the French Concession in Shanghai today.

renewiltord• 6 months ago

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.

socalgal2• 6 months ago

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

apatheticonion3• 6 months ago

Not advocating for autocracies, there's something to be said about the relationship between building essential infrastructure and the ability to ignore NIMBYs.

Bangkok just built a new metro line and are currently developing a high speed train from Malaysia to Vietnam, which would eventually lead to a train from Singapore to China.

Australia can't even build a functioning train to the outer city suburbs, let alone between major cities

tbrownaw3• 6 months ago

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.

MBCook13• 6 months ago

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?

wilg2• 6 months ago

OK but we already know that EVs don't just move pollution around.

tbrownaw3• 6 months ago

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.

kneel• 6 months ago

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.

Gigachad2• 6 months ago

Coal power plants are also massively more efficient than ICE cars. They can run consistently at their optimum rpm rather than start stop usage.

KaiserPro• 6 months ago

This is highly dependent on your country's approach to power generation.

Nitrogen pollution is usually reasonably local to the plant but also can be srubbed. Its not practical to scrub moving objects, but it is for stationary generators.

Same with particulates, you can capture quite a lot with electrostatic scrubbers.

braincat314152• 6 months ago

Has the study made an effort to exclude any other factors? For example, a reduction in commute during the covid years?

zahlman2• 6 months ago

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.

braincat314152• 6 months ago

I see. Thanks for the quote. I missed that part in the press release.

Der_Einzige6• 6 months ago

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.

bryanlarsen3• 6 months ago

Only poorly designed EV's are significantly heavier.

A Tesla 3 and a BMW 3 are about the same weight.

Der_Einzige6• 6 months ago

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.

zahlman2• 6 months ago

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.

TheTxT• 6 months ago

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?

davidw3• 6 months ago

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.

tbrownaw3• 6 months ago

Tires yes, but EVs tend to have regenerative braking which will reduce brake particulates significantly.

chupasaurus• 6 months ago

The study is about NOx levels which have nothing to do with tires or brakes.

swsieber• 6 months ago

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.

davidw3• 6 months ago

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...

montalbano3• 6 months ago

Recent research suggests the issue is much less concerning than previously estimated.

https://www.ch.cam.ac.uk/news/illusion-truth-surrounds-inacc...

Mikasa1• 6 months ago

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.

digiown3• 6 months ago

What's the reasoning for banning the cars specifically at an airport? Don't the airplanes burn way more fuel?

margalabargala17• 6 months ago

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.

simonbarker87• 6 months ago

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.

didip• 6 months ago

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.

rubidium• 6 months ago

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.

margalabargala17• 6 months ago

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.

digiown3• 6 months ago

Most of the exhaust fumes your son smells near school is going to come from other people's cars though.

Rygian7• 6 months ago

Very true, to the point that I am considering asking the city council to forbid ICE in a 1-km radius around places where children regularly use the sidewalks.

Even if the idea doesn't outright gain traction, enough insistence will shift the overton window.

driverdan2• 6 months ago

How long are you running the car in your garage? A minute of idling isn't going to cause any problems.

unglaublich3• 6 months ago

I have another one: _I_ don't have to smell your gas and fumes when I bike behind you!

kristofferR2• 6 months ago

I live in Oslo, Norway, and it's insane how much more pleasant parking garages have become to use in the last 10 years.

yanhangyhy2• 6 months ago

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%.

MengerSponge• 6 months ago

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?

yanhangyhy2• 6 months ago

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.

DrProtic• 6 months ago

That’s true. I remember during start of Covid lockdown we had a curfew for a few weeks yet the pollution was at 250-300. Mostly because of home heating.

It’s well known at this point, it’s always polluted in the winter yet summers are “fine”.

bruce5113• 6 months ago

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.

flakeoil4• 6 months ago

But 50 years from now most of that ICE infrastructure will have disappeared.

I'm guessing it will be already in 20-30 years from now. In 5-10 years from now, no-one will buy an ICE vehicle. Add to those 10 years a lifetime of 10-20 years for the last sold ICE vehicle and you get 20-30 years. So 20-30 years from today there will not be many ICE cars rolling on the streets and most gas stations and other needed infrastructure will be gone as it is not economical to stay in business.

rikima_• 6 months ago

And the air conditions in Chengdu and Chongqing are getting worse with the recent smog making the headlines, despite also one of the highest EV adoption rates in western China. Being able to mandate factory shutdown surely helps for Beijing, but is unfortunately not the case in other chinese cities

lagniappe2• 6 months ago

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.

catgary• 6 months ago

EVs should do much better on brake dust thanks to regenerative braking, no?

Espressosaurus• 6 months ago

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.

dgacmu• 6 months ago

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...

01HNNWZ0MV43FF2• 6 months ago

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.

jbm• 6 months ago

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.

margalabargala17• 6 months ago

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.

kalaksi• 6 months ago

ICE cars also require large and heavy trucks to transport fuel around constantly.

MetaWhirledPeas• 6 months ago

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.)

thelastgallon2• 6 months ago

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.

tzs2• 6 months ago

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.

montalbano3• 6 months ago

> 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...

andrepd• 6 months ago

I want the future to focus on things that actually solve the massive problems that come from mass use of automobiles: I want bike paths and trains. Yes, so boring compared to EVs I know! And so cheap! And no catchy names like "gigafactory" for making cities bikable, or turning parking lots into children's playgrounds.

dotcoma2• 6 months ago

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 ?

achenatx• 6 months ago

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.

ezfe• 6 months ago

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.

nielsbot2• 6 months ago

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.

dotcoma2• 6 months ago

Interesting.

But what about the use and abuse and shredding of tyres?

petethepig• 6 months ago

I'm no EV expert, but I almost never use my EV's brakes — it mostly brakes using regenerative braking.

dangus8• 6 months ago

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

crystal_revenge2• 6 months ago

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.

dangus8• 6 months ago

80% of Americans live in urban areas and that number is rising, so I think in this scenario where EVs came first we’d see maybe 20% of vehicle sales being ICE vehicles.

But today we’ve got basically the opposite.

I would disagree with the idea that petroleum would run everything out there if EVs came first but I won’t argue that point super hard with you. I can see and understand how petroleum is a lifeline for things like oil heat, generators, etc.

Still, batteries are very well-suited to off-grid usage, and EV batteries can even power your house for a week or more in the event of a power outage. Let’s not forget that solar panels exist.

There are entire islands that have switched from imported diesel fuel power generation to grid scale solar+battery and they have had a great deal of cost savings and reliability benefits.

neogodless3• 6 months ago

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.)

dangus8• 6 months ago

I feel similarly to you. I really miss having a manual transmission car that has some more fun factor.

I periodically have to stop and think about how annoying it might be in city driving with the constant stop and go.

But someday I might buy myself a little shitbox with a manual that I can park on the street, maybe a Fiat 500 or something.

singingbard• 6 months ago

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.

dangus8• 6 months ago

Well, gas engines were never less complex. They were just more practical and convenient because they could go faster/further and be refueled easier.

Recall that my hypothetical is “modern EVs” not pre-lithium EVs.

somerandomqaguy3• 6 months ago

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).

dangus8• 6 months ago

I didn’t say EVs would be used for military vehicles. It’s more like a scenario where 80% are buying EVs and 20% are buying ICE.

Again the hypothetical was modern EVs with modern infrastructure.

And this hypothetical isn’t that crazy. Many Chinese car buyers’ first vehicles are electric, and many of those people buying cars are quite used to electric scooters as their transportation method.

Speaking of wars, how many wars for oil would be avoided if there wasn’t a widespread dependency on cheap oil? If the gas price ever goes above $5-7/gallon in America it basically triggers a recession.

Slothrop99• 6 months ago

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.

ZeroGravitas3• 6 months ago

His wife Clara Ford drove an EV until the 1930s.

https://www.thehenryford.org/collections-and-research/digita...

BoingBoomTschak3• 6 months ago

Who would actually decide to switch from a modern EV to gasoline on purpose of their own choice?

Anyone who likes the sensations of driving and not just going fast in a straight line. When you show me the equivalent of an EV Lotus Elise, I'll be properly swayed.

dangus8• 6 months ago

What percentage of the car buying market buys enthusiast vehicles? The top of the charts is made up of cars like the RAV4, Model Y, and CR-V. These all represent versatile practical family transportation.

Enthusiast vehicles are disappearing in the middle class segment of the market. Where are the Mitsubishi Eclipse, Toyota Celica, Toyota MR2, Chevrolet Camaro, Z4/Supra getting discontinued, Focus RS, Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution, the list goes on? The Nissan Z was just updated but sales have been abysmal. The only survivors seem to be the Mustang and the MX-5, and Dodge is busy screwing up the Challenger’s replacement Charger model.

Super expensive cars like the Lotus Elise are irrelevant to the broader market.

Look at the (p)reviews of the upcoming Porsche Cayenne EV. It’s the best Cayenne ever made. I think the Porsche Taycan and the Lucid Air Sapphire are fun to drive, competent performance vehicles. Even the Ioniq 5 N is a great time.

There are a number of electric supercars and hypercars on the market: https://www.roadandtrack.com/rankings/g45639363/best-electri...

baby• 6 months ago

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

crystal_revenge2• 6 months ago

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.

mpyne2• 6 months ago

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.

buckle8017• 6 months ago

You're simply wrong.

Most of the world is priced out of purchasing oil.

When the price declines those people can (and do) buy the oil westerners aren't using.

But don't trust me, here's the data.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fossil-fuel-primary-energ...

burnt-resistor• 6 months ago

Anyone remember yellow-orange skies before emissions standards?

jimbo808• 6 months ago

Who could have possibly anticipated this?

senti_sentient• 6 months ago

I have got 15kw solar and EV, barely pay more than 50 bucks a months and that too mostly consists of daily supply charges.

ff2400t• 6 months ago

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.

nomilk• 6 months ago

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.

deaux3• 6 months ago

? They're already here. Seeing more and more delivery drivers zooming around on them, especially since a year or so ago. And they're not choosing them for ethical reasons, I can tell you that much.

wiradikusuma• 6 months ago

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.

cryptoegorophy2• 6 months 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

cenamus• 6 months ago

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

danaris6• 6 months ago

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.

cryptoegorophy2• 6 months ago

Try both. Report back. You people read too much news. Never the source.

wolfi1• 6 months ago

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

montalbano3• 6 months ago

Recent research suggests the issues are much less concerning than previously estimated.

https://www.ch.cam.ac.uk/news/illusion-truth-surrounds-inacc...

perlgeek• 6 months ago

There are three main sources of air pollution from cars:

1) Byproducts from combustion (like soot and nitrogen oxides). Only ICE produce these, EVs don't

2) Break abrasion. EVs tend to do better, because they can do most of their breaking through the motor and recuperate a part of the energy

2) Tire abrasion. EVs tend to do worse here, because they tend to be heavier.

So yes, EVs aren't a panacea, but overall on the topic of air pollution, they score much better than ICEs.

feverzsj• 6 months ago

The problem is battery recycling. It's highly polluted and a huge source of lead and lithium exposure.

chrneu• 6 months ago

How isolated is that compared to air pollution?

tsoukase• 6 months ago

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.

postepowanieadm• 6 months ago

Comparison with the lockdown data would be interesting.

dijit9• 6 months ago

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.

contingencies• 6 months ago

It will take a regulator fix. Likely from the EU, who brought us USBC instead of plugpack hell.

ako3• 6 months ago

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

dijit9• 6 months ago

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.

SideburnsOfDoom6• 6 months ago

The USA's ICE auto industry has been bailed out twice (in 2008 and 1979) and is currently protected from imports.

What free market?

IrishTechie2• 6 months ago

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.

dijit9• 6 months ago

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.

peterlada• 6 months ago

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.

dijit9• 6 months ago

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-...

olive-n• 6 months ago

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.

Tade0• 6 months ago

it’s that manufacturers have zero incentive to solve it. Your car becoming worthless after a decade suits them down to the ground.

They've been aiming for the same or worse in regular cars for over a decade now.

That being said, there is an incentive for EVs: competition from China:

https://www.electrive.com/2026/01/19/byd-extends-battery-war...

Very much like when Japanese cars first got a foothold in the US.

lima4• 6 months ago

Battery swapping is a dead technology, it is simply not economical. It is too expensive, much harder to scale and incompatible with cell-to-chassis designs. Industry barely managed to agree on a charging connector!

Meanwhile, battery longevity is essentially a solved problem. Manufacturers do have an incentive to improve it due to customer demand, and modern NMC chemistry, cooling and BMS have improved significantly to the point where they're expected to maintain 70-85% capacity after 10 years[1], far from worthless. At this point, components like the motor likely fail before the battery does.

Given the much lower failure rate of everything else in an EV, TCO is dramatically better than ICE cars even with degradation[3].

Manufacturers like Mercedes even guarantee 70% health after 8 years (a worst-case estimate).

There is a significant commercial incentive for aftermarket battery repair shops. EVClinic[2] is very successful and a glimpse into the future.

[1] https://www.geotab.com/blog/ev-battery-health/

[2] https://evclinic.eu/

[3] https://evclinic.eu/2025/12/31/diesel-mythology-vs-ev-realit...

dijit9• 6 months ago

believe it when I see it.

no car you can buy with this longevity tech, no phone either- same issue.

stahtops4• 6 months ago

Anecdata, my i3 range was not perceptibly reduced after ~8 years, 82k miles. But the pack was thermally managed, and from what I understand, also didn’t allow you to go to true 0 or true 100 SOC.

Tesla lets you use it all, which gets bigger range numbers (for a time) but at the cost of degradation, if you use it.

littlecranky674• 6 months ago

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.

high_na_euv• 6 months ago

Which businesses will become viable that will consume oil at this scale?

littlecranky674• 6 months ago

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.

t_tsonev• 6 months ago

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.

muyuu• 6 months ago

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.

mtoner23• 6 months ago

Reduced demand for oil reduces the quantity of oil extracted and purduced. The price drops and hardwr to extract oil stops being produced

littlecranky674• 6 months ago

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.

manmal2• 6 months ago

Come on, our world is running on plastics and oil as fuel for ships and aviation. EV savings will be eaten up within years by those.

system2• 6 months ago

We have a huge power source called the sun, but our greed is not letting us use it fully.

otikik2• 6 months ago

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

olalonde2• 6 months ago

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

jillesvangurp• 6 months ago

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.

otikik2• 6 months ago

a few nice options in the 15K-20K Euro segment

You are making my point. Most folk can’t afford that for transportation. 10k is already a stretch.

cocoto• 6 months ago

Way too expensive for most europeans countries and it’s after heavy subsidies from governments. Most people buy second-hand ICE cars and they will do it as long as they can be driven on roads. Stellantis cars are trash and in general the low-cost EV are trash for long travels.

Revolution1120• 6 months ago

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.

dalyons• 6 months ago

What? That makes no sense

paganel• 6 months ago

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.

matt3210• 6 months ago

I want and EV but I don't have a charger and I cant have a charger since I live in an apartment.

Rygian7• 6 months ago

If you park in the street, and there are public chargers in a 1-km radius around your apartment, you can probably make it by "topping-up" every two or three days on a public charger.

Unless you spend upwards of 40% of your battery daily, you'll be good.

If you own a parking spot in your apartment complex, and depending on your jurisdiction, you can install your own charger.

Mystery-Machine• 6 months ago

You can even charge once a week or even less, depends on the usage.

You also don't have a gas station inside your apartment. Depending on which car you get, you could go charge it to charging station. I'm not saying this is instant process.

1970-01-012• 6 months ago

That's a poor excuse today. I'm not trying to be pushy but have you dismissed the LFP battery EVs? Those you charge fully once every other week, just like your average ICE vehicle. The time spent recharging can be spent grocery shopping or something else productive.

luckys4• 6 months ago

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.

raducu• 6 months ago

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.

luckys4• 6 months ago

Happy to be shown where I can learn more about this different rate of change and trend which sets our current climate change apart from the rest of Earth's history.

mrpopo2• 6 months ago

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

luckys4• 6 months ago

GHG are a matter of life or death

That's what I hear from mainstream media all the time. Do you have some information or argument that will help me see things differently?

Of course you live in a 1st world country and it likely won't kill you, just cost you tons of money

A little presumptuous to assume my living conditions

It's not about "take better care of the planet", whatever you think that means

Now that's just snarky and done in bad faith. If I didn't care would I have posted it, already antecipating the downvotes?

We humans got where we are much due to technology, but we have to start thinking seriously where we go from here or there won't be land or water (or air?) that isn't polluted by something the planet is not well equiped to process. Have you read on the kind of places that microplastics have been found already? In the human body?

nottorp4• 6 months ago

Well, if EVs are made mandatory we'll have even less air polution because fewer people will be able to afford a car.

The auto industry seems to have ran out of early adopters already. Now they need a kick in the privates to make cheap EVs.

jonstewart• 6 months ago

I’m reading your comment more sardonically about the state of US manufacturers, but globally I don’t think this holds up. Some of the most expensive vehicles—trucks and SUVs—have the worst mileage. Often the cheaper a new car is, the better gas mileage it gets.

This dynamic might not hold as consistently with used cars but it’s not entirely eliminated, either.

nottorp4• 6 months ago

What does this have to do with mileage? It's about affording to pay for the damn car itself.

Compare the same category of car in gasoline and EV versions. See how the EV adds 10k to the price.

Not much by silicon valley latte standards of course. A lot by "i can barely afford a barebones renault" standards though.

mittensc• 6 months ago

Chinese EVs are much cheaper then traditional ICE cars.

nottorp4• 6 months ago

... for now. They're starting to be taxed.

Also, someone who doesn't think in SV lattes may not afford to buy a car with unknown reliability.

podgorniy• 6 months ago

Reduction in pollution in where EV are used or where produced?

rpozarickij• 6 months ago

I've developed a habit of holding my breath for a few seconds whenever a particularly smelly/polluting car drives by me while I'm walking on the street, so when I hear/see an EV approaching I often feel relieved. I'm lucky to live in a city with comparatively clean air, but I hope a time comes when we treat car exhaust gases the same way as we treat second hand tobacco smoke because in both cases pollutants are literally being absorbed into our bodies.

freeopinion• 6 months ago

Does the study account for things like coal-fired power plants in Delta, Utah being operated by Los Angeles Department of Water and Power? This makes for less pollution at the site of the vehicle, and more pollution two giant western states away.

rootusrootus10• 6 months ago

Yes, studies account for worst case coal power production. The pollution controls at a power plant are significantly more effective than the on-vehicle pollution controls for a gasoline engine.

throwaway-11-1• 6 months ago

What do you think refineries are doing

Rebelgecko• 6 months ago

No, it's based on measurements in California where in-state coal is negligible (something like .1% of our total electricity). A power plan in Utah would only show up if the pollutants wafted their way across state lines

raydev• 6 months ago

imo The final hurdle for mass adoption is solving the refueling planning problem.

I was in the market for a new car in 2024. Thought seriously about a few electric options but opted for another ICE vehicle because 2025/2026 are years of many road trips, and the issue that kept coming up for me was "can I just pull off any random highway and refill my car in a few minutes?"

Unfortunately for the environment I guess, I prefer not being forced to strictly plan my trips around distance and availability and speed of chargers. I can go pretty much anywhere in North America and be reasonably certain there's a gas station just off any highway, let alone an interstate.

"Oh, do the kids need to use the bathroom ASAP? Might as well fill up a quarter tank while we're there" opportunities would also vanish.

And even if charging stations were magically placed across the country to match gas stations, there'd still be the "time to charge" problem.

iambateman• 6 months ago

This is becoming less of an issue, but there’s no question it’s a barrier.

To be honest, the bigger barrier I see is around political will to charge the true social cost of gasoline.

Some nonprofits think the true cost of burning gas is $10-15/gallon. If filling up with gas cost $250 and charging an EV was 85% cheaper, I’d be willing to wait 30 minutes for an occasional charge.

hvb24• 6 months ago

Not sure what age your kids are, but if they're below 10 I can guarantee you that your kids will be slowing you down, bit the car. Kids need to use the bathroom would be filling up the battery well over 25% if it wasn't almost full.

The one thing people that have never owned an EV seem to miss is the benefits that you get to experience every day.

No gearbox, so seamless acceleration. No maintenance on, spark plugs, timing belts, gearbox. No oil changes. A quieter ride, especially nice on a road trip.

BeetleB2• 6 months ago

The thing with young kids is they tend not to be good at timing restroom breaks with the availability of charging. By the time they tell you, you need to stop at the nearest gas station - they can't wait for you to drive 20 miles to the next charging station.

No maintenance on, spark plugs, timing belts, gearbox. No oil changes. A quieter ride, especially nice on a road trip.

I'm thinking of getting an EV, so I'll see how much I like this. I can say that this is pretty much not a hassle for me with my ICE car - over the last 20+ years. But then I tend to buy reliable cars and didn't fall for the manufactured "3 months or 3000 miles" rule.

I keep track of all my costs. I average about $500 a year in maintenance (includes tires, oil changes, brakes, etc). I just checked with the insurance company - the increase in my annual premiums for the EV car I'm looking at is $400 more than if I got an equivalent ICE car. And one still needs to change tires, etc on an EV. So the repair/maintenance savings aren't there.

manmal2• 6 months ago

Same trip, w/ the kids, took 10h with an Ioniq and 6h with a diesel.

Adoption of EVs tied to real-world reductions in air pollution: study

Related Stories