Electric Cars Are Making It Easier To Breathe, Study Finds (thedrive.com) 165
An anonymous reader shares a report: It turns out that when fewer cars spew exhaust as they drive along, air quality improves. That's the conclusion of a new study published in The Lancet Planetary Health that looked at the effect of increased numbers of both EVs and plug-in hybrids on air pollution in California. The Golden State has by far the largest number of plug-in vehicles in the United States, and they've now reached significant numbers to have a positive impact on air quality.
Between 2019 and 2023, for every 200 EVs or plug-in hybrids added, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels dropped 1.1%, according to the study, which used satellite data to track those levels through the unique way NO2 absorbs and reflects sunlight. NO2 can trigger asthma attacks, cause bronchitis, and increase the risk of heart disease and stroke.
Between 2019 and 2023, for every 200 EVs or plug-in hybrids added, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels dropped 1.1%, according to the study, which used satellite data to track those levels through the unique way NO2 absorbs and reflects sunlight. NO2 can trigger asthma attacks, cause bronchitis, and increase the risk of heart disease and stroke.
Beijing proof of this (Score:2)
Not that many years agon air pollution was horrible in Beijing. Not so much anymore. Air quality is quite good I am led to believe. Electric scooters displacing dirty two strokes certainly helped a lot.
Same story in a few other major cities in China.
Re: (Score:2)
Air quality is quite good I am led to believe.
You were mislead. It's fucking abysmal.
I will grant you it's not as lethal as it used to be.
Re: (Score:2)
You were there this last year? Achieving a 95% reduction in air pollution over 2013 is pretty darn good and it's mostly from the government pushing EVs. Downside is the poor rural areas freeze in the winter because they can no longer get coal and the CCP doesn't care.
Re: (Score:2)
You were there this last year?
No, but living in an area with yearly wildfires, I have experience with what different AQIs mean, and Beijing's are not a State secret (surprisingly)
What the fuck kind of retort is, "you were there this last year?" anyway?
Do you live in a world where nothing exists unless you go there?
I agreed with you that Bejing's air is less lethal than it used to be. But it's regularly as bad as my air is when I'm choking through wildfire smoke.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The data is right in front of your face. What kind of pill do you have to swallow in order to call it fake news? [iqair.com]
It's so weird. Beijing has terrible air quality. [www.aqi.in]
34 days in 2024 were Unhealthy or worse AQI
Not "moderate", not even "serious".
Unhealthy.
Their AQI was as bad as Seattle's when it is so inundated by wildfire smoke that you can't breathe.
Re: (Score:3)
PM2.5 monitoring by the US Embassy in Beijing shows that PM2.5 dropped by 62% from 2013 to 2023. It actually significantly increased in 2023. There is no newer data, but 95% seems a bit far fetched.
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Solar, Wind, Biomass and Hydro in turn accounted for 60%, and the remaining 2% come from sources like garbage incinerators and similar.
In comparison, the U.S. electricity in 2025 came from 16% coal and 40% gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany uses less fossil fuels for electricity than for instance the U.S..
This is an ignorant comparison.
I'll let you explain why.
In comparison, the U.S. electricity in 2025 came from 16% coal and 40% gas.
Correct.
Coal burns notoriously dirty. Gas burns notoriously clean.
coal and lignite accounted for less than 25% of all electricity generated in Germany [energy-charts.info], and all fossil fuels together, including oil and gas, accounted for 38%.
Get it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Coal does not necessarily burn notoriously dirty.
This is patently untrue.
With the standards given by the German law, air above a coal or lignite plant is less dirty than that above an average city.
I suppose that comes down to what we define "dirty" as meaning.
Germany burns lignite.
Out of curiosity, [nih.gov] just what the fuck do you call "less dirty".
Re: (Score:2)
Scrubbers do not work on burning lignite?
Of course they do. That a scrubber works with burning lignite does not imply that a scrubber works well with lignite.
The "lignite argument" is completely utterly stupid.
It's not- it's backed up by sound evidence.
As parent explained it: the exhaust of a coal plant is cleaner than the air it breathes in.
The problem, is that just isn't true. It's "the Clean Coal Myth".
All the scrubbers in the world are not effective at eliminating the PM2.5 emissions from even anthracite burning. The effectiveness goes down the lower the quality of the coal.
I cited my claim in the very post you replied to. [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Apart from the fucking CO2, which it might be nice if you acknowledged instead of indulging in this stupid greenwashing. Burning lignite is a horrendous thing to do, and actually moving at pace to stop using lignite is the single biggest contribution Germany could make to cutting its carbon emissions. And it could be done, too, if you weren’t so in hock to your industrialists. You really ought to stop reflexively defending lignite burning, it’s an inexcusable thing to be doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Germany uses less fossil fuels for electricity than for instance the U.S..
This is an ignorant comparison. I'll let you explain why.
In comparison, the U.S. electricity in 2025 came from 16% coal and 40% gas.
Correct. Coal burns notoriously dirty. Gas burns notoriously clean.
coal and lignite accounted for less than 25% of all electricity generated in Germany [energy-charts.info], and all fossil fuels together, including oil and gas, accounted for 38%.
Get it?
And lignite is the "bunker fuel" version of coal. That crap should never be burned
Re: (Score:2)
Germany uses less fossil fuels for electricity than for instance the U.S..
But not as it turns out than any of the large Western European economies. Germany has done a phenomenal job of PR convincing people they've been really green. Meanwhile they've done worse in both absolute terms and percentage reduction over both short, medium and long term than all of their direct peers.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany is producing roughly 60% of its electricity from renewables.
So, worse than the UK, Spain, France and Italy, making it the worst of the major Western European economies in terms of carbon emissions.
Coal and gas is down from roughly 80% down to 40%.
So your reduction in carbon emissions is worse than the UK, Spain, France, and joint with Italy making you yet again the worst of the major Western European economies.
Idiot very much?
Yes you are, I quite agree.
Re: Beijing proof of this (Score:2)
I've been in Beijing quite a few times since 2001. Air quality used to be atrocious, even worse than London in 1995 or so. If you came home you had to wash up and the sink turned black with soot - in London as well as Beijing. That has changed quite dramatically.
I think a main turning point was the people seeing the air during the may parade get blue because they shut down the factories, and everyone posting about it on social media.
Re: (Score:2)
But still- it's AQI is a fact- and it's actually quite terrible. Over a month out of the year is what the WHO classifies as "Unhealthy", or about the range of Seattle's air when it's literally inundated with wildfire smoke.
Re: (Score:2)
"Improved but still bad" falls under "not so much anymore", I've said before that China is at best speedrunning development, it can't seem to skip steps like the "pollute everything" stage.
TFS is misleading (Score:5, Informative)
Per TFA, the 1.1% decrease in NO2 levels for each 200 zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) introduced was within a zip-code tabulation area or ZCTA. Not an introduction of 200 ZEVs for the whole state of California.
Re: (Score:2)
How big is a ZCTA?
Either way, this is good. Also keep in mind that NO2 levels are a proxy for other types of pollutant too, such as soot from exhausts.
ZCTA size (Score:2)
That's an interesting question. I'm not seeing an official answer coming up, but there's apparently 32k ZCTAs. Populations of the USA 338M, so approximately 10k people per ZCTA, I'd say.
Size of ZCTA in land area would vary dramatically, and even population. They're kind of based on postal zip codes, but changed to be more valid for statistical analysis.
You can tell the difference directly (Score:5, Interesting)
I live not too far from a big bus station here in the UK (Golders Green). About 70% of the bus lines operating from here are now EVs, and the remainder are all hybrid and tend to run on battery when in and around the station. The cab rank outside now mainly has LEVC EREVs which run on battery the vast majority of the time. And increasing amounts of the passing traffic are EVs too. It's substantially less smelly and the air is cleaner than five years ago, and it's also much quieter. Hampstead, St John's Wood and Marylebone are rife with Taycans and other pricey EVs, and again, the air is very obviously cleaner and less stinky, and the roads are much quieter, at least until some tit in a Lambo decides to rev their engines on a high street to impress themselves and their long-suffering partner.
All the above anecdote, of course, but it matters to me because I am personally experiencing the benefits, as is my family. And its backed up by the air quality monitoring carried out by London's local government. ULEZ has helped massively too.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:You can tell the difference directly (Score:4, Interesting)
I got the bus in Tokyo recently. The bus station is underground, under an underground shopping mall, under a train station. Everything, including the air, was immaculately clean. Hybrid busses, sadly not fully electric there, although they do have some EV ones in other places.
Contrast with Heathrow, where the bus station is above ground and covered, but open at the sides. Even so, it is polluted to hell and back. Diesel fumes saturate the air, constantly. I feel really bad for the staff who have to work there, it must be destroying their lungs.
EV and energy generation (Score:4, Insightful)
A car is an energy generator on wheels. Fossil fuelled cars are a distributed energy generation and pollution system.
An EV is a battery on wheels. Apart from the tires, that regular cars have too, they don't pollute as they travel.
When we generate energy in a few places, like power stations, the problems of energy generation are localised and easier to manage than travelling generators.
No waaaaaay! (Score:2)
Not burning fossil fuel causes less air polution than burning fossil fuel? How amazing. ...
Is this some kind of premature April fools thing?
Imagine what reasonably sized vehicles would do (Score:2)
Ghu, the right-wing trolls here... (Score:2)
Oh, right, tire particulates cause all the smog...
As opposed to how many tanks of gas a week from ICE vehicles? About 100 lbs for a tank? vs. weight of four tires - about 100 lbs for four tires.
And y'all claim tires cause more pollution than gas?
the only good (Score:2)
This is the only good thing about EVs --OTHER people buying them allowing me better air to breathe in the street.
Re: This is obviously bullshit lies because (Score:3)
That was hilarious.
If youâ(TM)re not trying to be insanely funny, then youâ(TM)re just insane.
You are replying to a bot (Score:2)
That said I'm kind of unimpressed by the study I expected a larger drop in nitrous oxide emissions. But I haven't read the whole study so it might just be because of the relatively small number of electric vehicles. Also going to need electric semis and those are a major source of emissions since most ice cars are pretty close to zero emissio
Re: (Score:2)
Basically if we really cared about pollution that we're breathing in would be building walkable cities with public transit
You keep saying this. Why don't you just Google "most walkable cities in America" and move to one of them? Surely, if they're good enough for you to advocate for them non-stop, you can do the necessary hustling to make your goal a reality.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I truly don't understand where this hatred of EVs comes from. It's almost religious.
I mean for god's sake, my EV is just a damn car. What difference does it make to them how it moves itself down the road?
Re:This is obviously bullshit lies because (Score:5, Insightful)
EVs are heavier and generate a lot lot lot more tire particulate.
Because electric cars don't eliminate or even reduce smog. Most of that smog you see is tire particulate.
Two statements which are both incorrect. Yes, EVs are about 20% heavier and generate about 20% more tire particulate matter (PM), but the difference changes based on urban vs rural vs highway driving. Also engine torque, brake pad composition, braking styles, and road dust change the equation. And when you add in the small amount of engine particulate matter (even the best tuned ICE engines still emit some PM) the final conclusion was EVs are better in most cases.
If you want to see the different conditions, Emission Factors (EF), and road conditions, read this study.
Electric vehicles (EVs) are regarded as zero emission vehicles due to the absence of exhaust emissions. However, they still contribute non-exhaust particulate matter (PM) emissions, generated by brake wear, tire wear, road wear, and resuspended road dust. In fact, because EVs are heavier than internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs), their non-exhaust emissions are likely to be even higher.
In this study, exhaust and non-exhaust emissions generated from a gasoline ICEV, diesel ICEV, and EV were experimentally investigated. The results showed that the EFs for the total PM emissions of ICEVs and EV were dependent on the inclusion of secondary exhaust PM, the brake pad type, and the regenerative braking intensity of the EV. https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
TL;DR When all emission factors are considered, EVs typically produce less particulate matter
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, because EVs are heavier than internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs), their non-exhaust emissions are likely to be even higher.
It simply isn't this simple.
It's true that in a like-to-like comparison, heavier vehicle wears the same times at a higher rate.
EVs are not that.
They have vastly better traction control (which is why the damn things jump so well off the line), and they do it with far harder (slower wearing) tires.
There is a measurable average increase in wear rate within EVs, but the outliers are telling.
EVs suffer from the same problem I had when I got my first car with over 300hp. Right-pedal-associated-tire-degradat
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is obviously bullshit lies because (Score:5, Informative)
I agree. Tire composition will change the particulate matter for the study and general drivability and price for the average consumer.
The study used tires with a 500 treadwear grade, which is a high-longevity, durable tire designed to last five times longer than a baseline reference tire (rated at 100) under government-controlled testing conditions. This generally translates to a long-lasting, reliable tire, often yielding 50,000 to 75,000+ miles depending on driving habits, vehicle type, and maintenance.
This tire may or may not be similar to what the average driver has on their vehicle, but it was the baseline for this study, as described in the abstract. Drivers in Michigan, California, and Texas might prefer different tire compositions, but something was needed for the baseline. As more studies are completed, a more detailed picture might emerge.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they will find that on a per-hp basis, EVs emit vastly less tire particulates (as long as they've got the basic goodies like regenerative braking, etc), simply because even high-hp EVs tend to come with high treadware grade, while high-hp ICE vehicles tend to come with barely solidified snot so that their acceleration performance is better (since that's mainly the point they're selling on)
A computer controlling throttle with real
Re: (Score:2)
There’s one other thing, too: while you definitely *can* drive your EV like a race car, it’s also much easier to drive it like an old granny than it is in an ICE car, because the acceleration is so linear: push on the gas very gently and the car accelerates slowly and steadily with no lurching up to whatever speed you want; take your foot off the gas and it either smoothly brings itself to a halt via regen or coasts slowly to a stop (my preferred method)
Re: (Score:3)
EVs suffer from the same problem I had when I got my first car with over 300hp. Right-pedal-associated-tire-degradation.
Only if you drive with a lead foot. I've had my Bolt for awhile now and the tires seem to be holding up as well as they did on any ICE econobox I've owned before. It does help that the traffic around here is pretty much a disaster most of the time, so smashing the accelerator just makes you look like one of those assholes who is in a hurry to go nowhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This is obviously bullshit lies because (Score:2)
So are EVs better because the acceleration is better? All I see is people saying good reasons not to use the acceleration.
Re: (Score:3)
They are better because they support a wider range of driving styles. If you want to zoom around town moving quickly off the mark when the lights change, EVs are better than ICE; if you want to drive delicately because you’re moving your dead in-laws’ crockery from their flat to your house, EVs are also better than ICE. I speak from experience with both those things.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you put your foot down in an ice it doesn't make your gas tank smaller eventually.
Re: This is obviously bullshit lies because (Score:3)
Yes of course it does. If you hammer it constantly it will wear faster and eventually lose efficiency until you rebuild the engine.
Re: (Score:2)
You may need to replace parts on any vehicle. They arent usually half the cost of the vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
You may need to replace parts on any vehicle. They arent usually half the cost of the vehicle.
By the time you typically need a rebuild it will probably be more than half of the value of the vehicle. Not least because if you've been using it hard, you will probably need to service both engine and transmission. Even manual gearboxes need some love eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
I have never had any problem with any engine unless I had forgotten to put oil in it. I only had trouble in one transmission in a Dodge but it was because they made the transmission with plastic parts. Got rebuilt properly for $1500 and no problems after.
Re: (Score:2)
Do that a lot in an ICE car and you’re going to fuck up something a lot more pricey than the gas tank. You’ll wear out your engine internals, your clutch or transmission, your cooling systems and your turbochargers. All those problems are much worse if the car is cold. I’m told it gets quite cold in Canada.
Meantime, you can put your foot down in an LFP EV as much as you like and there’ll be no appreciable impact on range over time. A 300+ mile LFP EV is going to be good for some ridi
Re: (Score:2)
Yet there have been many articles about people buying used EVs with hardly any range left.
Re: (Score:2)
Anecdote trumps data for humans. But the data are what matters, or at least what ought to matter. Crime stats are a classic example.
Re: (Score:3)
So are EVs better because the acceleration is better?
With an EV, the acceleration is there when you need it. Here in central FL, we've got these very poorly implemented toll lanes on I-4 where merging on and off is done mostly on the left-hand side of the highway. When it's one of those rare times that the traffic is actually moving, being able to quickly get up to speed is nice.
If I'm in no hurry and stick to the non-toll lanes of the highway, the other nice thing about having an EV is that its efficiency is actually at its best in stop-and-go traffic. Us
Re: (Score:2)
And that's fine if you never go far from home or have enough time of that you can sit around charging.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's fine if you never go far from home or have enough time of that you can sit around charging.
My EV means I save thousands of dollars per year in gasoline costs.
The small downside is long roadtrips take a couple of hours longer because of the recharging. (Less really, because I'm usually eating lunch anyway at one of those stops.)
Now it's great that you're wealthy and you don't mind paying thousands of dollars more each year to save a couple of hours now and again, but that's not me. I valu
Re:This is obviously bullshit lies because (Score:4, Informative)
I am going to stick my neck out and say that there are other items at play in EVs. EVs have fewer moving parts, and fewer wear items. 250,000 miles, the battery is likely going to be okay. Assuming wear items like brake pads and tires are taken care of, and basic lubrication is done with the powertrain, there isn't much going on. An electric motor is as simple and hard to kill as it gets, and axial flux motors are going to make that even easier to work with.
Compare an EV's maintenance schedule to other stuff. Those are a lot fewer parts, and the energy and pollution it takes to make new parts can be more than what a car makes in tire dust in its operational lifetime.
Plus, what helps with brake pad life are things like regenerative braking.
Overall, the battery is debatable, but everything else on an EV will last a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
My post was how I believe that particulate emissions comparisons relying on the mass of an average EV to an average ICE vehicle are fundamentally flawed.
Re:This is obviously bullshit lies because (Score:5, Informative)
Since brakes are used less, some EVs have even gone back to using drum brakes on rear axle and only have disc on front. Anyone driving an ID platform car (VW, Audi, Skoda, Cupra, EU Ford etc.) has such a set up. Drum brakes are enclosed systems so they don't even release dust except when being serviced and since the brakes aren't used so much that may not happen in the entire lifetime of the car.
So basically, an EV puts out WAY less brake dust than ICE.
Re: (Score:2)
But yeah they will wear out a lot less.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is obviously bullshit lies because (Score:4, Insightful)
It’s also the case that this whole “but EVs are heavier” thing is just obvious bullshit, and that many of the people who say it are proud owners of massive SUVs and trucks that they really don’t need, and could swap for smaller & lighter cars without any trouble.
Re: (Score:3)
I do imagine there are areas where they are legitimately heavier, though.
Still- it's an Apples and Oranges comparison.
Tire erodes as a result of friction. EV tires are longer-wear and more fully inflated, because having computer controlled throttle and traction, they don't need to overcompensate for a beef sausage limb trying to actuate a clutch.
It is true that a 3000kg car will erode its tires faster than a 2000kg car, but only if all other factors
Re: (Score:2)
Yup to all of that
Re: (Score:3)
While it's true that particulate exhaust from gas engines has decreased so much that tire and brake particles are much more numerous, the asterisk is that NO2 and CO are still produced, even though they don't count as particulate matter.
The other consideration is that although total tire wear particles are heavier by weight, the health concern is mostly in ground and water contamination and not air pollution. Brake particles are a much more significant air pollution health risk because the particles are sma
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for your patience in replying to this nonsense. It's worth pointing out that brake dust is more dangerous both because the particles are smaller and because they are metallic (or ceramic). The small size makes it easier for them to enter the bloodstream.
It's also important to note that PM2.5 from exhausts are also present in quantities high enough to damage human health for ICE vehicles. Diesel filters are better than nothing but don't help much when it comes to cold starts and can be defective.
Re: This is obviously bullshit lies because (Score:2)
Diesel filters don't filter PM2.5 at all. In fact they turn larger soot INTO that.
Re: This is obviously bullshit lies because (Score:2)
Brake dust in my EVs is almost non existent. Now and then I will apply the brakes as I learned theyâ(TM)ll rust up a bit from disuse. First brake job was at 106K miles. When it warms up more, Iâ(TM)ll do the second brake job at 220+k miles. In my ICE cars I would have done 4 by now, and those pads were worn down unlike the EV pads.
My younger EVs all have less than 100K so no brake jobs yet on them
Re: (Score:2)
I'm on 85k and still going on my ICE car.
4 in 106, or 4 in 220? That's fucking insane. Is that normal for automatics?
Re: (Score:2)
2016 Tesla P100DL - replaced the brake pads (not rotors, just pads) at 160,000 miles, not because they were on the rivets, but because they were about 8 years old at that point, and I figured they're probably not designed to last that long - also changing them before they started to score the rotors saved changing the rotors.
Regenerative braking goes all the way down to zero MPH - the brakes just don't get used very much.
This is a stupidly quick (0-60MPH in under 3 seconds, can pull almost a G of accelerati
Re: (Score:3)
The emissions of the tires are NOTHING compared to the emissions of the brakes and tail pipe (of an ICE).
EV's brake regenerative and rarely use the physical brakes. Having rusty disks is a common problem.............
Re: This is obviously bullshit lies because (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I said it here many times but right wing trolls always mod me down so posting anon this time:
Wait what? The right wing hate EVs. If it is the right wing trolls that are modding you down maybe what you're saying could be bullshit. Just some food for thought.
Re: (Score:2)
No thank you,.
My autonomy to come and go where and when I please,, plus not having to share walls in an apartment like a broke college student are not worth the trade off to me.
If that's how you want it, it's a free country, but that's not something I'll ever vote for, in fact if it's in MY area, I'll actively vote and campaign against such measure.
Re: (Score:2)
However, as it turns out, the analysis is more complex than that due to things like regenerative braking and superhuman traction control, allowing for an equivalent-mass EV to perform better on a much slower-wearing tire.
Re: (Score:2)
EVs are typically 30% heavier (not equivalent mass).
This is why it is important to read the entire post before commenting.
An EV is indeed heavier (on average), but also quite simply wears less tire per unit of force exerted against the ground.
i.e., trying to reduce the analysis to:
EV are heavier and consume more tires than "normal". Which means more plastics in the environment.
Is like saying, "Tankers are much bigger than speed boats, they are therefor far less fuel efficient."
They produce more tire particles since they are heavier and can accelerate more aggressively.
They also use slower-wearing tires, and wear their tires less to accelerate (hence why they can use lower-wearing tires) on account of their advanced traction and throttle contro
Re: (Score:2)
They produce more tire particles since they are heavier and can accelerate more aggressively.
They also use slower-wearing tires, and wear their tires less to accelerate (hence why they can use lower-wearing tires) on account of their advanced traction and throttle control.
Well, one can use slower wearing tires on ICEs too. That is a feature of tires and not cars. It is easy to replace tires. There may be something considerable in your argument that they have better traction control (which is possibly harder to do with ICEs, maybe only not as common with ICEs). But does this alone compensate for higher weight and higher accelerations of EVs? If so, do you have some good links explaining this?
Re: (Score:2)
>> EV are heavier
not much
>> and consume more tires than "normal".
Nope. Tire are dimensionned accordingly.
>> Which means more plastics in the environment.
Nope. No plastics.
Also : no brake dust.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. No plastics.
Yes. Yes plastics.
Also : no brake dust.
Also : yes brake dust.
Less brake dust? Absolutely.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no, a tiny bit more plastic particulate! I guess that may actually have a chance to affect me now that I'm not huffing on exhaust fumes and diesel particulates all day.
Congrats on making the dumbest of arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
I need any analysis to control for far more variables in a world where you're comparing an average slanted by the a mode with between 300 and 460hp on one side, and 169hp and bike tires on the other side.
Right now at least, the average EV just isn't comparable to the average ICE vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
The two things are not even vaguely comparable in impact on all kinds of things - humans, wildlife, the environment, etc.
Plastic's biggest danger is that it's largely inert so it persists in the environment if not managed correctly. Exhaust gases are just straight up killing things and giving people all kinds of conditions because it's airborne across a huge area.
Look at the trees next times you're on a highway. In the UK, it's common to have tree-lined motorways, because they absorb the sound and the pol
Re: (Score:2)
The day you wake up and realise that, despite being a slightly different technology, there's no reason that you couldn't operate them for your entire lifestyle. Except for the dumb reasons that you've clung to which are actually THE MOST DAMAGING things about ICE cars compared to EVs.
Hence why some Europeans countries are almost entirely EV sales already.
It's 2026. Pretending EVs are somehow inviable is ridiculous.
The only stopper on EVs is purchase cost.
Re: when will they work? (Score:2)
Ever tried taking the train? I tried several times. The math just isn't working. The EU is now busy getting to the point that there is a central authority for pan-EU train tables, so we can finally get a single ticket for a single journey instead of ten, and some guarantees for the duration.
Most people use the car or a plane to go on holidays. Using the train for that is a very small percentage of the population.
Re: (Score:2)
Well here taking the car is far cheaper and more convenient than a plane. Renting a car if you take a plane costs roughly twice as much here than it does here
Re: (Score:2)
Than it does there*
Re: when will they work? (Score:2)
" Europe gets by without many V-8s, North America does not. "
Hahhahahahhahahahah
Statistically nobody needs a V8. For one thing turbo sixes will do the job they used to do. For another most people don't need that much power either. It is neither necessary nor in fact desirable for soccer moms to be able to get their Suburban from zero to sixty under six seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet every EV owner praises their EV for doing that. I could say few EV owners need the acceleration.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, and I expect more EVs to go the route of the new Nissan Leaf, which still does it around 7 seconds. There's just no need for them to be so pissed off.
I have an ICEV econobox with 122hp (or less, it's 17 years old) and I don't have any trouble being one of the fastest and quickest drivers in actual real-world traffic, which is limited by practical considerations. Most people could get by with a whole lot less car than they have now if only they knew how to drive.
Re: when will they work? (Score:3)
You wouldn't, because as we've discussed previously, you only care about yourself. You are probably also a shit driver if you can't have fun in a car with completely acceptable acceleration like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe gets by without many V-8s, North America does not.
I live in North America. I have been driving and buying cars for 40 years. I have never once owned a V8, nor have any of my siblings.
A few years ago I drove a minivan with a 3.6 liter V6 with four passengers, a dog and a pile of luggage from Detroit to Seattle. It was not a problem at all - Even when the cruise control was pegged at 85 mph across Montana.
Just because people think they need something doesn't mean they actually do.
Re: (Score:2)
If you live in London you can be in Paris in 6 hours and that's a vacation. I have never lived anywhere within 6 hours of something worthwhile seeing.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are going on a +10 hour drive to visit family for a holiday (mid-range EVs adds 50% to the travel time, so that'll turn into a 16 hr trip), it's cheaper to rent a gas car to drive there. You only rent the car for the time you're traveling, you don't keep renting it while you're at your destination thus you only rent it for 2 days. The average car rental in USA is $50 to $80 a day.
If you take into account the cost of booking a hotel in the middle to survive a full day of driving, the gas rental is f
Re: (Score:2)
Europe is a continent, I suggest you look on a map. If you want to compare apples to apples North America is larger than Europe. Texas alone is larger than any single European country.
Re: (Score:2)
This is great, but when will they work like an ICE so that most people can buy them?
The biggest issue for people who aren't trying to haul a trailer filled with their lead brick collection everywhere they go, or drive coast-to-coast in a single Red Bull fueled shot, is that they might not have the ability to charge at home.
Considering that we're talking about the addition of the same sort of circuit that powers an electric range that you'd find in the average American kitchen, this absolutely is a solvable problem.
And if you do need to haul your emotional support Pb everywhere, or have som
Re: (Score:2)
They will never work quite like an ICE because they are different. They’ll never charge quite as fast, but in addition to their many current advantages, they will eventually have longer range than an ICE.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it will be great when they do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seven years ago for me. In a cold place.