EVs Are Already Making Your Air Cleaner, Research Shows (grist.org) 175
Fossil fuels produce NO2, which is linked to asthma attacks, bronchitis, and higher risks of heart disease and stroke, according the EV news site Electrek. But the nonprofit news site Grist.org notes a new analysis showing that those emissions decreased by 1.1% for every increase of 200 electric vehicles — across nearly 1,700 ZIP codes.
"A pretty small addition of cars at the ZIP code level led to a decline in air pollution," said Sandrah Eckel, a public health professor at the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine and lead author of the study. "It's remarkable."
The study was done at the University of Southern California's medical school, by researchers using high-resolution satellite data, reports Electrek: The study, just published in The Lancet Planetary Health and partly funded by the National Institutes of Health, adds rare real-world evidence to a claim that's often taken for granted — that EVs don't just cut carbon over time, they also improve local air quality right now... The researchers ran multiple checks to make sure the trend wasn't driven by unrelated factors. They accounted for pandemic-era changes by excluding 2020 in some analyses and controlling for gas prices and work-from-home patterns. They also saw the expected counterexample: neighborhoods that added more gas-powered vehicles experienced increases in pollution. The findings were then replicated using updated ground-level air monitoring data dating back to 2012...
Next, the researchers plan to compare EV adoption with asthma-related emergency room visits and hospitalizations. If those trends line up, it could provide some of the clearest evidence yet of what we already know: that electrifying transportation doesn't just clean the air on paper; it improves public health in practice.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader jhoegl for sharing the article.
The study was done at the University of Southern California's medical school, by researchers using high-resolution satellite data, reports Electrek: The study, just published in The Lancet Planetary Health and partly funded by the National Institutes of Health, adds rare real-world evidence to a claim that's often taken for granted — that EVs don't just cut carbon over time, they also improve local air quality right now... The researchers ran multiple checks to make sure the trend wasn't driven by unrelated factors. They accounted for pandemic-era changes by excluding 2020 in some analyses and controlling for gas prices and work-from-home patterns. They also saw the expected counterexample: neighborhoods that added more gas-powered vehicles experienced increases in pollution. The findings were then replicated using updated ground-level air monitoring data dating back to 2012...
Next, the researchers plan to compare EV adoption with asthma-related emergency room visits and hospitalizations. If those trends line up, it could provide some of the clearest evidence yet of what we already know: that electrifying transportation doesn't just clean the air on paper; it improves public health in practice.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader jhoegl for sharing the article.
Even better: no cars at all (Score:3, Insightful)
We need to eliminate car dependency and give people a choice of transportation. Freedom of mobility includes freedom to not travel by automobile. Side benefits include less pollution.
Re:Even better: no cars at all (Score:5, Funny)
give people a choice of transportation
A truck.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong answer. Try bus or train or bicycle next time.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, a bus or train all to myself seems more wasteful than the regular car.
Re: Even better: no cars at all (Score:2)
But how else are you going to leave when you want to and be driven to exactly the place you are going with no delays?
Re: (Score:2)
No delays? Don't roads have traffic where you live?
Funny thing about bicycles is they provide the freedom that car advertisements promise. You can cruise through a city to your destination without traffic getting in your way.
Re: (Score:2)
No not really. I have never lived in a big city by choice. The biggest city I lived in was under a million people. I did look into moving once but didn't want to spend almost two hours a day on a train and deal with traffic. I ended up getting a work from home job so I could move up a place with as little traffic as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
ROTFL!
Last time I lived in Chicago, I'd be on the Metra (commuter rail). As we got towards downtown, we'd be in the middle, or right next to the Kennedy. We'd be cruising along, passing the one-person-in-a-car commuters, in traffic jams, heading to their "early bird special, in before 7, out before 4, only $22/day" parking.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok but how long was the commute from your front door to your desk? Probably not much quicker once you board the train and everything.
Re: (Score:2)
bus or train or bicycle
None of which have tool boxes in the bed or a gun rack in the back window.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Seems unlikely. I'd be willing to bet that a car is the only viable means of transportation you have. A bus that takes all day, or biking along roads where you will die aren't in any meaningful manner viable.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems unlikely. I'd be willing to bet that a car is the only viable means of transportation you have. A bus that takes all day, or biking along roads where you will die aren't in any meaningful manner viable.
I'd use it if it was at all convenient. I simply do not have the time to use mass transit every day. Biking would require me to take a shower after getting to work. It is possible for me to avoid most auto roads on the way to work, but wintertime ice and snow, and humid summer mornings and rain and snow will make to soak me, either sweat or precipitation. So I'd have to shower at work, as well as keep separate clothing there to change into. Biking in a suit only kinda works. But a sweaty suit? Nah - I'l
Re: (Score:2)
We need to eliminate car dependency and give people a choice of transportation. Freedom of mobility includes freedom to not travel by automobile. Side benefits include less pollution.
U sovereign? Well, get out there and build the alternatives I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
As a lifelong cyclist, I agree in principle. The problem is over the last seventy-five years we have rearchitected the very geographic fabric of society to make *solving* our transportation problems with bike and public transit impossible.
Before WW2, Dad would leave the apartment and walk or take a trolley to work (usually in the same city neighborhood) while Ma "kept house" -- managed cooking, clearning, childcare, and the family's community and social engagement. In the 1950s and 60s, instead of an apa
Re: (Score:2)
People need to go to work, or they should die. What those people want is completely irrelevant. The only question is: How to get them to work? Disrupting the current cash flows is not really an option until the people receiving those cash flows figure out how to ensure all cash still flows to them.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to eliminate car dependency and give people a choice of transportation. Freedom of mobility includes freedom to not travel by automobile. Side benefits include less pollution.
Bullshit. You already have that in cities. People have a variety of choices. Every big city in the US has both bus and light rail systems with very few exceptions (Cincinnati, for one). EVERY city of medium size on up has a bus system. What you really want is to force your post title on people: no cars at all. Your whole aim has nothing to do with "choice".
Re: (Score:2)
I like my private car (dependency) where I can some and go door-to-door when I want on my schedule.
As long as you don't fsck what works for me and most people today....have fun.
By the way...there are other forms of public transportation, but mostly only smelly bums ride on them...at least from my observations.
Please don't try to PUSH things on people to force them to change because you think YOU know better, you know?
Re: Even better: no cars at all (Score:5, Informative)
He wasn't saying "ban the car". He was saying "end car dependency." which means constructing multiple modes of transport with the same amount of priority, so that people can choose from the modes that are available, as opposed to building a massive network for cars and only token transit, if at all. People use good transit when it's available, the problem is that the US tends to build either crappy transit or none at all.
Re: (Score:2)
He wasn't saying "ban the car". He was saying "end car dependency."
There is still a matter of subject line "Even better: no cars at all". Most likely the intent of freedom language is making life so miserable for those who want to drive they will have the "freedom" to change their minds.
Re: Even better: no cars at all (Score:4, Insightful)
I still see plenty of cars in places without car dependency though.
Nobody says there aren't enough cars in NYC for example.
Bit if you can properly connect people in ways faster than cars it reduces traffic and makes everyone's life better (drivers too).
It's such a delight driving in a city that's really prioritized alternate means of transport vs LA (and NYC is not one of those cities. They do the bare minimum).
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody says there aren't enough cars in NYC for example.
People really do. Don't underestimate the sheer buffoonery of the deeply car-brained.
Re: (Score:2)
I still see plenty of cars in places without car dependency though.
Nobody says there aren't enough cars in NYC for example.
Bit if you can properly connect people in ways faster than cars it reduces traffic and makes everyone's life better (drivers too).
It's such a delight driving in a city that's really prioritized alternate means of transport vs LA (and NYC is not one of those cities. They do the bare minimum).
I'm very happy for you - what city is this?
There is a big problem. Unless on one of the long routes, it is often faster to drive than take the bus. Indeed, when I tried to be a good bus rider, I lived 2 miles from work. I had to leave work either 40 minutes early, seldom possible, or wait almost 40 for the next bus. Then take a circuitous route that ended up making that 2 mile distance take until almost 7 P.M. by the time I got home. Biking was faster, walking was faster, car was a few minutes.
And in
Re: (Score:2)
BUT....for pretty much all cases..ONLY if you live in an extremely urban city, sharing walls and high rise dwellings...will you have all that alternative (public) transportation that works.
That's well and good for those that like that lifestyle, for me personally, I would consider having to rent an apartment that shares walls with other people as a major step down in life..back to the days when I was a starving college student having to live in apart
Re: Even better: no cars at all (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the biggest lie from transit/bike pushers. Transit (or bike lanes) do NOT reduce the traffic.
False. You can't just call things lies because you don't want them to be true.
You can argue that forcing everyone into 15-minute concentration camps is good for them
In what universe is being able to walk your kids to school a concentration camp? You're off your rocker.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The poster is actually correct. Adding additional modes of traffic does NOT necessarily reduce car congestion. No matter what, if you give away roadway capacity for free, the free roadway capacity will be fully consumed.
It's not just about giving the roads away for free. What's generally been found is that transport modes tend to even out in terms of travel time if that's physically possible. Let's say you have a train with a dedicated right of way and roads. If transit takes longer, people will drive, and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Even better: no cars at all (Score:5, Insightful)
But 80% of the US population lives in urban or suburban areas, which have more than enough population density to support better urban infrastructure. No-one is suggesting that the right place to start to fix public transport in the US is Wyoming. They're suggesting Cupertino or LA or Camden, New Jersey etc. Places that have shitty existing public transport that could be wildly better.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is not how many people live in urban areas. The question is how many people never see themselves never having to go far away from the city at any point when they buy the car. You always hear about their total range but I'm imagining that they also lose a lot in stop and go traffic, say, of your kids have a music class Saturday morning then a swim meet at 12 and a birthday party in the evening. How about in snow in the winter? People are really nervous about getting stuck somewhere.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The question is how many people never see themselves never having to go far away from the city at any point when they buy the car.
No, there's never just one question. Another question is how many homes have more than one car, for example. And it's most of the ones that have more than one person.
oh look more dick riding (Score:3)
Slashdot deliberately both enables and encourages abuse of moderation in order to increase posts complaining about it which increases ad impressions, by not taking away moderation points from people who deliberately and willfully abuse them.
Slashdot is perl-enabled abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
When I could afford two cars, I needed the grocery getter to be the cheap car, in the neighborhood of $9k or so. EVs are too expensive to be the grocery getter but that is all they are good for.
Re: Even better: no cars at all (Score:2)
"EVs are too expensive to be the grocery getter but that is all they are good for."
The average commute in the US is 30 minutes, which is usually less than 30 miles. The average EV mileage is now over 200. Run along now with your nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
You are totally missing the point. The average length of drive is not what people buy vehicles for. They buy vehicles for the longest drive they want or plan to do.
An average trip of 30 minutes means nothing if you want to go camping with it and there are no chargers for that.
Re: (Score:2)
You are totally missing the point.
No, I've understood perfectly well that you know nothing about EVs or ICEVs.
Re: (Score:2)
Your imagination needs to be reined in, or you'll waste your time imagining silly things. Like the idea that EVs lose more range in stop-and-go than free-flowing traffic, when this is when they are wildly *more* efficient than ICE cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Do the laws of conservation of energy work differently on EVs?
Re: (Score:2)
The phrase you want is "regenerative breaking". We get far better milage in heavy traffic in our PHEV than I did in my old ICE vehicle.
Re: Even better: no cars at all (Score:2)
No, the electric motors do work very differently from the ICEs though, for example the ICEs are least efficient and produce the least torque at or near 0 RPM and the electric motors don't. If you can't understand this then slashdot is not for you.
Re: (Score:2)
And regenerative braking doesn't work well in winter.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is also bad in the snow on its own. No one drives high torque cars here in the winter. They are all parked. Hopefully your traction control is good.
Re: (Score:2)
If you actually knew ANYTHING about the subject at hand ...and I mean ANYTHING at all
You would know that EVs have far superior traction capabilities, and why. I would explain it to you, but it would take too long as you have not even the vaguest imitation of a clue what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there something about car ownership which precludes taking public transport?
I know quite a few people who live in LA and all of them hate driving in LA because the traffic is horrendous. Half way decent transit will shift far more people and won't get held up by traffic, plus you can not be concentrating on driving while on the transit. So unless you have a really deep desire to sit in bad traffic with crappy drivers surrounding you and honk while drifting along at 5mph, you could take a transit option.
Re: (Score:2)
No, nothing precludes them from using buses but if they have a family then it will be very difficult to do so. I took the bus to work and it was great before my kids were in a lot of extracurricular activities but in comes sports and music classes, school concerts etc and soon you can't have much more than a 30 minute commute or so for it to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Might I ask, how old are your kids, roughly?
Re: (Score:2)
Now they are in university.
Re: (Score:2)
Most cities in the US are NOT as densely packed or as HUGE as LA...and therefore do not replicate the same kind of traffic they have out there.
I rarely run into traffic anywhere I've ever lived at any time of day...if there is some it is short short windows of time.
Where I've lived I'm always only minutes (10-20) away from work....and no I do NOT live in a downtown city/urban area.....
The "LA" e
Re: (Score:2)
They're suggesting Cupertino or LA or Camden, New Jersey etc. Places that have shitty existing public transport that could be wildly better.
Impossible. Our Masters are happy with the way cash is flowing right now. They will not change it merely because YOU want it change or that it would be more convenient for YOU.
The person who has all of the gold doesn't want things to change, so they will not, until the Universe forces it. There is nothing you can do about it but get enough gold to force change. Good luck to you.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in the UK, so I'm not a participant in this. But I note that there are plenty of examples of local urban improvements in the US, albeit sclerotic by the standards of other nations. There's no reason why the US couldn't expect to do better.
Re: (Score:2)
Faux Noise believer detected.
Also terrified of other people, are you?
Re: Even better: no cars at all (Score:2)
Because there is no viable way for public transit to pick you up at your door and take you directly to where you are going. Public transit will always have this disadvantage so the only way to make it better is to make it so much better for so much cheaper that people are enticed to use it, meaning comfortable seats, maybe a table to work on, and not having someone so close to you that they are looking over your shoulder. This is what will always be seen as too expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Because there is no viable way for public transit to pick you up at your door and take you directly to where you are going. Public transit will always have this disadvantage so the only way to make it better is to make it so much better for so much cheaper that people are enticed to use it, meaning comfortable seats, maybe a table to work on, and not having someone so close to you that they are looking over your shoulder. This is what will always be seen as too expensive.
This! It isn't to say there should be no public transit. Urban areas would be car forests. And that's a big reason for public transit. There's just not enough real estate for both people and cars for everyone.
But not all of us have careers, or lifestyles that are applicable to a no car, all bus or train life. I do have a bus stop right outside my door. And may career demands that I can be at certain places, at certain times, with certain materials that are not necessarily convenient or sometimes not po
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This take is absurd as me accusing you of forcing people to take cars.
Would you still feel the same way if the subject of the post were "Even better: no mass transit at all" ?
Followed by:
"We need to eliminate mass transit dependency and give people a choice of transportation. Freedom of mobility includes freedom to not travel by mass transit."
The person you're replying to is suggesting that more transportation options would be better for all.
A reasonable interpretation when one elects to ignore the subject line.
Re: (Score:2)
This take is absurd as me accusing you of forcing people to take cars. The person you're replying to is suggesting that more transportation options would be better for all.
The ability to make choices is freedom.
The problem as I see it is that some might be riding the metro with blinders on.
In an urban environment it makes sense to have as much mass transit as possible. No way is everyone going to be able to have a car. If I'm driving to NYC on personal business, I'll likely park outside the city at the bus terminal and take that where I'm going. if on business, I take a taxi to my destination.
But here in PA, where we have urban centers widely spaced, and a lot of woods and farms between, it makes a lot less
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Even better: no cars at all (Score:4)
Legit question: Have you been to somewhere that had passible public transit? I have. Is it perfect? Of course not. But it's head and shoulders above anything I've experienced state side. The public transit here sucks ass.
Re: Even better: no cars at all (Score:3)
No government anywhere is going to make public transit good enough for everyone to use it.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes there are some insane die hard petrol head motorists who insist on slogging through Central London because, I don't know they are frankly weirdos.
But you keep, and I think intentionally, setting up weird false dichotomies like this where you can have 100% cars or 100% transport and nothing in between. It may shock you to know that there are even car owners in Amsterdam, a city and country renowned for excellent transport and excellent urban and rural biking. And yet, the majority of people don't travel
Re: (Score:2)
I'm mostly talking from my perspective in North America, and I did bike to work and back before my kids were born. Maybe everything is closer in Amsterdam but from where I lived in the suburbs it was around an hour to bike downtown where my job was. I would be sweaty when I got there so I would have to shower and change, which meant carrying baggage. Then there was another ride home (another hour) and another shower if I needed to turn around and take the kids to something. If you have kids then you are
Re: (Score:2)
Where I lived in the suburbs it was around an hour to bike downtown where my job was.
A decent public transit system would make it so your hour-long sweaty bike ride would turn into 30-minute bike->bus/train->bike ride. Again, nobody is taking your car, us liberal/progressive morons just want you to be able to not HAVE to drive it to the office every damn day. I know from my Suburban American perspective our current public transit system does not support such things.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I solved that problem by working from home.
Re: (Score:2)
No, what they meant is that they would like actual reasonable public transportation. To a point where maybe a family of 4 doesn't need two cars.
Oh - you'll really hate me. Family of two. Wife has a car, I have a car. Sorry, not sorry. I often have to go places on short notice. I also off-road as a hobby. So I have a Jeep Trailhawk. Wife's car does duty for when we have social occasions or want more comfort.
Our lifestyle doesn't fit with any sort of mass transit. And that is where people get messed up with monoculture thinking.
Legit question: Have you been to somewhere that had passible public transit? I have. Is it perfect? Of course not. But it's head and shoulders above anything I've experienced state side. The public transit here sucks ass.
Okay. Your premise boils down you you know the state of there entire mass transit system of the USA, and you claim 100 p
Re:Tire particulate (Score:5, Informative)
>> when you have to buy new tires where did the old tires go?
Tire shops bundle your old tires and send them to licensed recyclers, where they’re shredded and the rubber, steel, and fabric are separated.
>> they aren't on your car anymore because they have worn away.
Nope, the wear is just a few millimeters on the perimeter.
>> every time you go out and about in a city you're breathing little micro bits of tire
A large share of tire and road wear particles (TRWPs) deposit within a few meters of the road. Concentrations fall off sharply with distance from traffic.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I watch auto racing. There is an effect of "rubbering in" where the tires become part of the racing surface. I suppose some does float in the air, but that effect is very real and makes sense, it falls into the porous asphalt.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't there also a lot of smoke? What do you think that has in it?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
It doesn't just fall in, it gets rubbed on. Well, rubbed off of the tire, but rubbed onto the asphalt. You can see the rubber on the track.
But that's only a percentage of what is removed. There's also big chunks of rubber which come off and bounce away, I bought a race car once (I put the suspension on my street car) and there were bits of it stuck to the bodywork as well. And then there's the part that turns into gases and goes into the air, and so on.
Okay so why do you replace tires? (Score:2)
As for the study you linked to that would be wonderful if I lived out in the country away from major roads. I don't I live in the city. I am surrounded by large roads. Small roads too. Every single square inch surrounding me is surrounded by roads with plen
Re: (Score:2)
>> What process happens that requires you to replace tires?
I already explained that. What do you think happens?
>> I don't I live in the city. I am surrounded by large roads. Small roads too. Every single square inch surrounding me is surrounded by roads with plenty of tires wearing over them.
You don't "live in the city", so relax. Not much traffic, therefore very little PM2 particulates from tires. Tire and road wear particles (TRWP) make up less than 1% of PM2.5 and PM10 in ambient air samples,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ooh edgy strawman. The article is literally about air pollution in neighborhoods.
Dupe (Score:5, Informative)
Yep, this looked familiar. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Dupes are considered ok now.
They used to be considered an editorial oversight, and something to be avoided, but with the reduction in our attention span and memory retention, they have become all but vital.
Nox reduction was more from ICE cars than EBs (Score:2, Informative)
I had Grok help me look at California Cars from 2019-2024. (2025 data not out) California tracks number of new ICE cars and number of EVs sold. Cars in the US are kept about 14 years. It turns out that the cars from 14 years ago put out more NOx than current cars. Therefore, when one buys a new car in California, NOx production goes down. According to Grok - a 2012 car has a NOx of 0.083 grams/mile, 2026 ice car has 0.20 grams/mile, and new EV 0 g
Re:Nox reduction was more from ICE cars than EVs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The study is linked in the summary, and it appears that they did properly measure just the reduction from EVs. The Lancet is a respected publication, it's been properly peer reviewed.
Can confirm, I can *smell* the difference. (Score:5, Insightful)
Norwegian here, can confirm ...
Air has gotten significantly better in urban areas in the last decade. Given that about half the cars on the road now are electric - it's not only measurable, but very very smellable.
Whenever I go abroad now, I can *smell* the difference.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
No doubt EVs are big contributors, but time and the aging out of the oldest vehicles is also a big help. Vehicle age is average around 12 years now in typical conditions, but there are always some older ones as well. An EV replacing a modern vehicle doesn't do much to improve the smell situation (except as compared to a diesel) but any modern vehicle replacing any old one is major.
Maybe (Score:2)
Glad that the products of combustion are declining thanks to EVs... We will ignore the effects of the occasional thermal runaway. But EVs, from what I have read, are much heavier than their ICE equivalents and as such have much greater tire wear. And tire particulates are a major contributor to the fine particuates that are a significant driver of urban health problems. So... fixed one problem, made a different one worse. Personally, I would rather take the train -- but in North America that option has been
Current EV's Use Too Much Power (Score:2)
Re:Climate participation trophy (Score:5, Informative)
Affordable vehicle ownership is essential to the American Dream and a primary driver of economic mobility out of poverty in the United States. Americans rely on vehicles to reach jobs, education, health care, and essential services.
I'm assuming by the "climate participation trophy" snark in your subject that you're taking an anti-EV slant, but ICE vehicles really don't have the massive cost advantage they used to. The cheapest new ICE car is the Hyundai Venue SE at $22,150 [cars.com]. The 2027 Bolt EV starts at $28,595. If the $7,500 tax credit hadn't gone away, the Bolt would actually be the cheapest new vehicle sold in the USA.
If BYD cars weren't tariffed out of existence in the USA, they'd already be, hands down, the least expensive new car you could buy. It's game over - EVs have won the price war.
Re: (Score:2)
Even basic things like an actual driver's seat, instead what you get is more like the chairs you find in a hospital waiting room.
The 2027 model supposedly has improved seats, but let's be honest - anything with a sub $30k MSRP is nowhere close to being longer luxury car territory these days. The Model 3 has pretty nice seats, but that starts at about $37k.
Re: (Score:2)
Americans should be able to buy the car they want.
I'm all for freedom of choice... to the extent that it doesn't impinge on the wellbeing of others.
I hear your points about how cars are essential to life in the US, and I would also accept the argument that one ICE car doesn't significantly pollute the environment of that car owners neighbours. But a statement like "American's should be able to buy the car they want" sounds like it is not concerned with that sort of thing.
As a youth, I might have thought that I can play music on my stereo as loud as I like.
F that! Ban ICE (Score:2)
You get time to transition to EV... You apply for a permit exception but otherwise, we ban your car on public roads. You DO NOT have the right to drive on roads - you may remember getting a driver's license which was not free and mandates compliance to regulations...aka "rules of the road."
You earn and pay for the privilege to drive! If you have a track on your private property, go ahead and drive in circles all you like and buy anything out there ... well, except a tank and a ton of other things you are
Re:BULLSHIT! (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a marginal reduction because the power plant burns more efficiently than most internal combustion engines. So, there is efficiency that should translate to some pollutant reduction.
You're ignoring a few things:
It's a lot easier to make sure that power plants are emissions compliant than it is to regulate the emissions of millions of tailpipes.
As power generation gets cleaner, the pollution by proxy situation of existing EVs improves.
A small portion of air pollution is actually caused by evaporated fuel that is spilled or otherwise finds its way into the environment.
Re: BULLSHIT! (Score:2)
Intermittent renewables + battery storage is primarily what's being developed right now, and despite the current administration's assault on renewables, they still make the most sense to buil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
90% of my EV charging comes from my own solar. I'd hope most people with EVs have solar and a battery.
Re: (Score:2)
90% of my EV charging comes from my own solar.
I commend you for this. In all sincerity.
I'd hope most people with EVs have solar and a battery.
Despite your hopes, that is definitely not the case.
Re:BULLSHIT! (Score:4, Informative)
It ignores the fact that EVs simply relocate the emissions.
They do some of this, but the total emissions are also reduced.
Instead of burning fossil fuels in a distributed fashion, each car burning it's own fuel locally, the fossil fuels burned for/by EVs are now all burned at a power plant in a single zip code.
A much more efficient power plant with scrubbers which the ICEV doesn't have at all. (Unless it's a diesel with a DPF, which turns large soot particles into finer and more deadly soot particles and CO2, what a farce.)
Please Read (Score:2)
Please reread my comment. I clearly stated that, as quoted below for your convenience.
There is a marginal reduction because the power plant burns more efficiently than most internal combustion engines. So, there is efficiency that should translate to some pollutant reduction.
Re: (Score:2)
Please reread my comment. I clearly stated that, as quoted below for your convenience.
That clearly doesn't address at all the increased emissions reduction strategies which are not related to simple increases in efficiency, which you are also downplaying because they are in fact massive. I read your comment, but you didn't read mine, or you didn't understand it. Read my comment again and then write a reply which addresses what I actually said, and fuck off with your alleged superiority while you're failing at reading comprehension.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're not going to finish your air, then let someone else have it.
Re: (Score:2)
I have the same rule for the water in your bladder.