Comment by jlnthws | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jlnthws | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I had in mind that at most 60% of particles emitted by non-electric car are due to the exhaust. It's actually a bit more complex as there are different types of particles with different distributions depending on many factors. In [1], they seem to conclude that it is indeed 50%-50% for most particles, so it would mean that switching to an electric car only halves the emitted particles on the location the car is used (nothing is said about the overall assessment of its lifespan, maintenance, battery recycling, fuel production and transport).

Regarding diesel, it's important to remember that it was a byproduct of oil refinery that had to be used somehow (instead of being discarded and trashed in the nearby river). Some industrial engines and boats have been designed to use it (and are actually better run on diesel engines). Diesel car engine also became a thing, but was originally emitting more small particles. Specific catalytic converters have been introduced to remove those particles decades ago, with very high efficiency (95+%). Those converters are alas not so efficient at lower speed. That's why we don't want too many diesel cars in our cities.

[1] https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/J...

> In [1], they seem to conclude that it is indeed 50%-50% for most particles, so it would mean that switching to an electric car only halves the emitted particles

That isn’t correct, because electric cars mostly use regenerative braking which eliminates brake emissions. Also, this is only for particulates, NOx also emissions are totally eliminated by the switch.

Indeed, I was not aware of it and it makes a huge difference. So local emissions reduction is probably in the 70+% per vehicle. Tyres and roads are the last big chunk of emissions then. Where is my flying Tesla?

[2] https://electricautonomy.ca/2019/09/11/better-braking-anothe...

Note that this publication only seems to be analyzing the costs post-production. It's important to consider how damaging the cobalt and other rare mineral mining is for the sake of batteries, which are essentially scrap after 10 years or so by current standards. Older ice engines can basically be rebuilt forever as long as they're maintained. Certainly alternative battery technologies will emerge in the future but the current ones seem problematic.

Back in college a few years ago I wrote a paper trying to compare the environmental cost of maintaining and operating 90s cars vs buying and replacing electric car batteries measured by co2 emitted (typically written co2e). This was written around 2012 but I found the break even around 10 years. That is, electric cars were measured as a fairly flat line (not fully flat, assuming some non zero co2e for electricity generation). There was of course a ton of hand waiving but the gas car was assumed to have a y intercept near zero and to be operated for 10 or 15k miles/year (can't remember exactly but I know it was in that range). I would link it but I'm currently not in the same country as the hard drive that might still have a copy of it. Of course I would prefer to have a peer reviewed publication on this, but I had a lot of trouble researching the manufacturing/mining estimates back when I wrote it.

Jeremy Clarkson mentioned a study on Top Gear years ago that showed (as I recall it) that a new Jeep Wrangler would, all things considered, have lower lifetime environmental cost than a new Toyota Prius, the gist of it being that all the high-tech and advanced materials in the Prius had a massive environmental cost that far outweighed its lifetime hydrocarbon frugality when compared to a car as simple to manufacture and being made of basic materials like the Wrangler.

For some reason, people are particularly hostile to countervailing evidence when it contradicts previously swallowed feelgood propaganda.

Edit: 'Using the average CO2 output of the European electricity network, Ernst concluded that an electric car using a 60kWh battery made in Europe would have to travel some 700,000 kilometres (435,000 miles) before it is “greener than an average petrol car”. However, Ernst also says that a fully renewable European grid would reduce the EV’s CO2 lag to just 30,000km (18,640 miles). '

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/analysis-just-ho...

Trouble with a Jeep Wrangler is it's a utterly shitty unreliable vehicle.

Also if you want to trust basic balance sheet economics, a Prius is cheaper than than Jeep Wrangler. 'splain that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com