Hacker News Reader

Comment by skriticos2 | Hacker News Reader

Hah, so true. If you give up on your ICE now in one of the western democracies, it will be sold as a used car in your country first and continue being driven around by someone poorer, then eventually be shipped to Asia and be driven around there by even poorer people until it eventually goes to Africa and and be driven until it finally gives out. Getting a new EV and dumping the ICE won't change much on that in the short term.

So what I want to say is, that poor people have better things to worry about than EVs and sustainability, like getting through the day with food on their plate and maybe a roof over their head. While they will be the most impacted, they can afford to care about it the least.

Also, EVs right now just shift the problem around until we manage to produce electricity from renewable sources, which is still some way off, especially in the poor places that will drive the least efficient ICEs while they last.

View on HN

In France we have a "bonus for scrapyard" to avoid that [1]. You get an extra discount if you prove that the old car you're replacing is going to be removed from the road.

I don't think it's well thought through given how broken the rating of cars is, but that's a step in the right direction I guess.

> Also, EVs right now just shift the problem around until we manage to produce electricity from renewable sources

Until we manage to actually reduce the amount of cars. The solution for transportation is quite clearly less and smaller vehicles, all EVs.

[1] https://www.economie.gouv.fr/particuliers/prime-conversion

If you are broke you can buy a normal car for $1000 or less, that can get you to work and back home. You can't afford to live where you can take public transit or a bicycle to work. Electric is simply not an option for the majority of people, it is a luxury. Until a worker can get an electric car for a couple of thousands, no scrapyard bonus will make any difference whatsoever. It's just more tax money subsidies for rich people.

>Until we manage to actually reduce the amount of cars. The solution for transportation is quite clearly less and smaller vehicles, all EVs.

That's called a motorcycle, although they're not electric. There's a few hundred million of them already in the world, and greater adaption of motorcycles where possible would be incredible for reduced traffic and reduced pollution. On top of that they are cheap, fuel efficient and fun to ride. But nobody will listen to the solution, because there is too much money to be made from the problem.

> Electric is simply not an option for the majority of people, it is a luxury. Until a worker can get an electric car for a couple of thousands, no scrapyard bonus will make any difference whatsoever. It's just more tax money subsidies for rich people.

Note that "the majority of people" don't have a car, they have 2-wheeled vehicle at best. [1] I'm not conflating "electric vehicles" with "electric cars".

> That's called a motorcycle, although they're not electric.

No shit.

> There's a few hundred million of them already in the world, and greater adaption of motorcycles where possible would be incredible for reduced traffic and reduced pollution. On top of that they are cheap, fuel efficient and fun to ride. But nobody will listen to the solution, because there is a too much money to be made from the problem.

Fully agree, even though the maximum amount of public transportation is in my opinion desirable in areas that permit it.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/04/16/car-bike-...

> I'm not conflating "electric vehicles" with "electric cars".

My mistake!

To add a bit more to the discussion. Larger adaption of motorcycles instead of cars in cities can also reduce the pollution from public transport. Nothing spews more exhaust than a bus stuck in traffic. Motorcycles are also a good complement to public transit, since you can get to a station or terminal that is far away on your motorcycle and easily park there. Car parking needs much more space. In many cases it is better to get to a terminal that has express public transport by your own means, so that you don't have to live by the local bus schedule and wait for the slow route to the terminal.

Good point for the buses, I wonder which is more energy-efficient in-between putting all passengers in a battery-electric bus or on electric scooters.

The main advantage I see to electric motorcycles is that you barely need to change anything in most car-dependant areas to start mass adoption. They are fast enough for you to not feel unsafe next to cars at a red light, and can go quite far on a single charge.

I've been raving about Taiwan's Gogoros for a while, but still, too many motorcycles is a big safety hazard. Electric bicycles are much better in that regard, muscle ones even more.

I think both ICE and electric motorcycles will be more energy-efficient than both ICE buses and electric buses. But not everybody can ride a motorcycle, so my thought is that if more car drivers became motorcycle riders, then traffic would flow much better and the bus wouldn't get stuck in the first place.

It would also save a lot of money on infrastructure, if traffic could be improved without having to build larger and larger highways.

As for electric and muscle bicycles, I think they have their time and place. There's nothing wrong with people combining all methods of transportation in their life, depending on circumstances and weather. Car + MC + Bicycle could be in everybody's garage.

I wouldn't consider many motorcycles a safety hazard. It's mostly people riding like lunatics. And safety gear has become better recently, with airbag clothes. At least bikers only hurt themselves in an accident. In my experience motorcycles are safer than electric bicycles, unless you're in a place with very good bicycle infrastructure. Motorcycles can accelerate out of dangerous situations and have better manoeuvrability than large-wheeled bicycles.

Motorcycles pollute far more than cars per unit of distance driven.

And I’m talking about gas cars.

And cars carry more people.

The fact that motorcycles use less gas has absolutely no connection to how much pollution they produce, which is a lot.

Good to know, I had no idea of that! But it seems to be fixed with a cat without too much downside in performance. From my quick research, it seems that most modern motorcycles do have cats, and they don't add very much to the price of the vehicle.

Cars carry more people, and more stuff. And it protects you from the weather. But if you're just transporting yourself or yourself and a passenger, the motorcycle can be a good option many times.

Thanks, good to know they have “cats” too, didn’t know that. Hopefully it helps a lot. For the record, I assume what I’ve heard about motorcycles does not account for that.

EVs powered even by coal pollute less than gas cars, due to superior drivetrain efficiency. So this “long tailpipe” concept you allude to is a myth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com