3 ms·

Combustion is just one type of pollution that cars produce. And while relocating pollution is a tempting way to externalize the problem, it doesn't solve the un

Combustion is just one type of pollution that cars produce. And while relocating pollution is a tempting way to externalize the problem, it doesn't solve the underlying issue.

PhasmaFelis 9y ago
It reduces overall emissions by a lot, and saves thousands of lives even beyond that. Dismissing any solution that doesn't 100% fix everything is a great way to never accomplish anything.
BoorishBears 9y ago
I don't know why you're stretching so hard to make it seem like moving pollution away from population centers isn't an excellent benefit and likely to reduce in many fewer deaths from direct exposure to pollution. The comment above was referring to local pollution in cities (which directly kills thousands through diseases related to particulates in that pollution). Relocating that pollution does solve that problem. (PH)EVs also produce much less particulate pollution from brake dust due to the use of regen to brake (which is why they can go several times the normal replacement interval for brake pads). The creation of pollution is a separate problem from the location of that pollution. Yes, EVs don't magically prevent the creation of pollution, but they can severely limit the creation of pollution in population centers, where they have the most immediate effect.
- stephengillie 9y ago
  I live in a city and am not dying, in fact the air quality is very good. Do people who can afford electric cars live in the same cities where pollution is so bad that people are dying from it? Why don't they move to where the air quality is better? (Why move from a problem when you can make the problem move from you, I guess?) When the majority of pollution is coming from large trucks anyway, will swapping a few cars even matter?
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    Big city air can look great and still kill young children and old folks due to small particles. Most cities in Europe have terrible air thanks to the popularity of diesel autos, the low standards for pollution controls, and European governments being willing to ignore automakers who break the rules. Do you have a source for most pollution coming from large trucks?
    - stephengillie 9y ago
      Simply from the weight they carry, the energy required for this. Supplying a large city is neither cheap nor easy, and requires dozens or hundreds of daily shipments from dozens or hundreds of logistics companies. The majority of these happen during off-peak hours, to reduce load on the highway network. Lithium batteries still can't approach 10% of gasoline's energy density, so gasoline is mandatory for trucks, and will be until yet another new battery technology is not only discovered and brought to market, but mass-produced to the point that we have a battery-pollution problem. > the low standards for pollution controls Why don't they increase the standards? If people are dying there must be public outrage. Does Universal Healthcare cover pollution injuries? > European governments being willing to ignore automakers who break the rules. Are people protesting or working to change their governmental leadership? Or are they content to see their loved ones perish? If diesel cars are such a problem, why not outlaw these? Then only outlaws will drive them. Do you have a source for particulates killing children in cities?
      - llukas 9y ago
        > Lithium batteries still can't approach 10% of gasoline's energy density, so gasoline is mandatory for trucks, and will be until yet another new battery technology is not only discovered and brought to market, but mass-produced to the point that we have a battery-pollution problem. Too bad that correct number to look at is entire power system energy density (engine+fuel+transmission). Electric engines are a lot lighter so batteries do not need to have same energy density. > Why don't they increase the standards? If people are dying there must be public outrage. Your expectation of public outrage happening doesn't mean it happens. Even if people are dying. > Do you have a source for particulates killing children in cities? http://bfy.tw/Dayg http://bfy.tw/Dayg
aoeusnth1 9y ago
I thought the underlying issue was people dying from exposure to pollution? Or is that not something that you're concerned about?
stupidcar 9y ago
It solves the problem of exposing hundreds of millions of people to multiple emission sources of highly deleterious fine particulates in their immediate vicinity, every single day. It's not rocket science, it's an obvious fact, and not a single person posting here can honestly claim not to understand it. Ignoring or downplaying it is a near criminal act of negligence.

Combustion is just one type of pollution that cars produce. And while relocating pollution is a tempting way to externalize the problem, it doesn't solve the underlying issue.

PhasmaFelis 9y ago

It reduces overall emissions by a lot, and saves thousands of lives even beyond that. Dismissing any solution that doesn't 100% fix everything is a great way to never accomplish anything.

BoorishBears 9y ago

I don't know why you're stretching so hard to make it seem like moving pollution away from population centers isn't an excellent benefit and likely to reduce in many fewer deaths from direct exposure to pollution. The comment above was referring to local pollution in cities (which directly kills thousands through diseases related to particulates in that pollution). Relocating that pollution does solve that problem. (PH)EVs also produce much less particulate pollution from brake dust due to the use of regen to brake (which is why they can go several times the normal replacement interval for brake pads). The creation of pollution is a separate problem from the location of that pollution. Yes, EVs don't magically prevent the creation of pollution, but they can severely limit the creation of pollution in population centers, where they have the most immediate effect.

stephengillie 9y ago
I live in a city and am not dying, in fact the air quality is very good. Do people who can afford electric cars live in the same cities where pollution is so bad that people are dying from it? Why don't they move to where the air quality is better? (Why move from a problem when you can make the problem move from you, I guess?) When the majority of pollution is coming from large trucks anyway, will swapping a few cars even matter?
- greglindahl 9y ago
  Big city air can look great and still kill young children and old folks due to small particles. Most cities in Europe have terrible air thanks to the popularity of diesel autos, the low standards for pollution controls, and European governments being willing to ignore automakers who break the rules. Do you have a source for most pollution coming from large trucks?
  - stephengillie 9y ago
    Simply from the weight they carry, the energy required for this. Supplying a large city is neither cheap nor easy, and requires dozens or hundreds of daily shipments from dozens or hundreds of logistics companies. The majority of these happen during off-peak hours, to reduce load on the highway network. Lithium batteries still can't approach 10% of gasoline's energy density, so gasoline is mandatory for trucks, and will be until yet another new battery technology is not only discovered and brought to market, but mass-produced to the point that we have a battery-pollution problem. > the low standards for pollution controls Why don't they increase the standards? If people are dying there must be public outrage. Does Universal Healthcare cover pollution injuries? > European governments being willing to ignore automakers who break the rules. Are people protesting or working to change their governmental leadership? Or are they content to see their loved ones perish? If diesel cars are such a problem, why not outlaw these? Then only outlaws will drive them. Do you have a source for particulates killing children in cities?
    - llukas 9y ago
      > Lithium batteries still can't approach 10% of gasoline's energy density, so gasoline is mandatory for trucks, and will be until yet another new battery technology is not only discovered and brought to market, but mass-produced to the point that we have a battery-pollution problem. Too bad that correct number to look at is entire power system energy density (engine+fuel+transmission). Electric engines are a lot lighter so batteries do not need to have same energy density. > Why don't they increase the standards? If people are dying there must be public outrage. Your expectation of public outrage happening doesn't mean it happens. Even if people are dying. > Do you have a source for particulates killing children in cities? http://bfy.tw/Dayg http://bfy.tw/Dayg

aoeusnth1 9y ago

I thought the underlying issue was people dying from exposure to pollution? Or is that not something that you're concerned about?

stupidcar 9y ago

It solves the problem of exposing hundreds of millions of people to multiple emission sources of highly deleterious fine particulates in their immediate vicinity, every single day. It's not rocket science, it's an obvious fact, and not a single person posting here can honestly claim not to understand it. Ignoring or downplaying it is a near criminal act of negligence.