3 ms·

Generally people with children dont live in the center of Stockholm and a high % already drive electric. Biggest change is that delivery/transport services have

by poniko 3y ago

Generally people with children dont live in the center of Stockholm and a high % already drive electric. Biggest change is that delivery/transport services have to find alternatives and Im really happy about that, everyone benifit from removing "heavy loud polluting traffic" in the city.

paganel 3y ago
> Generally people with children dont live in the center of Stockholm and a high % already drive electri So I guess the process was already under way, as it already is too expensive to have a typical Western life in downtown-ish Stockholm. I fail to see how moves like this one would help with those expenses.
- wasmitnetzen 3y ago
  Nobody takes the car to somewhere in downtown Stockholm to save money. That's always one of the most expensive options.
- hef19898 3y ago
  So, Stockholm is a modern vity, O hope we can agree on that. Also, Sweden, and thus Stockholm, is in the West, making Stockholm a modern, western city. And it seems people in Stockholm are not living in abysmal conditions. Meaning everyone living in Stockholm right now is living a "modern, western lifestyle", by definition. It is, of course, an urban one, but there are more ways than one living ypur life. And nobody is trying to take that away from you or anyone else.
qwytw 3y ago
> "heavy loud polluting traffic" in the city. yeah, that's great but.. Modern engines are already pretty "clean", significant proportion (if not the majority?) of PM 2.5 and PM 0.1 particles come from breaks and tires so EV are not really the solution for inner city pollution. (and the effect on CO2 emissions is immaterial in this case)
- gruturo 3y ago
  1) Don't let perfect be the enemy of good 2) For the record EV use 99% regenerative braking so at least that source is practically zero 3) Decoupling CO2 emissions from the car means you can upgrade your power grid to be greener without having to replace all the cars already circulating. It's an enormous advantage which should be given due consideration. Also, it's easier to manage the emission of all the CO2 in one place, and mandate better filters/capture systems there, than just spew it out of every individual exhaust pipe, where many capture systems are not feasible due to cost, size or other consideration. But, most importantly, let me repeat: Really, really, don't let perfect be the enemy of good, please.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    > For the record EV use 99% regenerative braking so at least that source is practically zero 99% or "practically zero" are hugely overexaggerated claims but yes it's an improvement > Really, really, don't let perfect be the enemy of good, please. That's an awful reason to not talk about something. Yes it's an improvement but switching to EVs won't magically eliminate car related pollution in cities (not even remotely close to that) which is something some people seem to believe (and they really shouldn't)
    - gruturo 3y ago
      > 99% or "practically zero" are hugely overexaggerated claims but yes it's an improvement A lot of cars support "one-pedal driving" where only regenerative braking is used. The brake pedal is literally just used in case of emergencies. As this becomes the default on more models, yes, I fully expect we will achieve that "practically zero". I'm wondering what can be done for the tires (not just for EVs, also for ICEs and especially for heavier vehicles), where I think tire manufacturers ultimately have the opposite incentive (if your tires shed more material, they have to be replaced sooner, which increases their recurring revenues, so maybe they didn't spend too much R&D in that direction....) > That's an awful reason to not talk about something. Yes it's an improvement but switching to EVs won't magically eliminate car related pollution in cities (not even remotely close to that) which is something some people seem to believe (and they really shouldn't) I really have to disagree here. EVs are silent (so silent they had to be fitted with a noisemaker to make them more detectable by pedestrians), they don't pollute the air with combustion products make the air terrible (some of this pollution is happening elsewhere when fossil fuels are used - that's on a downward trend and I want to argue it's still a net win, not happening right next to where a lot of people breathe), they produce "practically zero" (yeah I insist) PM2.5 - PM1.0 particles from braking, there is almost only tire wear pollution. It may not be perfect, but it's a pretty strong improvement in quality of life compared to the actual situation - have you "tasted" the air in Paris on a busy winter evening while walking through the city? It's awful. In the future we will look at this stuff like we are finally starting to look at cigarette smoke. And the noise... just terrible. Do you have a better proposal which can be realistically (yeah banning all cars ain't gonna cut it, people won't, and will vote out politicians who try) applied to the situation, with results available on the same timescale of the EV transition - which is already happening by itself? If yes, let us know, and let's discussing moving all the EV incentives towards your better solution.

by poniko 3y ago

paganel 3y ago

> Generally people with children dont live in the center of Stockholm and a high % already drive electri So I guess the process was already under way, as it already is too expensive to have a typical Western life in downtown-ish Stockholm. I fail to see how moves like this one would help with those expenses.

wasmitnetzen 3y ago
Nobody takes the car to somewhere in downtown Stockholm to save money. That's always one of the most expensive options.
hef19898 3y ago
So, Stockholm is a modern vity, O hope we can agree on that. Also, Sweden, and thus Stockholm, is in the West, making Stockholm a modern, western city. And it seems people in Stockholm are not living in abysmal conditions. Meaning everyone living in Stockholm right now is living a "modern, western lifestyle", by definition. It is, of course, an urban one, but there are more ways than one living ypur life. And nobody is trying to take that away from you or anyone else.

qwytw 3y ago

> "heavy loud polluting traffic" in the city. yeah, that's great but.. Modern engines are already pretty "clean", significant proportion (if not the majority?) of PM 2.5 and PM 0.1 particles come from breaks and tires so EV are not really the solution for inner city pollution. (and the effect on CO2 emissions is immaterial in this case)

gruturo 3y ago
1) Don't let perfect be the enemy of good 2) For the record EV use 99% regenerative braking so at least that source is practically zero 3) Decoupling CO2 emissions from the car means you can upgrade your power grid to be greener without having to replace all the cars already circulating. It's an enormous advantage which should be given due consideration. Also, it's easier to manage the emission of all the CO2 in one place, and mandate better filters/capture systems there, than just spew it out of every individual exhaust pipe, where many capture systems are not feasible due to cost, size or other consideration. But, most importantly, let me repeat: Really, really, don't let perfect be the enemy of good, please.
- qwytw 3y ago
  > For the record EV use 99% regenerative braking so at least that source is practically zero 99% or "practically zero" are hugely overexaggerated claims but yes it's an improvement > Really, really, don't let perfect be the enemy of good, please. That's an awful reason to not talk about something. Yes it's an improvement but switching to EVs won't magically eliminate car related pollution in cities (not even remotely close to that) which is something some people seem to believe (and they really shouldn't)
  - gruturo 3y ago
    > 99% or "practically zero" are hugely overexaggerated claims but yes it's an improvement A lot of cars support "one-pedal driving" where only regenerative braking is used. The brake pedal is literally just used in case of emergencies. As this becomes the default on more models, yes, I fully expect we will achieve that "practically zero". I'm wondering what can be done for the tires (not just for EVs, also for ICEs and especially for heavier vehicles), where I think tire manufacturers ultimately have the opposite incentive (if your tires shed more material, they have to be replaced sooner, which increases their recurring revenues, so maybe they didn't spend too much R&D in that direction....) > That's an awful reason to not talk about something. Yes it's an improvement but switching to EVs won't magically eliminate car related pollution in cities (not even remotely close to that) which is something some people seem to believe (and they really shouldn't) I really have to disagree here. EVs are silent (so silent they had to be fitted with a noisemaker to make them more detectable by pedestrians), they don't pollute the air with combustion products make the air terrible (some of this pollution is happening elsewhere when fossil fuels are used - that's on a downward trend and I want to argue it's still a net win, not happening right next to where a lot of people breathe), they produce "practically zero" (yeah I insist) PM2.5 - PM1.0 particles from braking, there is almost only tire wear pollution. It may not be perfect, but it's a pretty strong improvement in quality of life compared to the actual situation - have you "tasted" the air in Paris on a busy winter evening while walking through the city? It's awful. In the future we will look at this stuff like we are finally starting to look at cigarette smoke. And the noise... just terrible. Do you have a better proposal which can be realistically (yeah banning all cars ain't gonna cut it, people won't, and will vote out politicians who try) applied to the situation, with results available on the same timescale of the EV transition - which is already happening by itself? If yes, let us know, and let's discussing moving all the EV incentives towards your better solution.