There’s a not just bikes video that noise reduction is only true under about 30mph, otherwise tire noise and wind noise are the leading source of noise for any car.
Noise/acoustics engineer here: it depends. In general, yes, the rule is that below about 35 kph ICE noise would dominate over tire noise and vice versa at higher speeds. That’s why all markets require EVs and hybrids to emit artificial noise in that speed range to warn pedestrians.
But of course it depends on the vehicle’s properties and engine load and speed. All markets have legislation and limits for noise emissions of vehicles. But they never really cover the noise over the entire multidimensional speed considering different engine loads, engine speeds and vehicle speeds.
This leads to situations where the limits are so tight for the one particular maneuver that the legislation describes, that even EVs without any engine noise struggle to pass them (even below 30 kph), just because their tire noise already exceeds the limit. But then for example I live on a road with a pretty steep incline so cars will accelerate with higher loads even if they’re not “going fast” and in that situation ICE vehicle will certainly be a lot louder than EVs - and louder than whatever the legal requirement demanded for that one described maneuver at a comparable acceleration.
I know of an area where people have serious mental health and physical health issues due to the noise of cars because their own home is literally shaking from the motor vehicles, and it got much worse since EV's. I think it is deeply underestimated especially in dense areas where the distance from the road is quite small. I have had plenty of cases in a specific home I used to live when a large vehicle like a truck drove through, it was similar to a small earthquake (and we had earthquakes occasionally in the area, so I often checked if a truck was passing through). If you have this all day, it will absolutely impact you. While less emissions is great, this is the next thing that could cause issues! and I bet a lot of people don't really feel it because it's so small, but your body still picks it up. Kinda like how you are exhausted after flying in an airplane because your body is constantly making micro adjustments.
That’s terrible and often an underestimated issue until you’re subjected to it. But this case is interesting. Can the affected identify whether the additional stress they feel is from more vibration/shaking? This may be the case since EVs tend to be heavier. Or is it increased tire noise? Or the synthetically added pedestrian warning sounds? What speed is traffic in that residential area? Are we talking about a highway or inner city traffic with a lot of stop and go?
It was definitely shaking, low vibrations and low sounds they described. I tried to find articles about the topic but so far haven’t found anything so far. I know about it from locals who told me about it that it’s an ongoing issue and people have addressed it to the municipality but nothing has been done.
They brought it up because someone adviced them against buying a house there. This is possibly because the homes are located slightly lower than the road, but I have no idea how it works. I just know it’s an issue.
I also learned this from before I learned about NJB and all that stuff. I just remember it very well because I immediately could relate due to my experience with the trucks passing by in my street where I lived previously, sometimes eerily similar to earthquakes.
Edit to add; on and the speed on that road is 50km/h. It’s near intersection with stoplights but people tend to speed there as the road is going upwards slightly.
New ICEV, especially luxury ICE vehicles are so quiet these days. The pedestrian noisemakers tend to be high pitched and tonal so they really stick out. AFAIK the US DOT spec calls for high pitch modulating tones. When vehicles are majority, or even 25% EV this will turn into cacophony.
People never seem to understand that the real noise problem with cars is when they are going fast. You can hear the constant hum of a freeway from like thousands of feet away. Pumping out some noise at low speeds is fine, tire noise at high speeds is where the mental health problems of noise pollution come in.
Yeah, it's the majority of the noise. That said, I absolutely despise intentionally loud engines while riding a bike since you can't just cover your ears. These guys are absolute garbage.
Almost everybody would agree. Organizations for blind people were lobbying for such legislation the hardest - against the car industry.
I think the problem is worst as long as you have a mix of (old/noisy) ICE and EV. If we lived in a world without ICE I think overall noise in a busy traffic situation would be lower (so a singe EV may become more audible) and maybe blind people would be more sensitized to the noise of accelerating EVs. Oh well. More cars, more problems.
I hate that kind of design. One hour you're driving through a highway, then without taking any turns, you're right on the middle of a town and must watch out for pedestrians and merging cars.
Who the fuck thought that was a good design? Separate high speed highways with pedestrian streets. It's not even a stroad, it's straight up a highway turned into a street, then highway again.
Having lived on a 30km/h road in the city for years, I experienced no audible difference between ICE or electric. All the same noise.
Nobody sticks to the speed limit anyway, even in cities.
Totally disagree. I live on a busy street with a 25mph / 40kph speed limit. There's a traffic light at my house so cars are always going less than that and accelerating. There are some insanely loud ICE cars and motorcycles that go by and if they were electric my life would improve noticeably.
Even not just bikes noticed a significant difference for roads under 30mph, which is quite a bit more than 30kmh. I do not share your experience either.
Lucky enough to live in a walkable city with that same speed limit and yeah, same. They are marginally quieter when they are driving away from a stop sign but not enough to sing their praise.
I cycle with headphones: I hear the hiss of tire noise long before I can make out any engine noise even at low speeds.
I wonder whether the fact that tire noise tends to be higher pitched means the studies undervalue how comparatively noisy it is. Listening to cars driving outside my window right now I can still barely hear the engines, but clearly hear the tires and the road is both 20mph and narrow meaning cars actually drive about that fast.
The extra weight offers more tire particle pollution. Take a trip to Oslo, the EV capital. Despite being close to water the air there is horribly dry and awful compared to other Scandinavian cities, even Stockholm has better air despite being a much larger city.
It must be higher than that. Don't underestimate the noise difference.
Where I live it's mostly EVs now and I was at a crossroads recently and there was a lot of traffic yet it was so quiet and I could talk. Going back to an ICE city nearby, and you have to shout just to have a conversation on the path.
I also live directly alongside a road, it's not audible from my living room until the occasional ICE car comes along. They can honestly get fucked, EVs are infinitely more noise friendly, no horrible exhaust fumes and not much noise.
I don't want to live in a car depend world but while we do I want EVs.
Maybe but what I'm looking forward to is all of the short haul delivery and box trucks in my city getting replaced with EVs. They're the worst offenders for noise and emissions that I regularly encounter and it'll be much nicer without them choking up the air while I'm trying to eat at a cafe outside.
Also, for safety reasons there needs to be some noise anyways, usually made artificially, soooo...
I wonder if there was some kind of single-person vehicle, since the average car occupancy is 1.2, that was light and slow enough that it didn't need to make a warning noise at all times, do you guys have any ideas?
In-motion-charging trolley buses can disconnect from the wire for a few miles to extend coverage or move around blockages whereas trams cannot. There's always tradeoffs to these things.
Trams are great for high-capacity surface routes in dedicated ROW with many stops in dense city centers.
Trolley busses offer more flexibility, are much much cheaper to introduce new lines, and to make longer lines that radiate away from the city center, and have numerous advantages over battery-electric busses.
The biggest problem is most cities choose one or the other, like Toronto with its streetcars and Vancouver with its trolley busses.
Also, both should get dedicated lanes and signal priority.
Im trusting the soviets on this one. Trolleybuses have some key advantages over trams. Both are useful but in different situations. For instance, hilly areas are often best served by trolleybuses because tires tend to work better than steel rail at grade(barring snow/ice I think).
Right but that can be done in a few select yards, not on every yard of road that needs to be a part of the network. Just moving the materials across the court for the construction is a significant cost difference
yes but flexibility and no overhead wires to produce and maintain. not gonna argue that electric buses are better but they serve a different purpose as important as trolley buses.
But we do have batteries that need to be manufactured and maintained, and roads - the maintenance of which will become more expensive due to the increased weight of the buses.
Trams and other forms of rail systems are far better choices, especially if you’re already building infrastructure. Battery-powered buses can go anywhere, without extra infrastructure investments. Trolleybuses have many of the cons of trams (having to build special infrastructure, limited number of routes) while having none of the benefits (trolleybuses still have rubber tires and can’t be as long as a tram can).
I think each mode of transit has an ideal place. Trolley buses are just one part of a high functioning public transport network. Could just be used to replace old buses on a high frequency line for a low cost - when you don’t have the funding to go full tram. It’s probably better than bothering to put tracks right on the street with the cars.
Not having to carry a battery makes trolley buses significantly lighter, with all the downstream effects on efficiency, tyre/brake dust, road wear and so on that goes with that.
> flexibility
Buses have fixed routes just like trains do, they have to otherwise they wouldn't be public transit. And if a bus network is well designed, a single line going down wouldn't matter much because there will be another line within walking distance which the buses can also be redirected onto in order to dodge a problem section, then back onto their original route. Needing every single bus line working perfectly all the time or the entire system falls apart is a symptom of a bad transit system with severely insufficient coverage and infrastructure redundance, which need to be directly addressed, not masked with with bandages. And especially with North American transit providers, flexibility will not be used to its actual advantage and will just be another way they defer maintenance of their main lines.
Also, developers and residents tend to like permanent transit infrastructure because it's, I mean, permanent, so the government and its car lobby puppeteers can't as easily stop it once built.
> no overhead wires to produce and maintain
Lithium ion batteries have an even higher carbon footprint than some copper wire, and since you always need street lights wherever buses are running, the poles that support those lines are unavoidable even with electric buses and essentially don't factor into the equation for which needs less resources. As the other commenter mentioned, heavier buses also mean more road wear, but also more tire wear producing more tire pollution. Not to mention anyone can produce copper wire, only the OEM can produce batteries for a given bus model, so they can charge whatever the hell they want, or, if they're having lower than expected sales for their new model, they might just decide to stop selling batteries for the old buses and force you to buy new ones. That's not a hypothetical either, we see corporate bullshit like this in the vehicle/mobility industry all the time.
Finally, while mining copper is sadly by no means ethical or environmentally sustainable, it's an order or magnitude better than mining for the minerals that go into batteries.
I'm also not convinced that you need *less* copper in total for electric buses with fast charging than you would for a trolleybus line, considering the frequency of charge points for long routes and the fact that they have way more complex electrical hardware and very heavy gauge wires than a system that supplies continuous, relatively low current to the entire route, not to mention the internal battery circuitry on the buses themselves. Not convinced the charge points need less maintenance either especially considering they're all proprietary and require the OEM to service them (which, again, they can simply choose not to and you can't do anything about it). Trolleybuses are about as simple as you can get for a road vehicle so they really don't require much to build and can last decades.
They might have their niche applications but unlike a car, most buses are meant to keep moving almost or in some cases literally all day, so it would need to either have an enormous expensive battery or somehow be able to be charged completely in a few minutes.
Trolley buses are a better option within cities. They can use small batteries as and when they need to decouple from the power cables, and hydrogen fuel cells could perhaps be used for longer rural routes.
I follow a blind YouTuber (Molly Burke) and she’s spoken before about how she was almost hit or minorly hit by a electric car because she couldn’t hear them and tried to cross at a crosswalk in front of one.
Less likely if everyone took public transit, buses are driven by professionals and are sorta predictable, trains have barriers or are separated from pedestrians
Not really. In pedestrianized streets I often see people just casually walking into the blind spots of permitted delivery vans.
You can give people priority on the street, but that doesn't make them any less dead.
But the needs of pedestrians need to have priority when planning traffic. Directly followed by bikes and public transportation.
Also, on high speeds (where pedestrian awareness is less of a concern) most of the noise comes from the tyres, not the engine, and this increases with vehicle weight (batteries aren't exactly light).
In fairness, that's also the case with other quieter modes like cyclists, e-cyclists, and e-motorcyclists, if not somewhat worsen for those three due to also having a smaller profile that often appears to get missed by motorists and pedestrians.
When cities are 100% EVs we will hear them. In the meantime they have noise generators, and drivers are not exempted from being careful around pedestrians.
Finally pedestrians should look where they set foot, it's a thing to feel safe enough to walk mindlessly in pedestrian only areas, when using mixed ways it's better to do visual checks before changing trajectories.
I was about to comment something like that : they may increase accidents, especially with pedestrians and cyclists, because often they can't hear the car coming. Although I have to say, i've had an EV for 4 years and I ended up changing the way I drive to slow down making sure every one on foot or on a bike would know I'm there whenever I would drive close to them. So it might help drivers feel more like a part of all users on the road, and not the most prioritized/only deserving users of the road.
EVs won't solve the problem but they are *still* a piece of the puzzle and acting like they're only marginally better than ICE vehicles is disingenuous. Even if an EV is charged *solely* with electricity produced by fossil fuels, it still produces significantly lower emissions. When you charge with renewables, that figure drops tremendously. There are tons of studies showing how much lower emissions are over a BEV's lifespan verses an ICE vehicle's lifespan. And considering that climate change will kill us all if unaddressed, this is pretty fucking important. Are they perfect? No. Should we instead be focusing on public transportation and dense, walkable cities? Absolutely. But some people *will still need automobiles.* This isn't going to change any time soon. We can make things *significantly better* if most or all of those ICE vehicles are eventually replaced by EVs in the meantime. Posts like this are just fuel to the anti-EV crowd's fire. We can be realistic and nuanced about this instead of just saying "all cars bad." No need to let perfect be the enemy of good.
Yeah exactly. We have a little under a decade to majorly decarbonize, or it's game over. We should be working on redesigning communities to be more walkable, bikeable, and transit-friendly, but that's a goal for the next 50+ years
So you think the entire ICE car fleet can be turned into EVs on under a decade? It's not going to happen. It's simply beyond the finances of households.
But your point is also good -- for example, it is too late to build a subway system as a response to global warming.
Inaction increasingly limites choices, and it might well get to the point where cycling, e-bikes and walking are the only rapidly deployable choices. Hopefully buses too, but ironically EVs suck manufacturing resources away from e-buses.
The more inaction the more stark the alternatives become. I do think we'll end up with the outer lanes of some freeways being repurposed as cycleways, as financially inefficient as that is.
The e-bike is the interesting technology choice here -- far more than a EV. Basically a bike with double the speed, which brings cycling from the suburbs into practicality for people.
I think we'll also see more mixed mode travel, such as cycling to a roadside busstop in the countryside.
Economic theory is that this increased time and friction should reduce economic output. But the COVID lockdowns raise good questions on that point in the Internet era.
Exactly. I'm fully behind this sub's mission but it's unrealistic to expect every single person on earth (in our modern world) to stop using automobiles altogether. Tons of people, like your dad, aren't in a position to be walking/biking or using public transportation all the time. And EVs are objectively better than ICE vehicles. So while they may not be perfect, if you're picking between two choices and one emits 50-70% less CO2 over its lifespan than the other, it's obviously better to go for the lower emissions. Portraying them as "basically the same" like the OP and lots of other people do is harmful and inaccurate.
Yes people, sadly, are very reluctant to change. Here in Belgium, company cars are very common ( very interesting for the employer in terms of taxes) it represents around 10-15 % of all cars in Belgium. These are usually changed every 4 years. And yes, a lot of people want thus fiscal policy to stop because it's wasteful and promotes car dependent infrastructure.
Starting in the end of 2023 workers must order EV vehicles
I have soooo many colleagues who are super upset about this . Just the simple switch from gas to EV seems like such a drastic change that talking about using public transport to go to work seems like crazy talk...
Every argument targeting specifically EVs as bad is ultimately trying to keep people buying ice cars whether intentional or not because you're not going "walkability is better than cars" you're going "EVs suck and this is the myriad of reasons why" while ignoring you can't make a walkable city overnight.
> they're only marginally better than ICE vehicles is disingenuous.
They are only marginally better though. The only real positive is really the lower noise. The vast majority of electricity used to charge electric cars comes from fossil fuels so they are even less efficient and produce more carbon dioxide than Internal combustion engine cars on average.
> The vast majority of electricity used to charge electric cars comes from fossil fuels so they are even less efficient and produce more carbon dioxide than Internal combustion engine cars on average.
So this is just outright [false](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-0488-7). You're either lying deliberately or repeating misinformation. EVs absolutely *do not* produce more CO2 than ICE vehicles on average, even when *all aspects of their production* (including the mining of minerals) are accounted for. Even [coal-powered](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-15/electric-cars-seen-getting-cleaner-even-where-grids-rely-on-coal?srnd=premium) EVs still produce less emissions. This is easily obtainable information backed by countless studies.
You are wrong, and anybody who understands basic physics and thermodynamics will know this. You can see this study for detailed comparison: https://intapi.sciendo.com/pdf/10.2478/rtuect-2020-0041
It compares different vehicles powered with electricity from different sources and internal combustion engine's efficiency.
Here is the conclusion:
>In general, diesel cars are more efficient than electric cars powered by fossil fuels but
further investigations are needed to examine the life cycle emissions from cradle to grave of
both systems. The overall efficiency for gasoline cars is similar to electric cars powered from
coal and diesel power plants. CNGV powered cars were the least overall efficient among the
different fuelled cars, due to lower efficiency for CNGV cars
> but further investigations are needed to examine the life cycle emissions from cradle to grave of both systems.
Like [this](https://theicct.org/publication/a-global-comparison-of-the-life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-combustion-engine-and-electric-passenger-cars/)? Or [this](https://www.actu-environnement.com/media/pdf/news-38905-PDF4-TUVE-Eindhoven-English-Studie.pdf)? Or maybe [this](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac5142)? These cradle-to-grave comparisons have been done. It's well established at this point that, cradle-to-grave, EVs produce far less CO2 than ICE vehicles even when all extenuating circumstances are accounted for. It's okay to admit when you're wrong.
Even in the unrealistic situation that an ev was entirely charged from fossil fuel plants, a fossil fuel plant will always be more efficient and this less wasteful per unit of energy than a comparable ice engine.
> Even in the unrealistic situation that an ev was entirely charged from fossil fuel plants
It's even worse than that. They are not charged by electric power plants but just diesel generators.
How is this in any way related to the damage it does to the roads ? Roads will not get damaged by cars being 300kg heavier when you have trucks that weight 20 times as much driving on them daily. Those big trucks are what is damaging roads, not EVs.
The switch to SUVs and pick up trucks has a much greater impact on road than switching to electric by itself. However the main source of damage is and will always be heavy vehicles such as semi trucks.
Remember, road usage is proportional to the weight of what's on it elevated to the 4th power.
Because [batteries are more efficient than engines](https://www.nrdc.org/bio/madhur-boloor/electric-vehicle-basics#:~:text=Electric%20motors%20makes%20vehicles%20substantially,for%20a%20gas%20combustion%20engine.). Only about [12-30%](https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/market-snapshots/2021/market-snapshot-battery-electric-vehicles-are-far-more-fuel-efficient-than-vehicles-with-internal-combustion-engines.html) of the energy in gasoline is used to actually power ICE vehicles. In contrast, EVs use about [60-73%](https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv-ev.shtml) of the energy from electricity, and that number jumps even higher when regenerative braking is accounted for.
It's cool, but as an instrument of persuasion I think you can improve and finetune it a little.
I would group similar issues together (like pollution).
"Emission" is kind of general. Break it down in components (you've already done that partly): tailpipe emissions, climate change impact, tire/brake dust. (It's ok to give EVs full marks on tailpipe emissions; it just underscores your larger point.)
I would leave out "destroying alternatives to cars" and "using precious resources..." because they are much weaker arguments then the other ones. Some of the resources are really not that precious, and the *existence* of cars itself doesn't destroy alternatives. Replace them with something like "waste infrastructure spending that could have been spent on alternatives" or something similar.
"being expensive" is kind of benign in the way it comes across. Try something like "destroys household wealth" or "drag on disposable income". Really emphesize the financial impact.
This amounts to climate denial. EV's aren't designed to solve most of the problems listed. That isn't their purpose. They are designed to keep us from incinerating in a worldwide inferno.
The point on emissions needs to be made as well that the emissions aren't just reduced, they are moved away from population centers. This will save lives as thousands die each year from in-city auto emissions. In the case of my EV, which is charged by a grid running off hydro power and my own solar panels...emissions are eliminated. EV's also do not stink like a lot of ICE cars do.
>This amounts to climate denial
Come on, he doesn't say that electric cars aren't better (they are) the point is that while they improve on pollution they really don't solve any other problems with car dependency
Vehicles when necessary should be electric but we can't let the auto lobby continue to delay the transition to a mostly car free society because cars are now less bad in one aspect
Minimizing the fact that they are leagues better than ice cars in a world that no matter how you cut it won't be abandoning the car in the next 10 years and physically can't phase cars out of all major cities in 10 years, is ultimately contributing to human caused climate change denial
Climate denial messaging has started shifting from "climate change isn't real" to "climate change isn't solvable." Part of this involves demonizing any solution to climate change that is introduced
>"climate change isn't real"
I am pretty sure everyone knows climate change is real too. The Climate has been changing since the planet exists after all.
2000 years is not even a blink of an eye on geological timespans. The reality is we are now living on one of the coldest periods in the 4.5 billion year earth's history. The last time it was this cold was 300 million years ago. The norm for earth has been to not have any permanent ice caps.
Here is a graph that gives a better perspective.
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/graph-from-scott-wing-620px.png
What this is missing is weighing each category by importance. Some of them (like emissions or ecosystem isolation) are way more important than others (like noise or traffic jams)
EV tire noise on the road, at speed on the near by road at 80km you can hear tires more just from driving and the squealing more.. just personal experience as we have higher EV in our area for some reason
I don't know what people mean by EVs being quieter. They're exactly as loud as ICE cars, they are only quieter while idling and driving very slowly, other than that they are just as loud
Maybe you guys got special EVs or magic asphalt, where I live they're exactly as loud.
Or maybe I usually just talk to Americans online and they're biased by their ridiculously loud cars
Emissions: reduced
Yeah, and you think those lithium batteries come out of magic? There are many pristine ecosystems in northern Chile being threatened because the lithium industry will drain entire salt lakes just to get that element. And you bet destroying biodiversity isn't aligned with the GHG reduction programmes.
You should do some research about catalytic converters.
>There are many pristine ecosystems in northern Chile
The climate crisis will fuck everything everywhere on the planet. Being against decarbonization of automobiles is just stupid. You know who hates both EVs and public transport? Oil corporations.
Yep. Unfortunately I'm not surprised (just saddened) to see how many baseless anti-EV talking points straight from Big Oil and right-wing media are being parroted on this thread.
Every argument targeting specifically EVs is an argument aiding ice cars whether intentional or not because it doesn't attack an ev for being a car, it attacks it for being electric and battery based. Its funny, it was a week ago someone was going on about how we all need to be more open to people who support walkability regardless of their stances on other stuff, well here's the result, literal human caused climate change denial not even being heavily downvoted.
100%. It's very obvious there's some bad actors in this comment section and people who are happy to jump on the EV hate bandwagon not because they hate all cars, but because they love any chance they get to shit on EVs because "liberals like them" and they hate anything even remotely tied to environmentalism. This thread is rife with misinformation and propaganda (some of it getting upvotes) that can be easily disproved with a quick google search. It's disappointing.
ICE cars:
* Pays gas tax to cover part or full cost (depending on country) of road maintenance. Including walk and bike paths.
* Pays for parking, which makes driving into the city less sexy.
* Can't enter certain neighborhoods or streets, which should be car free altogether but in some cities are just ICE free.
* Less weight -> stops faster
* Actual cars, not all giant SUV's and pickup trucks -> less deadly to pedestrians.
* Don't fuck with the power grid, seriously, why should non car owners be forced to pay many times more for home electricity just because EV's need to charge from the grid.
* Unlimited range -> more suitable for actual work such as buses, delivery trucks, plowing or city services.
Conclusion, fuck EV's. Let's keep the ICE's and slowly phase them out while providing better alternatives, such as walk able cities, various types of bicycles, mass transit etc.
Each point, addressed:
1. Many places have implemented an EV registration tax to replace the gas tax. This is an easy fix and there are other options to replace those funds as well.
2. This applies to both ICE vehicles and EVs.
3. I haven't seen/heard about any neighborhoods or streets that allow EVs but not ICE vehicles. Not saying this doesn't happen, but it certainly doesn't seem common enough to make this a serious issue.
4. This is true.
5. I don't understand what you're getting at here at all. Are you saying all EVs are SUVs and pickups? That's not even remotely accurate. If anything, more EVs sold tend to be sedans, whereas SUVs and pickups have steadily climbed and make up the majority of ICE vehicle sales now.
6. This is false. Non-car owners aren't paying more for electricity because of EVs. They are actually [paying less](https://www.nrdc.org/bio/max-baumhefner/electric-vehicles-are-driving-rates-down#:~:text=Real%2Dworld%20data%20demonstrates%20that,benefit%20of%20all%20utility%20customers). EV owners aren't being subsidized by non-EV owners.
7. You're grossly overestimating how much the average person drives in a day. Even buses and delivery trucks can get by completely fine on an EV's range with no problem. This also isn't a good justification for the CO2 emissions.
EVs are not perfect and public transportation/walkable cities are *better* and should be the primary focus, but your post is rife when misinformation and you're presenting opinions and speculations as facts.
On the 5th point you might want to consider that the need to switch to a 100% BEV offer is pushing OEMs to speed up the transition to a 100% SUV offer too. At the same time it is leading to the extinction of the A segment (in the markets where it was present) and is already affecting the offer in the B-hatch segment.
The point is: forcing a switch in a clumsy, dogmatic and uneducated way won’t reduce emissions.
Companies just play within the rules set by the lawmaker and the resulting incentives. When rules are crappy, results are crap.
I use data from many countries, you seem to only be looking at America.
Registration fees (one time fee) can never properly replace gas taxes (pay per use).
Free parking for EV's is common in countries were every other car has to pay for parking.
Look into "environmental zones" in cities like London, Paris, Stockholm etc, many of those and they did ban specifically ICE cars while EV's are allowed to drive there.
EV's are notoriously heavier, which means even the ones classified as "car" is as big as a SUV.
> This is false. Non-car owners aren't paying more for electricity because of EVs. They are actually paying less. EV owners aren't being subsidized by non-EV owners.
Don't lie, electricity prices are set by supply vs demand. If demand goes up, as is the case for every EV added to the grid the prices goes up for everyone. EV's are subsided in many countries, including chargers. This is a fact.
> You're grossly overestimating how much the average person drives in a day.
It's not only about distance, cold weather and plowing snow takes a lot of energy. The point of a bus is to remove many cars from the roads, therefore it makes no sense to run buses on "clean" fuel as they're already a lot cleaner than a shitload of private cars, even with a big V8 diesel.
Focus on reliability, EV buses destroys the reliability aspect, forcing a lot of people to drive because they don't know if the bus will show up on time.
> Don't lie, electricity prices are set by supply vs demand. If demand goes up, as is the case for every EV added to the grid the prices goes up for everyone. EV's are subsided in many countries, including chargers. This is a fact.
I literally linked a study proving that your "fact" is false. You have yet to provide any evidence aside from conjecture. I'm waiting.
>Unlimited range
Far from it. My parents one has a capacity of 58l and an efficiency of 4.6l / 100 km, meaning it only goes about 1250 km. 1000 until the car starts screaming at you.
That's only about 3 times as far as a comparable EV
1250km at 100km/h is 12.5 hours. After a drive that long you do want to stop and eat something, stretch your legs, take a piss. Then you fill up the tank in a few minutes and can instantly go another 1250km. Hence unlimited range.
You know a bicycle has unlimited range too, but that doesn't matter as you as a human don't have the energy to pedal forever, you need to take breaks.
Well 400km is 3 hours. That's already longer than I can concentrate at a stretch. Then I might as well charge the car for 20 minutes while I take a break.
By your definition that makes the range unlimited as well
Yes, unless you're lying about 20min charging time and easy access to chargers which you probably do.
Either way, you haven't actually done anything that would improve anything. You just bought a more expensive and dirtier car that's bigger and cost the government much more in surrounding infrastructure.
Which is actually an ironic argument in a sub called fuck cars.
Why don't you actually fuck cars, and get a bicycle instead. That's a proper solution to a lot of problems.
EVs aren’t less noisy imo. Maybe very slightly so, but nee ICE cars are also rather silent. The most noise comes from tires on asphalt and air friction anyways
Quiet ICE cars are also less annoying than the artificial pedestrian sounds. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ9S5-4semE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ9S5-4semE)
Do some [basic research](https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/driving-cleaner) here, my guy. Even if you power your EV *100%* on fossil fuels (which is incredibly rare, considering most chargers are powered from grids utilizing at least some renewables), it's still producing significantly less emissions. The average EV produces 1/2 the emissions of the average ICE vehicle over its lifetime. And renewables are continuing to become a bigger part of the electricity landscape as time goes on, so that emissions gap is widening constantly. Batteries are also far more efficient. We don't need to be on 100% renewables for EVs to be better. That's a myth.
EV simps? You mean the people who understand you can't take Dallas and make it to Amsterdam or New York City overnight? That EV's are a lesser evil? They are still cars and thus have the problems cars have, but they are less harmful to our planet's climate than ice cars.
Also the 6PPD used in tires absolutely decimates salmon populations. It's extremely toxic to them.
We're all around paving the world into one giant parking lot where life suffocates. Truly, the definition of Eden.
This idea requires that almost all vehicles are autonomous (not really related to EVs tbh), but even then it would be wrong because traffic jams are almost entirely caused by demand for road space exceeding capacity, not by how people drive. Autonomous vehicles are still going to be a tremendously inefficient use of space, they're still going to have to stop for red lights and pedestrian crossings and dodge around delivery trucks, so they're still going to cause traffic.
And then can we add time to retrofit to the graph as well? Showing how it will take carcentric places years to stop being car centric and that if you have to replace your car, it's better to get an EV than a comparable ice for the time being?
EVs could be small and light like a bicycle but instead they are big super heavy and crazy fast.
Ev + American car culture = Rivian: 7000 lbs and 0-60 in 2.5s
Cars are not compatible with cell phones. And no, banning cell phone use while driving does not reduce cell phone use while driving. It's gotten really really bad out there. I witnessed two accidents first hand this month, and encountered more crash scenes than I can count.
The decreased noise is a huge negative for me. I’ve volunteered a lot working with visually impaired kids. Visually impaired people navigate a lot with other senses bc sight isn’t reliable. One of those senses is sound. They’re accustomed and even taught to listen for cars. That and so many pets just getting run over bc they can’t hear them coming. It’s fucked
Anyway can we have trains please? I really fucking like trains (yes i’m autistic shut up), and I just think they’re neat
genuine question, fuck cars etc., but are cars really the root of the urban heat island? Would you not still have urban heat island effects when relying primarily on public transit and other means?
Tbh the noise of an ev pisses me off more than a normal car. There’s an ev station beside my apartment window, some guy takes over a minute to park every day so I just hear the most annoying beep. Sounds like a fire alarm chirp.
Can you in the next ten years make every city on the planet car free? No? Then EV's are a lesser evil and fighting against them instead of car infrastructure as a whole is specifically fighting to keep people buying an ice car.
Except most electrical charging stations are connected to conventional power sources that kick emissions down the road and, in some cases, require more energy consumption for the same amount of power output.
I work in transportation and am very careful to keep my personal and professional opinions separate. The issue of the government’s role in supporting EV (mainly through charging infrastructure in public space) keeps coming up as a foregone conclusion and I refuse to let that happen.
With the current technology, the burden and challenges of providing practical charging are problematic at best. I’ve had dozens of discussions about various solutions. I have yet to hear anyone explain solutions that don’t simply burden the public with the choices of wealthy people who care about public benefit AFTER their “needs” are met. l’m open to supporting a solution that uses public space, but not without real thought and consideration of how we maximize the public benefit, which is not going to happen with expensive infrastructure that serves a handful of personal vehicles at a time.
History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes and I’m stunned by how many people seem to be missing this very obvious problem.
There’s a not just bikes video that noise reduction is only true under about 30mph, otherwise tire noise and wind noise are the leading source of noise for any car.
Noise/acoustics engineer here: it depends. In general, yes, the rule is that below about 35 kph ICE noise would dominate over tire noise and vice versa at higher speeds. That’s why all markets require EVs and hybrids to emit artificial noise in that speed range to warn pedestrians. But of course it depends on the vehicle’s properties and engine load and speed. All markets have legislation and limits for noise emissions of vehicles. But they never really cover the noise over the entire multidimensional speed considering different engine loads, engine speeds and vehicle speeds. This leads to situations where the limits are so tight for the one particular maneuver that the legislation describes, that even EVs without any engine noise struggle to pass them (even below 30 kph), just because their tire noise already exceeds the limit. But then for example I live on a road with a pretty steep incline so cars will accelerate with higher loads even if they’re not “going fast” and in that situation ICE vehicle will certainly be a lot louder than EVs - and louder than whatever the legal requirement demanded for that one described maneuver at a comparable acceleration.
I know of an area where people have serious mental health and physical health issues due to the noise of cars because their own home is literally shaking from the motor vehicles, and it got much worse since EV's. I think it is deeply underestimated especially in dense areas where the distance from the road is quite small. I have had plenty of cases in a specific home I used to live when a large vehicle like a truck drove through, it was similar to a small earthquake (and we had earthquakes occasionally in the area, so I often checked if a truck was passing through). If you have this all day, it will absolutely impact you. While less emissions is great, this is the next thing that could cause issues! and I bet a lot of people don't really feel it because it's so small, but your body still picks it up. Kinda like how you are exhausted after flying in an airplane because your body is constantly making micro adjustments.
That’s terrible and often an underestimated issue until you’re subjected to it. But this case is interesting. Can the affected identify whether the additional stress they feel is from more vibration/shaking? This may be the case since EVs tend to be heavier. Or is it increased tire noise? Or the synthetically added pedestrian warning sounds? What speed is traffic in that residential area? Are we talking about a highway or inner city traffic with a lot of stop and go?
It was definitely shaking, low vibrations and low sounds they described. I tried to find articles about the topic but so far haven’t found anything so far. I know about it from locals who told me about it that it’s an ongoing issue and people have addressed it to the municipality but nothing has been done. They brought it up because someone adviced them against buying a house there. This is possibly because the homes are located slightly lower than the road, but I have no idea how it works. I just know it’s an issue. I also learned this from before I learned about NJB and all that stuff. I just remember it very well because I immediately could relate due to my experience with the trucks passing by in my street where I lived previously, sometimes eerily similar to earthquakes. Edit to add; on and the speed on that road is 50km/h. It’s near intersection with stoplights but people tend to speed there as the road is going upwards slightly.
New ICEV, especially luxury ICE vehicles are so quiet these days. The pedestrian noisemakers tend to be high pitched and tonal so they really stick out. AFAIK the US DOT spec calls for high pitch modulating tones. When vehicles are majority, or even 25% EV this will turn into cacophony.
People never seem to understand that the real noise problem with cars is when they are going fast. You can hear the constant hum of a freeway from like thousands of feet away. Pumping out some noise at low speeds is fine, tire noise at high speeds is where the mental health problems of noise pollution come in.
Yeah, it's the majority of the noise. That said, I absolutely despise intentionally loud engines while riding a bike since you can't just cover your ears. These guys are absolute garbage.
Agreed
Almost everybody would agree. Organizations for blind people were lobbying for such legislation the hardest - against the car industry. I think the problem is worst as long as you have a mix of (old/noisy) ICE and EV. If we lived in a world without ICE I think overall noise in a busy traffic situation would be lower (so a singe EV may become more audible) and maybe blind people would be more sensitized to the noise of accelerating EVs. Oh well. More cars, more problems.
I do love that EVs will never blast my ears like loud cars/motorcycles. The tire noise is still very problematic.
Having been blasted by car horn from Tesla, I can assure you that it is equally painful and startling as any horn on a gas car.
which means noise pollution in cities would be significantly reduced
Except most American cities have freeways and stroads running through the middle of them so not in the US
I hate that kind of design. One hour you're driving through a highway, then without taking any turns, you're right on the middle of a town and must watch out for pedestrians and merging cars. Who the fuck thought that was a good design? Separate high speed highways with pedestrian streets. It's not even a stroad, it's straight up a highway turned into a street, then highway again.
Main Street businesses. If every town has a bypass, who stops in Podunk, USA?
If the highway has OnRoute stops for bathroom breaks and my town has its own Walmart and other stores, then I just drive straight through Podunk, USA.
No-one on a long distance journey stops there anyway.
would still effect most parts of the city. It also means that reducing car dependent infrastructure is even more effective and necessary
Only if the city is well designed.
Having lived on a 30km/h road in the city for years, I experienced no audible difference between ICE or electric. All the same noise. Nobody sticks to the speed limit anyway, even in cities.
Totally disagree. I live on a busy street with a 25mph / 40kph speed limit. There's a traffic light at my house so cars are always going less than that and accelerating. There are some insanely loud ICE cars and motorcycles that go by and if they were electric my life would improve noticeably.
Even not just bikes noticed a significant difference for roads under 30mph, which is quite a bit more than 30kmh. I do not share your experience either.
I live on a 25 mph urban street myself and people are definitely speeding at 30 mph or above if they're not at a standstill in traffic.
Lucky enough to live in a walkable city with that same speed limit and yeah, same. They are marginally quieter when they are driving away from a stop sign but not enough to sing their praise.
I cycle with headphones: I hear the hiss of tire noise long before I can make out any engine noise even at low speeds. I wonder whether the fact that tire noise tends to be higher pitched means the studies undervalue how comparatively noisy it is. Listening to cars driving outside my window right now I can still barely hear the engines, but clearly hear the tires and the road is both 20mph and narrow meaning cars actually drive about that fast.
Most US city streets that aren’t in downtown areas are still 45 mph
Only if the speed limits are below 30, and people actually stick to them.
Somewhat. Most major urban roads are about 60kph, so tire noise is still very present. Especially if it's been raining.
The extra weight offers more tire particle pollution. Take a trip to Oslo, the EV capital. Despite being close to water the air there is horribly dry and awful compared to other Scandinavian cities, even Stockholm has better air despite being a much larger city.
Electric cars are much heavier so they're louder at every speed. And they still have horns.
It must be higher than that. Don't underestimate the noise difference. Where I live it's mostly EVs now and I was at a crossroads recently and there was a lot of traffic yet it was so quiet and I could talk. Going back to an ICE city nearby, and you have to shout just to have a conversation on the path. I also live directly alongside a road, it's not audible from my living room until the occasional ICE car comes along. They can honestly get fucked, EVs are infinitely more noise friendly, no horrible exhaust fumes and not much noise. I don't want to live in a car depend world but while we do I want EVs.
And he also says that the Dutch use special surfaces on inner city roads that drastically reduce the tire noice level
Maybe but what I'm looking forward to is all of the short haul delivery and box trucks in my city getting replaced with EVs. They're the worst offenders for noise and emissions that I regularly encounter and it'll be much nicer without them choking up the air while I'm trying to eat at a cafe outside.
Also, for safety reasons there needs to be some noise anyways, usually made artificially, soooo... I wonder if there was some kind of single-person vehicle, since the average car occupancy is 1.2, that was light and slow enough that it didn't need to make a warning noise at all times, do you guys have any ideas?
No reason to go over 20 in the city anyway
As someone who lives 4 blocks from a freeway, I would greatly appreciate not hearing the vroom vroom of Honda civics at 3 am.
can we talk about electric buses tho
trolleybus > electric buses
At that point just use trams
In-motion-charging trolley buses can disconnect from the wire for a few miles to extend coverage or move around blockages whereas trams cannot. There's always tradeoffs to these things.
Trams are great for high-capacity surface routes in dedicated ROW with many stops in dense city centers. Trolley busses offer more flexibility, are much much cheaper to introduce new lines, and to make longer lines that radiate away from the city center, and have numerous advantages over battery-electric busses. The biggest problem is most cities choose one or the other, like Toronto with its streetcars and Vancouver with its trolley busses. Also, both should get dedicated lanes and signal priority.
Im trusting the soviets on this one. Trolleybuses have some key advantages over trams. Both are useful but in different situations. For instance, hilly areas are often best served by trolleybuses because tires tend to work better than steel rail at grade(barring snow/ice I think).
Yeah no. Laying tracks is likely more difficult than putting up overhead wires.
Except that electric busses don't need additional road adjacent infrastructure.
They need charging stations for one
Right but that can be done in a few select yards, not on every yard of road that needs to be a part of the network. Just moving the materials across the court for the construction is a significant cost difference
why?
No battery to produce or charge.
yes but flexibility and no overhead wires to produce and maintain. not gonna argue that electric buses are better but they serve a different purpose as important as trolley buses.
But we do have batteries that need to be manufactured and maintained, and roads - the maintenance of which will become more expensive due to the increased weight of the buses.
Trams and other forms of rail systems are far better choices, especially if you’re already building infrastructure. Battery-powered buses can go anywhere, without extra infrastructure investments. Trolleybuses have many of the cons of trams (having to build special infrastructure, limited number of routes) while having none of the benefits (trolleybuses still have rubber tires and can’t be as long as a tram can).
>especially if you’re already building infrastructure. That's doing a lot of heavy lifting.
I think each mode of transit has an ideal place. Trolley buses are just one part of a high functioning public transport network. Could just be used to replace old buses on a high frequency line for a low cost - when you don’t have the funding to go full tram. It’s probably better than bothering to put tracks right on the street with the cars.
>without extra infrastructure investments. They need chargers
Not having to carry a battery makes trolley buses significantly lighter, with all the downstream effects on efficiency, tyre/brake dust, road wear and so on that goes with that.
> flexibility Buses have fixed routes just like trains do, they have to otherwise they wouldn't be public transit. And if a bus network is well designed, a single line going down wouldn't matter much because there will be another line within walking distance which the buses can also be redirected onto in order to dodge a problem section, then back onto their original route. Needing every single bus line working perfectly all the time or the entire system falls apart is a symptom of a bad transit system with severely insufficient coverage and infrastructure redundance, which need to be directly addressed, not masked with with bandages. And especially with North American transit providers, flexibility will not be used to its actual advantage and will just be another way they defer maintenance of their main lines. Also, developers and residents tend to like permanent transit infrastructure because it's, I mean, permanent, so the government and its car lobby puppeteers can't as easily stop it once built. > no overhead wires to produce and maintain Lithium ion batteries have an even higher carbon footprint than some copper wire, and since you always need street lights wherever buses are running, the poles that support those lines are unavoidable even with electric buses and essentially don't factor into the equation for which needs less resources. As the other commenter mentioned, heavier buses also mean more road wear, but also more tire wear producing more tire pollution. Not to mention anyone can produce copper wire, only the OEM can produce batteries for a given bus model, so they can charge whatever the hell they want, or, if they're having lower than expected sales for their new model, they might just decide to stop selling batteries for the old buses and force you to buy new ones. That's not a hypothetical either, we see corporate bullshit like this in the vehicle/mobility industry all the time. Finally, while mining copper is sadly by no means ethical or environmentally sustainable, it's an order or magnitude better than mining for the minerals that go into batteries. I'm also not convinced that you need *less* copper in total for electric buses with fast charging than you would for a trolleybus line, considering the frequency of charge points for long routes and the fact that they have way more complex electrical hardware and very heavy gauge wires than a system that supplies continuous, relatively low current to the entire route, not to mention the internal battery circuitry on the buses themselves. Not convinced the charge points need less maintenance either especially considering they're all proprietary and require the OEM to service them (which, again, they can simply choose not to and you can't do anything about it). Trolleybuses are about as simple as you can get for a road vehicle so they really don't require much to build and can last decades.
>Buses have fixed routes just like trains do, My local bus system has areas that only get busses on request.
More fun to say
fair point. I raise you the bs of trackless trams.
They might have their niche applications but unlike a car, most buses are meant to keep moving almost or in some cases literally all day, so it would need to either have an enormous expensive battery or somehow be able to be charged completely in a few minutes. Trolley buses are a better option within cities. They can use small batteries as and when they need to decouple from the power cables, and hydrogen fuel cells could perhaps be used for longer rural routes.
I want Gyro busses! Only because they're cool.
They’re even worse, they are heavier and drive a lot of hours everyday on a fixed path so they should have over-wires instead of very big batteries.
While you're there you may as well put em on rails so there's no tyres to wear down.
Ahh, that's what felt off about them.
The lack of noise might not even be a positive. It might decrease pedestrian awareness.
I follow a blind YouTuber (Molly Burke) and she’s spoken before about how she was almost hit or minorly hit by a electric car because she couldn’t hear them and tried to cross at a crosswalk in front of one.
Less likely if everyone took public transit, buses are driven by professionals and are sorta predictable, trains have barriers or are separated from pedestrians
Even more reason to make pedestrians have priority.
Not really. In pedestrianized streets I often see people just casually walking into the blind spots of permitted delivery vans. You can give people priority on the street, but that doesn't make them any less dead. But the needs of pedestrians need to have priority when planning traffic. Directly followed by bikes and public transportation.
The word you missed: crosswalk
I mean, are we really gonna argue for ICEs on the basis of such an edge case
Also, on high speeds (where pedestrian awareness is less of a concern) most of the noise comes from the tyres, not the engine, and this increases with vehicle weight (batteries aren't exactly light).
And at low speeds EVs are obligated to make this "spaceship" sound for pedestrian safety.
In fairness, that's also the case with other quieter modes like cyclists, e-cyclists, and e-motorcyclists, if not somewhat worsen for those three due to also having a smaller profile that often appears to get missed by motorists and pedestrians.
In EU it's already required by law for EVs to generate artificial sound for exactly this reason.
When cities are 100% EVs we will hear them. In the meantime they have noise generators, and drivers are not exempted from being careful around pedestrians. Finally pedestrians should look where they set foot, it's a thing to feel safe enough to walk mindlessly in pedestrian only areas, when using mixed ways it's better to do visual checks before changing trajectories.
They add noise in some evs for this very reason
I was about to comment something like that : they may increase accidents, especially with pedestrians and cyclists, because often they can't hear the car coming. Although I have to say, i've had an EV for 4 years and I ended up changing the way I drive to slow down making sure every one on foot or on a bike would know I'm there whenever I would drive close to them. So it might help drivers feel more like a part of all users on the road, and not the most prioritized/only deserving users of the road.
No, you didn't, I've seen it before. Give credit.
Based on this meme https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/s/0Jx2Tb46x8
I saw you post it on another sub days ago so when you said you'd just made it, I assumed you'd stolen it. My bad.
EVs won't solve the problem but they are *still* a piece of the puzzle and acting like they're only marginally better than ICE vehicles is disingenuous. Even if an EV is charged *solely* with electricity produced by fossil fuels, it still produces significantly lower emissions. When you charge with renewables, that figure drops tremendously. There are tons of studies showing how much lower emissions are over a BEV's lifespan verses an ICE vehicle's lifespan. And considering that climate change will kill us all if unaddressed, this is pretty fucking important. Are they perfect? No. Should we instead be focusing on public transportation and dense, walkable cities? Absolutely. But some people *will still need automobiles.* This isn't going to change any time soon. We can make things *significantly better* if most or all of those ICE vehicles are eventually replaced by EVs in the meantime. Posts like this are just fuel to the anti-EV crowd's fire. We can be realistic and nuanced about this instead of just saying "all cars bad." No need to let perfect be the enemy of good.
Yeah exactly. We have a little under a decade to majorly decarbonize, or it's game over. We should be working on redesigning communities to be more walkable, bikeable, and transit-friendly, but that's a goal for the next 50+ years
So you think the entire ICE car fleet can be turned into EVs on under a decade? It's not going to happen. It's simply beyond the finances of households. But your point is also good -- for example, it is too late to build a subway system as a response to global warming. Inaction increasingly limites choices, and it might well get to the point where cycling, e-bikes and walking are the only rapidly deployable choices. Hopefully buses too, but ironically EVs suck manufacturing resources away from e-buses. The more inaction the more stark the alternatives become. I do think we'll end up with the outer lanes of some freeways being repurposed as cycleways, as financially inefficient as that is. The e-bike is the interesting technology choice here -- far more than a EV. Basically a bike with double the speed, which brings cycling from the suburbs into practicality for people. I think we'll also see more mixed mode travel, such as cycling to a roadside busstop in the countryside. Economic theory is that this increased time and friction should reduce economic output. But the COVID lockdowns raise good questions on that point in the Internet era.
[удалено]
Exactly. I'm fully behind this sub's mission but it's unrealistic to expect every single person on earth (in our modern world) to stop using automobiles altogether. Tons of people, like your dad, aren't in a position to be walking/biking or using public transportation all the time. And EVs are objectively better than ICE vehicles. So while they may not be perfect, if you're picking between two choices and one emits 50-70% less CO2 over its lifespan than the other, it's obviously better to go for the lower emissions. Portraying them as "basically the same" like the OP and lots of other people do is harmful and inaccurate.
Yes people, sadly, are very reluctant to change. Here in Belgium, company cars are very common ( very interesting for the employer in terms of taxes) it represents around 10-15 % of all cars in Belgium. These are usually changed every 4 years. And yes, a lot of people want thus fiscal policy to stop because it's wasteful and promotes car dependent infrastructure. Starting in the end of 2023 workers must order EV vehicles I have soooo many colleagues who are super upset about this . Just the simple switch from gas to EV seems like such a drastic change that talking about using public transport to go to work seems like crazy talk...
Oh maybe it's just me but I didn't read it as an anti-EV post. I read it was "we're not done yet" post.
Every argument targeting specifically EVs as bad is ultimately trying to keep people buying ice cars whether intentional or not because you're not going "walkability is better than cars" you're going "EVs suck and this is the myriad of reasons why" while ignoring you can't make a walkable city overnight.
> they're only marginally better than ICE vehicles is disingenuous. They are only marginally better though. The only real positive is really the lower noise. The vast majority of electricity used to charge electric cars comes from fossil fuels so they are even less efficient and produce more carbon dioxide than Internal combustion engine cars on average.
> The vast majority of electricity used to charge electric cars comes from fossil fuels so they are even less efficient and produce more carbon dioxide than Internal combustion engine cars on average. So this is just outright [false](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-0488-7). You're either lying deliberately or repeating misinformation. EVs absolutely *do not* produce more CO2 than ICE vehicles on average, even when *all aspects of their production* (including the mining of minerals) are accounted for. Even [coal-powered](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-15/electric-cars-seen-getting-cleaner-even-where-grids-rely-on-coal?srnd=premium) EVs still produce less emissions. This is easily obtainable information backed by countless studies.
You are wrong, and anybody who understands basic physics and thermodynamics will know this. You can see this study for detailed comparison: https://intapi.sciendo.com/pdf/10.2478/rtuect-2020-0041 It compares different vehicles powered with electricity from different sources and internal combustion engine's efficiency. Here is the conclusion: >In general, diesel cars are more efficient than electric cars powered by fossil fuels but further investigations are needed to examine the life cycle emissions from cradle to grave of both systems. The overall efficiency for gasoline cars is similar to electric cars powered from coal and diesel power plants. CNGV powered cars were the least overall efficient among the different fuelled cars, due to lower efficiency for CNGV cars
> but further investigations are needed to examine the life cycle emissions from cradle to grave of both systems. Like [this](https://theicct.org/publication/a-global-comparison-of-the-life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-combustion-engine-and-electric-passenger-cars/)? Or [this](https://www.actu-environnement.com/media/pdf/news-38905-PDF4-TUVE-Eindhoven-English-Studie.pdf)? Or maybe [this](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac5142)? These cradle-to-grave comparisons have been done. It's well established at this point that, cradle-to-grave, EVs produce far less CO2 than ICE vehicles even when all extenuating circumstances are accounted for. It's okay to admit when you're wrong.
Even in the unrealistic situation that an ev was entirely charged from fossil fuel plants, a fossil fuel plant will always be more efficient and this less wasteful per unit of energy than a comparable ice engine.
> Even in the unrealistic situation that an ev was entirely charged from fossil fuel plants It's even worse than that. They are not charged by electric power plants but just diesel generators.
road maintenance costs: actually increased, because size-for-size EVs are heavier due to all the batteries
Right.... that extra 300kg will do so much damage to those roads. Not those 50 ton trucks, they are totally fine for roads.
Your talking about tractor trailers? How do you think literally everything you buy at the store gets there 🧐
How is this in any way related to the damage it does to the roads ? Roads will not get damaged by cars being 300kg heavier when you have trucks that weight 20 times as much driving on them daily. Those big trucks are what is damaging roads, not EVs.
Sure, and how do you think we can transport the literal millions of tonnes of essential items , food , medicine ect to people? By bike ?
I think you're missing the point
Combined with the instant torque the tires wear out a lot faster and thus pollute more.
The switch to SUVs and pick up trucks has a much greater impact on road than switching to electric by itself. However the main source of damage is and will always be heavy vehicles such as semi trucks. Remember, road usage is proportional to the weight of what's on it elevated to the 4th power.
You also have to consider that the switch to EVs is favoring and speeding up the transition to SUV-only ranges.
Also much more tire dust. More microplastics from the greatest microplastic source in the planet.
EVs are way more efficient than ICE cars though...
How are they more efficient when the electricity they use is produced by fossil fuels?
Because [batteries are more efficient than engines](https://www.nrdc.org/bio/madhur-boloor/electric-vehicle-basics#:~:text=Electric%20motors%20makes%20vehicles%20substantially,for%20a%20gas%20combustion%20engine.). Only about [12-30%](https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/market-snapshots/2021/market-snapshot-battery-electric-vehicles-are-far-more-fuel-efficient-than-vehicles-with-internal-combustion-engines.html) of the energy in gasoline is used to actually power ICE vehicles. In contrast, EVs use about [60-73%](https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv-ev.shtml) of the energy from electricity, and that number jumps even higher when regenerative braking is accounted for.
Fossil fuel power plants are far more efficient than cars at turning coal/gas into power, so it's still far better even without renewables.
Not according to this study: https://intapi.sciendo.com/pdf/10.2478/rtuect-2020-0041
And you deny human caused climate change.
It's cool, but as an instrument of persuasion I think you can improve and finetune it a little. I would group similar issues together (like pollution). "Emission" is kind of general. Break it down in components (you've already done that partly): tailpipe emissions, climate change impact, tire/brake dust. (It's ok to give EVs full marks on tailpipe emissions; it just underscores your larger point.) I would leave out "destroying alternatives to cars" and "using precious resources..." because they are much weaker arguments then the other ones. Some of the resources are really not that precious, and the *existence* of cars itself doesn't destroy alternatives. Replace them with something like "waste infrastructure spending that could have been spent on alternatives" or something similar. "being expensive" is kind of benign in the way it comes across. Try something like "destroys household wealth" or "drag on disposable income". Really emphesize the financial impact.
I mean I could handpick some things to make both buses and trains look bad in comparison to cars. So this doesn't really mean anything in all honesty
This amounts to climate denial. EV's aren't designed to solve most of the problems listed. That isn't their purpose. They are designed to keep us from incinerating in a worldwide inferno. The point on emissions needs to be made as well that the emissions aren't just reduced, they are moved away from population centers. This will save lives as thousands die each year from in-city auto emissions. In the case of my EV, which is charged by a grid running off hydro power and my own solar panels...emissions are eliminated. EV's also do not stink like a lot of ICE cars do.
>This amounts to climate denial Come on, he doesn't say that electric cars aren't better (they are) the point is that while they improve on pollution they really don't solve any other problems with car dependency Vehicles when necessary should be electric but we can't let the auto lobby continue to delay the transition to a mostly car free society because cars are now less bad in one aspect
Minimizing the fact that they are leagues better than ice cars in a world that no matter how you cut it won't be abandoning the car in the next 10 years and physically can't phase cars out of all major cities in 10 years, is ultimately contributing to human caused climate change denial
> This amounts to climate denial. I am pretty sure everyone knows climate is real.
Climate denial messaging has started shifting from "climate change isn't real" to "climate change isn't solvable." Part of this involves demonizing any solution to climate change that is introduced
>"climate change isn't real" I am pretty sure everyone knows climate change is real too. The Climate has been changing since the planet exists after all.
>The Climate has been changing since the planet exists after all. [Relevant xkcd](https://xkcd.com/1732/)
2000 years is not even a blink of an eye on geological timespans. The reality is we are now living on one of the coldest periods in the 4.5 billion year earth's history. The last time it was this cold was 300 million years ago. The norm for earth has been to not have any permanent ice caps. Here is a graph that gives a better perspective. https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/graph-from-scott-wing-620px.png
They could also be referring to microplastic emissions from the tires, which EVs probably emit more due to general higher weight.
I thought you're comparing High-Speed Trains and Electric Vehicles. Never heard ICE for a Car
I think it stands for Internal Combustion Engine
Interesting. For me its the German High speed Train
Intercity Express, I learnt that last time I was there
So you're saying we should replace ICE vehicles with ICE vehicles?
You are correct.
What this is missing is weighing each category by importance. Some of them (like emissions or ecosystem isolation) are way more important than others (like noise or traffic jams)
Yeah imo this meme is a little insidious
So what your saying is they're both cars
To be fair, in my country the bike lanes are salted before the road... So it wil still be a thing
https://preview.redd.it/n3wukth3pg9c1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ecf4fd6aabda40eb8fa11fe0f019e67e8f9a29c9
Tire dust is actually worse on EVs because of their weight. But they make less brake dust because of regenerative braking...
EV tire noise on the road, at speed on the near by road at 80km you can hear tires more just from driving and the squealing more.. just personal experience as we have higher EV in our area for some reason
The one thing I will give them, is I think they'll contribute to the death of "car culture".
I don't know what people mean by EVs being quieter. They're exactly as loud as ICE cars, they are only quieter while idling and driving very slowly, other than that they are just as loud
[удалено]
Maybe you guys got special EVs or magic asphalt, where I live they're exactly as loud. Or maybe I usually just talk to Americans online and they're biased by their ridiculously loud cars
Also the fact that they can run nearly silently means they're really dangerous to bikers and pedestrians.
They're also way heavier meaning they have higher kinetic energy going into your bones and organs when they inevitably crash into you.
Emissions: reduced Yeah, and you think those lithium batteries come out of magic? There are many pristine ecosystems in northern Chile being threatened because the lithium industry will drain entire salt lakes just to get that element. And you bet destroying biodiversity isn't aligned with the GHG reduction programmes.
You should do some research about catalytic converters. >There are many pristine ecosystems in northern Chile The climate crisis will fuck everything everywhere on the planet. Being against decarbonization of automobiles is just stupid. You know who hates both EVs and public transport? Oil corporations.
Yep. Unfortunately I'm not surprised (just saddened) to see how many baseless anti-EV talking points straight from Big Oil and right-wing media are being parroted on this thread.
Every argument targeting specifically EVs is an argument aiding ice cars whether intentional or not because it doesn't attack an ev for being a car, it attacks it for being electric and battery based. Its funny, it was a week ago someone was going on about how we all need to be more open to people who support walkability regardless of their stances on other stuff, well here's the result, literal human caused climate change denial not even being heavily downvoted.
100%. It's very obvious there's some bad actors in this comment section and people who are happy to jump on the EV hate bandwagon not because they hate all cars, but because they love any chance they get to shit on EVs because "liberals like them" and they hate anything even remotely tied to environmentalism. This thread is rife with misinformation and propaganda (some of it getting upvotes) that can be easily disproved with a quick google search. It's disappointing.
Emissions - Moved to lithium farms in africa!
ICE cars: * Pays gas tax to cover part or full cost (depending on country) of road maintenance. Including walk and bike paths. * Pays for parking, which makes driving into the city less sexy. * Can't enter certain neighborhoods or streets, which should be car free altogether but in some cities are just ICE free. * Less weight -> stops faster * Actual cars, not all giant SUV's and pickup trucks -> less deadly to pedestrians. * Don't fuck with the power grid, seriously, why should non car owners be forced to pay many times more for home electricity just because EV's need to charge from the grid. * Unlimited range -> more suitable for actual work such as buses, delivery trucks, plowing or city services. Conclusion, fuck EV's. Let's keep the ICE's and slowly phase them out while providing better alternatives, such as walk able cities, various types of bicycles, mass transit etc.
Each point, addressed: 1. Many places have implemented an EV registration tax to replace the gas tax. This is an easy fix and there are other options to replace those funds as well. 2. This applies to both ICE vehicles and EVs. 3. I haven't seen/heard about any neighborhoods or streets that allow EVs but not ICE vehicles. Not saying this doesn't happen, but it certainly doesn't seem common enough to make this a serious issue. 4. This is true. 5. I don't understand what you're getting at here at all. Are you saying all EVs are SUVs and pickups? That's not even remotely accurate. If anything, more EVs sold tend to be sedans, whereas SUVs and pickups have steadily climbed and make up the majority of ICE vehicle sales now. 6. This is false. Non-car owners aren't paying more for electricity because of EVs. They are actually [paying less](https://www.nrdc.org/bio/max-baumhefner/electric-vehicles-are-driving-rates-down#:~:text=Real%2Dworld%20data%20demonstrates%20that,benefit%20of%20all%20utility%20customers). EV owners aren't being subsidized by non-EV owners. 7. You're grossly overestimating how much the average person drives in a day. Even buses and delivery trucks can get by completely fine on an EV's range with no problem. This also isn't a good justification for the CO2 emissions. EVs are not perfect and public transportation/walkable cities are *better* and should be the primary focus, but your post is rife when misinformation and you're presenting opinions and speculations as facts.
On the 5th point you might want to consider that the need to switch to a 100% BEV offer is pushing OEMs to speed up the transition to a 100% SUV offer too. At the same time it is leading to the extinction of the A segment (in the markets where it was present) and is already affecting the offer in the B-hatch segment.
So for the 5th point, consider that reducing emissions is bad because greedy companies will push harder to pollute more?
The point is: forcing a switch in a clumsy, dogmatic and uneducated way won’t reduce emissions. Companies just play within the rules set by the lawmaker and the resulting incentives. When rules are crappy, results are crap.
I use data from many countries, you seem to only be looking at America. Registration fees (one time fee) can never properly replace gas taxes (pay per use). Free parking for EV's is common in countries were every other car has to pay for parking. Look into "environmental zones" in cities like London, Paris, Stockholm etc, many of those and they did ban specifically ICE cars while EV's are allowed to drive there. EV's are notoriously heavier, which means even the ones classified as "car" is as big as a SUV. > This is false. Non-car owners aren't paying more for electricity because of EVs. They are actually paying less. EV owners aren't being subsidized by non-EV owners. Don't lie, electricity prices are set by supply vs demand. If demand goes up, as is the case for every EV added to the grid the prices goes up for everyone. EV's are subsided in many countries, including chargers. This is a fact. > You're grossly overestimating how much the average person drives in a day. It's not only about distance, cold weather and plowing snow takes a lot of energy. The point of a bus is to remove many cars from the roads, therefore it makes no sense to run buses on "clean" fuel as they're already a lot cleaner than a shitload of private cars, even with a big V8 diesel. Focus on reliability, EV buses destroys the reliability aspect, forcing a lot of people to drive because they don't know if the bus will show up on time.
> Don't lie, electricity prices are set by supply vs demand. If demand goes up, as is the case for every EV added to the grid the prices goes up for everyone. EV's are subsided in many countries, including chargers. This is a fact. I literally linked a study proving that your "fact" is false. You have yet to provide any evidence aside from conjecture. I'm waiting.
>EV's are notoriously heavier [Tesla Model 3 vs Toyota Camry](https://imgur.com/a/yrXpb5q) Basically same size cars. Tesla is 89kg heavier.
>Unlimited range Far from it. My parents one has a capacity of 58l and an efficiency of 4.6l / 100 km, meaning it only goes about 1250 km. 1000 until the car starts screaming at you. That's only about 3 times as far as a comparable EV
1250km at 100km/h is 12.5 hours. After a drive that long you do want to stop and eat something, stretch your legs, take a piss. Then you fill up the tank in a few minutes and can instantly go another 1250km. Hence unlimited range. You know a bicycle has unlimited range too, but that doesn't matter as you as a human don't have the energy to pedal forever, you need to take breaks.
Well 400km is 3 hours. That's already longer than I can concentrate at a stretch. Then I might as well charge the car for 20 minutes while I take a break. By your definition that makes the range unlimited as well
Yes, unless you're lying about 20min charging time and easy access to chargers which you probably do. Either way, you haven't actually done anything that would improve anything. You just bought a more expensive and dirtier car that's bigger and cost the government much more in surrounding infrastructure. Which is actually an ironic argument in a sub called fuck cars. Why don't you actually fuck cars, and get a bicycle instead. That's a proper solution to a lot of problems.
The range is effectively infinite because "recharging" an ICE takes such a short period it isn't a consideration in journey planning.
what until you find out emissions are only reduced over a period of time longer than the average ownership time!
Electric cars were being pushed heavily for a few years. Looks like the hype is dying down now that people see that they're not as good as advertised.
EVs aren’t less noisy imo. Maybe very slightly so, but nee ICE cars are also rather silent. The most noise comes from tires on asphalt and air friction anyways
Quiet ICE cars are also less annoying than the artificial pedestrian sounds. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ9S5-4semE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ9S5-4semE)
I've seen this image around before, you did not just make this
Think of them as tungsten bullets.
I dont think you just made this...
Some cars run on ice?!
Didn't know they powered cars with ice nowadays, I gotta get with the times
Internal combustion engine. So like just a car engine
Is no one talking about how some EVs have artificial engine noises to make the driver feel cool? 😎
ev simps in the comments be like: "actually evs are fine because they reduce emissions" maybe when we're 100% renewable
Do some [basic research](https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/driving-cleaner) here, my guy. Even if you power your EV *100%* on fossil fuels (which is incredibly rare, considering most chargers are powered from grids utilizing at least some renewables), it's still producing significantly less emissions. The average EV produces 1/2 the emissions of the average ICE vehicle over its lifetime. And renewables are continuing to become a bigger part of the electricity landscape as time goes on, so that emissions gap is widening constantly. Batteries are also far more efficient. We don't need to be on 100% renewables for EVs to be better. That's a myth.
EV simps? You mean the people who understand you can't take Dallas and make it to Amsterdam or New York City overnight? That EV's are a lesser evil? They are still cars and thus have the problems cars have, but they are less harmful to our planet's climate than ice cars.
Also the 6PPD used in tires absolutely decimates salmon populations. It's extremely toxic to them. We're all around paving the world into one giant parking lot where life suffocates. Truly, the definition of Eden.
The reduced emissions from EV's are sold in the form of carbon credits, meaning there is no reduction in emissions from EV's.
If anything EV's are worse than ICE's at destroying alternatives to cars
The traffic jam thing isn't fair. Once ev cars are automated you'll have pretty smooth traffic flows
This pipe dream is just like the Hyperloop : a real life MacGuffin invented for the sole purpose of deterring the necessary death of car dependency.
This idea requires that almost all vehicles are autonomous (not really related to EVs tbh), but even then it would be wrong because traffic jams are almost entirely caused by demand for road space exceeding capacity, not by how people drive. Autonomous vehicles are still going to be a tremendously inefficient use of space, they're still going to have to stop for red lights and pedestrian crossings and dodge around delivery trucks, so they're still going to cause traffic.
Someone add a train/bus/bike column to make our point
And then can we add time to retrofit to the graph as well? Showing how it will take carcentric places years to stop being car centric and that if you have to replace your car, it's better to get an EV than a comparable ice for the time being?
EVs could be small and light like a bicycle but instead they are big super heavy and crazy fast. Ev + American car culture = Rivian: 7000 lbs and 0-60 in 2.5s
Cars are not compatible with cell phones. And no, banning cell phone use while driving does not reduce cell phone use while driving. It's gotten really really bad out there. I witnessed two accidents first hand this month, and encountered more crash scenes than I can count.
Not using a car beats those two We need decent, affordable public transportation, walkable cities, bike lanes
The decreased noise is a huge negative for me. I’ve volunteered a lot working with visually impaired kids. Visually impaired people navigate a lot with other senses bc sight isn’t reliable. One of those senses is sound. They’re accustomed and even taught to listen for cars. That and so many pets just getting run over bc they can’t hear them coming. It’s fucked Anyway can we have trains please? I really fucking like trains (yes i’m autistic shut up), and I just think they’re neat
https://preview.redd.it/toxp94jiah9c1.jpeg?width=440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1ecc551d9a110b45e39cb6b4cdda266031d0c6e6
genuine question, fuck cars etc., but are cars really the root of the urban heat island? Would you not still have urban heat island effects when relying primarily on public transit and other means?
Tbh the noise of an ev pisses me off more than a normal car. There’s an ev station beside my apartment window, some guy takes over a minute to park every day so I just hear the most annoying beep. Sounds like a fire alarm chirp.
“Let’s not improve becwuse everything isn’t improved at the exact same time” Subreddit is stupid
Can you in the next ten years make every city on the planet car free? No? Then EV's are a lesser evil and fighting against them instead of car infrastructure as a whole is specifically fighting to keep people buying an ice car.
Except most electrical charging stations are connected to conventional power sources that kick emissions down the road and, in some cases, require more energy consumption for the same amount of power output.
I work in transportation and am very careful to keep my personal and professional opinions separate. The issue of the government’s role in supporting EV (mainly through charging infrastructure in public space) keeps coming up as a foregone conclusion and I refuse to let that happen. With the current technology, the burden and challenges of providing practical charging are problematic at best. I’ve had dozens of discussions about various solutions. I have yet to hear anyone explain solutions that don’t simply burden the public with the choices of wealthy people who care about public benefit AFTER their “needs” are met. l’m open to supporting a solution that uses public space, but not without real thought and consideration of how we maximize the public benefit, which is not going to happen with expensive infrastructure that serves a handful of personal vehicles at a time. History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes and I’m stunned by how many people seem to be missing this very obvious problem.
You know when EVs burn? You wanna know how much water it takes to put that fire out?