Hacker News Reader

Comment by elsonrodriguez | Hacker News Reader

Lung cancer rates are higher near major roads due to air pollution from cars. Fossil fuel cars basically means every highway is a superfund site. We just don't talk about it.

Given the choice between toxic waste at a mine and toxic waste in millions of homes, I'll take the mine.

View on HN

You'll take the mine because you don't live near the mine.

I think what the parent comment was really hinting at is the need to move towards a less car-dependent life. Of course, electrification is important, but it's not environmentally neutral in any way.

It would be better if we had trains, strong public transport, walkable and cyclable cities rather than electric cars. I think that's kind of what Europe is doing and the USA should try to do similarly. Cars are extremely important for rural life but they're really unnecessary in cities... unless your cities are build as urban sprawls.

We will all be dead before America becomes a city planning utopia. Not because it can't, there's just so much work involved to reconfigure everything. I believe if you fixed your zoning though, it would eventually gravitate towards that on its own as people flee suburbia for the more livable cities. That doesn't mean don't vote for it though, even small improvements to one location can improve livability.

Maybe think of EVs as a stop-gap because if you want clean air for millions in the next 30 years that is our best option. Even the famous Shinkansen took longer than that to build, and they had the benefit of a miracle economy, cities already configured for density and mixed zoning, and a government that could actually achieve things on a horizon longer than 3 years.

How much of that pollution is coming out of the tail pipe vs. off of the brake pads and tires?

Keep in mind that EVs with their regenerative braking use their brake pads effectively never. Modern EV brake systems actually have to deliberately not use their regenerative braking once in a while in order to exercise the brake pads and make sure that they don't rust into uselessness from utter disuse.

And on the flip side, EVs tend to be heavier and therefore work their tyres even harder.

That tire dust though

It’s also important to wonder how much of the pollution is leaked fluids and burnt motor oil.

A while back I saw a video on youtube of someone mining road dust for platinum of all things.

Evs will be a likely improvement for the health of those near roads.

Most. PM2.5 is the danger, particulates of 2.5 microns or less. Polycyclic aromatics and oxides of nitrogen.

Tire scrub and brake pads produce larger particles that wash into stormwater drains and poison downstream aquatic life.

Most of that localized pollution comes from stuff like tire dust which is increased as we buy new heavier vehicles to do the same old getting around. The big win with fuel air quality was the move away from leaded gas and the clean air act, for decades now the major sources of pollution from a car have not been from the tailpipe.

It’s a classic false dichotomy. There are plenty of options in between - from plug-in hybrids to funding public transit. In my ideal world, I’ll drive a sports hybrid for fun and take a well maintained public transport to work.

I am optimistic as well but let's not forget the asphalt (major pollutant during construction and repair), breaking and tire degradation that each contribute to this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com