Hacker News Reader

Comment by Imnimo | Hacker News Reader

>This report is not an argument against people buying EVs, of course; any gas savings is an improvement on turning that gasoline into atmospheric pollution that worsens climate change. But it should be clear now that EVs on their own are not a panacea to our transport-related climate problems, and the future will require many more people to walk, cycle, or take the bus to get to where they're going.

I don't understand how the 0.54% statistic has any bearing on this conclusion. Like if all miles were driven by EVs, then it would be a 100% reduction in gasoline (using the metric in the study). Would that make EVs a panacea?

View on HN

> Like if all miles were driven by EVs, then it would be a 100% reduction in gasoline (using the metric in the study).

It wouldn't be quite 100%. Generators, mowers, ATVs, and some other things are also using gasoline. I don't see in the article if that was accounted for. I doubt it would be much more than a few percent at the most, though.

Well, but the metric in the study doesn't count those anyway. It's just about gasoline used by cars, and they get their number by considering how much gas would have been used if all the miles driven by EV had instead been driven by a similar gas-consuming vehicle.

> they get their number by considering how much gas would have been used if all the miles driven by EV had instead been driven by a similar gas-consuming vehicle.

That wasn't clear to me from the article. I gathered (incorrectly) that the numbers were based off amount of gasoline sold. Thanks for the clarification.

Fuel consumption is only a portion of the transportation related emissions. Road construction, vehicle consumables like tires, and car related infrastructure like parking lots and garages all contribute.

There's also some cost to bear with the huge numbers of vehicle accidents and deaths each year from driving.

That would be good journalism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com