Good to have more data points and evidence, but this seems extremely well established by now?
Zero tailpipe emissions, drastically removed brake dust, slightly higher tire wear (due to weight), but much better overall than ICE.
Zero tailpipe emissions, drastically removed brake dust, slightly higher tire wear (due to weight), but much better overall than ICE.
Over say 50km part of highway, maybe 2000 cars need to overtake such almost stationary object (to regular traffic which generally moves exactly at the speed limit). Fine if you have 3+ lanes, but most highways in Europe have 2 only. Then you have all the trucks, buses and rest of traffic trying to overtake via that 1 free lane, which in heavier (but still cca smooth) traffic will create a massive moving traffic jam immediately.
If I didn't see this every other day (and for some reasons its 90% tesla drivers where I live and rest is caravans) I wouldn't believe it to be so common, but it is. Summer now makes it even worse with all holiday drivers.
Was very concerned until I realized you were talking about kilometers and not miles.
Otherwise, I'd hope the average driver would firce themselves to drive slower than 120mph out of some sense of fear, or at least a sense of self-preservation.
80km/h is the usual maximum allowed speed for trucks, at least in Germany, so no idea how a car driving 90km/h is such a big problem. That's not a "stationary object" at all, far from it. You are even allowed to drive vehicles with a minimum speed of 60km/h on the Autobahn.
If a car driving 90km/h is the cause for a traffic jam there are definitely other factors at play. Not just in zones with a limit of 120km/h but everywhere even without limits.
so just like any truck.
if you think it's a problem, you're the problem. sorry.
But yes, they can be turned off.
With Tesla it's all-or-nothing, and when it inevitably drives poorly, I can only turn it off. It physically resists me turning the steering wheel while it's driving, and overcoming the resistance results in an unpleasant and potentially dangerous jerk.
OTOH in IONIQ I can control lane assist and adaptive cruise control separately. The lane assist is additive to normal steering. It doesn't take over, only makes the car seem to naturally roll along the road.
And thus higher tire particle pollution. And it's not slightly, EVs are on average 10-15% heavier than similar ICE vehicles. We've now found that a lot of the various small particle pollution (e.g. in bodies of water) come from tires.
So, while still drastically better than ICEs, they still have externalities (pollution, time wasted in traffic, vehicle accidents) and there should still be efforts to try to reduce the number of cars on the roads instead of just replacing them 1:1 and calling it a day.
That this is considered a valid response to someone suggesting we need more mass transit is a sign that our discourse has fallen off a cliff. You can and should do better.
EVs are better than ICE cars, but shared-use buses/trains/etc. are often even better. We can do more than one thing.
Nobody is trying to take your car away, you scared person who cannot fathom not being attached to a car.
I'm merely saying there must be alternatives to driving. I don't care what they are, they will be location dependent. If you want to drive, as long as you pay your externalities, nobody cares. But it's fundamentally wrong to gatekeep all of society behind a fundamentally inefficient manner of transport (individual cars). It's wrong socially (no social mobility), it's wrong ecologically (cars are still the most polluting way of transportation, even EVs), it's wrong economically (very inefficient), it's wrong from the amount of people dying from cars, it's wrong on every possible measurable metric.
So, alternatives should be present, so that those that wish to do so, or for whom it's better/faster/more efficient/can't use anything else because of mobility issues/can't afford anything else, they can take them. Bike lanes, trains, buses, whatever, doesn't matter.
In Anglophone North America, a lot of people ate trying and succeeding in crippling it to such an extent that only those who literally have no other choice use it.
> there absolutely people advocating for an end to private ownership of cars
A fringe of a fringe, maybe.
How many people die in cell phone accidents yearly where you live? How many have reduced lifespans due to the pollution of cell phones? And how many hours can be saved per year per human with good cell phone sharing? I would guess the number is 0 for all of those, but quite a bit higher for cars alternative transportation options.
If you feel personally offended by the mere idea that there might be alternatives to cars, and that at the scale of a human settlement, they're often better, you need to take a step back and consider why you identify yourself with cars so much. And if that doesn't help, consider that more people having alternatives means less cars on the roads, so more space for you to vroom vroom around and less people bothering you on the road!
Irrelevant on the topic of there being more efficient modes of transportation of humans in dense environments.
> There is no other object that has been a greater detriment to mental and physical health in human history
While potentially true, that's entirely ignoring all the extremely useful things people do with their phones.
> only using public transport
The fact that you take a mention of providing alternatives to cars as a stance on "only using public transport" indicates to me that you're not interested in having an actual discussion, and your car is part of your core identity. None of that is healthy, so again, step back and consider the benefits. Even purely selfishly, more people out of cars because they can bike or take the train is better for you because there will be less traffic for you.
Like jumping to prison cells and bug juice at the hint of reducing the amount of cars on the roads?
To be fair: thousands. https://www.ncsl.org/transportation/distracted-driving-cellp...
It will be very interesting to see the data for the same car that has many powertrain versions for example the Lexus UX with the UX 200 (ICE), UX 300h (hybrid) and UX 300e (EV) to test which one the best and the worst in term of brake dust residue.
My hypotheses is that for brake dust residue the best is hybrid, 2nd will be ICE and the 3rd will be EV. This is due to the fact that the EV version has at least several hundreds kg extra weight (about 400 kg extra), that makes the brake dust residue comparable to ICE if not worst based on the approximately 30% extra vehicle weight for the battery. The hybrid however only has approximately 5% more weight or extra 80 kg different compared to the ICE version.
EV versus hybrid I couldn't say, it comes down to exactly how strong the hybrid regen is and how aggressively the owner brakes in comparison.
Why is your hypothesis so different from mine? How much use do you expect the EV brakes to get?
You could achieve the same with engine braking with ICE but most don’t bother.
It will regeneratively brake all the way to a stop.
The brake disks are there for emergencies and spirited driving.
Did you miss pretty much all data on EV brakes, notably that they get used so little they’ll rust to slick and manufacturers have to implement de-rusting cycles to ensure they can actually do something? Your hypothesis is nonsensical on its face. Calling it a hypothesis is insulting. Even to flat earthers.
Extracting rare metals from Africa, sending to China for transformation into batteries and back to US/EU for putting into an EV (that we cannot properly recycle yet) just cannot be cleaner than melting an ICE with processes that are 100+ years old and that can be done locally without the use of ships to make 3 roundabouts on earth.
Yeah established on a truncated view of reality !
Saying it must be inefficient because it includes ship transit instead of trucking "locally" is innumerate.
> In countries that get most of their energy from burning dirty coal, the emissions numbers for EVs don’t look nearly as good—but they’re still on par with or better than burning gasoline.
Trump's own EPA calls your argument the #1 myth about EVs. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths
Same goes for myth#1 IMO numbers are Trump related propaganda and have nothing to do with reality. Furthermore on myth #1 they talk about efficiency of EV vs ICE but totally forget to mention the efficiency of generating that said energy : 33% efficiency for coal based electricity generation VS 90% for petroleum refinement .... In the end when you sum up overall efficiencies are identical so I call bullshit and propaganda ...
I also trust MIT more than Trump (I'll trust a poodle over him), especially on EVs. The point is even Trump's loony EPA clearly states they're better for the environment, inclusive of coal power. (Which MIT agrees with; I quoted your source!)
Ships are indeed more efficient if you look at it on per mile comparison but distances are much bigger. Shipping things from one side of the planet to the other is not something too efficient imo. It's just makes sense if you look at economics and differences in price of labor, regulations and so on but these do have externalities that eventually cancel out the benefits.
> just cannot be cleaner...
Someone doesn't!
Quote : This intensive battery manufacturing means that building a new EV can produce around 80% more emissions than building a comparable gas-powered car
Show me anything else if you have ; just don't troll dude...
It seems you agree with the poster upthread, who stated "much better overall than ICE".
Also this article does not take into account recycling of batteries which is way dirty that recycling ICEs.
And my initial remark was show me data, show me interesting stuff and you just dumbly troll (quoting truncated stuff) on what I have shown you. Nice man, u smart !!!
It changes nothing. People buy cars to drive them.
> Also this article does not take into account recycling of batteries which is way dirty that recycling ICEs.
I'm sorry you can't be bothered to read your own link. This is in the footnotes as a source for it:
Erik Emilsson and Lisbeth Dahllöf. "Lithium-ion vehicle battery production: Status 2019 on energy use, CO2 emissions, use of metals, products environmental footprint, and recycling." IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, in cooperation with the Swedish Energy Agency, Report C444, November 2019.
'I'm sorry you can't be bothered to read your own link. This is in the footnotes as a source for it:' just click on the damn link, use google trad, find the paper and READ (not just troll as if I didn't) the recycling chapter by yourself ! It does not include real-world data, it's theoretical/research data IF batteries were recycled in EU/US with up to date processes. As of today 2025 all batteries are 'recycled' (joke..) in China/India by underqualified people with a CO2 cost WAY higher and this is NOT taken into account in the study. So yeah I'll say again : real recycling, the one we do right now IS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR !
Useless discussion anyway, you don't add any argument or source, just trolling on my words, nice !
Again, I reference your source:
"Yet when the MIT study calculated a comparison in which EVs lasted only 90,000 miles on the road rather than 180,000 miles, they remained 15 percent better than a hybrid and far better than a gas car."
Both of my cars have 100k+ miles on them, with plenty of life left. Modern vehicles seem to do 200-300k miles regularly.
I am not an outlier: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/americ...
"The average age of U.S. cars and light trucks this year rose to a record 12.6 years, according to the report by S&P Global Mobility on Wednesday, up by two months from 2023."
The average American drives 12k miles a year.
I'm not sure why you zeroed in on a source that openly debunks all of your arguments, but I do appreciate the assist.