US electric vehicle transition would save over 100k lives and $1T in healthcare(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
US electric vehicle transition would save over 100k lives and $1T in healthcare
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/30/us-electric-vehicles-save-lives-public-health-costs-study
34 comments
> we're exchanging where the carbon production happens unless we dramatically reduce our fossil fuel usage for power generation.
The article and the source it's based on are both assuming/advocating a faster move away from fossil fuel electricity generation.
But even if that wasn't true, EVs would still reduce carbon output due to the greater efficiency.
The article and the source it's based on are both assuming/advocating a faster move away from fossil fuel electricity generation.
But even if that wasn't true, EVs would still reduce carbon output due to the greater efficiency.
That's fine, admirable even! But EVs have other problems: mining lithium and other metals for batteries is still terrible for the environment, and other battery technologies are not yet promising enough to replace them. Not to mention that electric cars are still cars, so we still have tire and brake dust, etc. Less than before, of course, but they still exist.
Public transit has problems too. It's often more difficult for people with disabilities and/or children.
Also, we'll have to tear down the majority of the houses in the US, and build new ones in an arrangement that allows for bus lines to have sufficient passenger density to be less polluting than cars.
EVs are better than ICE cars for the environment and public health in every way possible. Also, there's an incremental path forward that we can take right now.
I wish there was better public transit in the US. Heck; I wish California would just mandate minimum density for new development near transit stations, and also auto-approve any compliant permit applications for housing in those areas (bypassing local zoning reviews, etc, etc.)
Sadly, that won't happen while the current generation of politicians is around.
Around here, they're mostly focusing on blocking construction, narrowing roads and cutting transit options. I think they're doing it to further prop up housing costs in wealthy neighborhoods.
Also, we'll have to tear down the majority of the houses in the US, and build new ones in an arrangement that allows for bus lines to have sufficient passenger density to be less polluting than cars.
EVs are better than ICE cars for the environment and public health in every way possible. Also, there's an incremental path forward that we can take right now.
I wish there was better public transit in the US. Heck; I wish California would just mandate minimum density for new development near transit stations, and also auto-approve any compliant permit applications for housing in those areas (bypassing local zoning reviews, etc, etc.)
Sadly, that won't happen while the current generation of politicians is around.
Around here, they're mostly focusing on blocking construction, narrowing roads and cutting transit options. I think they're doing it to further prop up housing costs in wealthy neighborhoods.
Public transit is far more able to support disabled people than private transit - public transit is coupled with dense space. Every train and bus I've been on in this century supports wheelchairs.
The isolated, think of the children who have no adults to teach them how to ride public transit.
Meanwhile, in Atlanta, private school children ride our trains every day, often with no adults, to Woodward academy. Public school children do too, but they're not wearing identifying jackets.
Or Japan, or much of Europe (especially, Spain, Germany, Amsterdam, Austria) where students rides busses, trams, and trains every day.
Most of these locations are also known better for physically disabled or elderly.
Meanwhile, in Atlanta, private school children ride our trains every day, often with no adults, to Woodward academy. Public school children do too, but they're not wearing identifying jackets.
Or Japan, or much of Europe (especially, Spain, Germany, Amsterdam, Austria) where students rides busses, trams, and trains every day.
Most of these locations are also known better for physically disabled or elderly.
I think those problems should be solved and battery technologies further developed, and broad adoption would increase the incentive to invest in tackling those issues.
No matter how well developed public transit may or may not become across the nation, we're still going to need private transit.
No matter how well developed public transit may or may not become across the nation, we're still going to need private transit.
Public transit only makes sense in urban areas.
Urban areas tend to have high rates of crime.
This is one of the driving factors behind the popularity of personal transportation and suburban schools.
My county wanted to put in trams. You know the things that require non-alterable tracks? It was $14m per mile.
We have buses. Why couldn't people just use the buses? Because they're filled with trash and crime. So instead of just enforcing the law and imprisoning criminals, the county was courting spending hundreds of millions for a tram system. And the non-enforcement would have turned the trams into the same state the buses were in within a few years.
Just insanity.
We have buses. Why couldn't people just use the buses? Because they're filled with trash and crime. So instead of just enforcing the law and imprisoning criminals, the county was courting spending hundreds of millions for a tram system. And the non-enforcement would have turned the trams into the same state the buses were in within a few years.
Just insanity.
> You know what would save more lives? better public transit.
Do both. Public transit over vehicle electrification is a false economy; in that competition the status quo will win.
Do both. Public transit over vehicle electrification is a false economy; in that competition the status quo will win.
false dichotomy
> false dichotomy
It's also that. (Edited to be clearer.) In this case, the false economy [1] is in progress towards decarbonization. You can do a lot of busywork towards expanding public transit, which feels good in the short term, but it's easier to kill and more politically volatile. In the same time, you could have banked saved emissions through EVs.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_economy
It's also that. (Edited to be clearer.) In this case, the false economy [1] is in progress towards decarbonization. You can do a lot of busywork towards expanding public transit, which feels good in the short term, but it's easier to kill and more politically volatile. In the same time, you could have banked saved emissions through EVs.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_economy
What externalities are we exchanging carbon emissions for when we switch to electric vehicles?
I imagine there will be some longterm unaccounted-for negative externalities just from the benefits listed in the title.
Similar to when people stopped smoking, they started living longer which meant more unproductive retirement years, lower pension yields, higher healthcare costs overall (more older people needing more care all at once).
Similar to when people stopped smoking, they started living longer which meant more unproductive retirement years, lower pension yields, higher healthcare costs overall (more older people needing more care all at once).
One thing I noticed, a Rivian R1T weighs around 7200lbs. My super crew Super Duty weighed around 6500lbs and was taxed and licensed at the 10000lb GVW class.
The Rivian is not taxed like that but it sure as hell is putting a lot more weight on the roads than a Super Duty that isn't fully laden.
The weight of EVs is far more than I even considered to imagine. I am really surprised at the total weight. This is going to cause significant road damage. At current vehicle weights communities can't even afford road maintenance as it is. As far as I know, all road maintenance is financed with debt.
I'm just wondering how we maintain our current usage patterns with vehicles, switch to far heavier ones, and even begin to address the ongoing road maintenance. We haven't even figured out how to tax EVs yet. ICE vehicles pay a hefty tax at the pump...though that is probably not enough. I don't see where the political will is even coming from to deal with this minor issue of increased road maintenance.
The Rivian is not taxed like that but it sure as hell is putting a lot more weight on the roads than a Super Duty that isn't fully laden.
The weight of EVs is far more than I even considered to imagine. I am really surprised at the total weight. This is going to cause significant road damage. At current vehicle weights communities can't even afford road maintenance as it is. As far as I know, all road maintenance is financed with debt.
I'm just wondering how we maintain our current usage patterns with vehicles, switch to far heavier ones, and even begin to address the ongoing road maintenance. We haven't even figured out how to tax EVs yet. ICE vehicles pay a hefty tax at the pump...though that is probably not enough. I don't see where the political will is even coming from to deal with this minor issue of increased road maintenance.
I learned recently that road wear varies as the 4th power of vehicle weight. This means that every 20% increase in weight doubles the amount of damage that vehicle does to the road/street. This means the absolute vast majority of road wear is caused by the largest vehicles -- tractor-trailers, large box trucks, etc. Yes, personal electric vehicles weigh a lot more than their ICE equivalents, but they're still only going to cause a small fraction of the road damage.
What we'll need to worry about and plan for are these electric semis that are rolling out. They will almost certainly cause noticeably more road damage than their ICE peers.
What we'll need to worry about and plan for are these electric semis that are rolling out. They will almost certainly cause noticeably more road damage than their ICE peers.
I think a swell of EVs are going to far outweigh the semis and box trucks. I agree, they are the largest impact but the scale of EV ownership that is being promoted will result in an insane increase in road wear.
> I agree, they are the largest impact but the scale of EV ownership that is being promoted will result in an insane increase in road wear.
I mean, I just explained why it won't.
I mean, I just explained why it won't.
By comparing one vehicle to another in a static state? More EVs weighing significantly more than equivalent ICE vehicles actually moving across the roads doesn't have a increased wear affect?
Ford Ranger 4200lbs Rivian R1T 7200lbs
I believe by your stated calculation that the Rivian is more than two Ford Rangers worth of wear. Subtract the big trucks from all this, to avoid getting caught up in relative comparisons, and there is going to be more net road wear.
Ford Ranger 4200lbs Rivian R1T 7200lbs
I believe by your stated calculation that the Rivian is more than two Ford Rangers worth of wear. Subtract the big trucks from all this, to avoid getting caught up in relative comparisons, and there is going to be more net road wear.
A M3 yearly renewal in Michigan in over $500. How is that not a solution to the road taxes being avoided? 12,000 miles a year at $3.50 a gallon and assuming 35mpg is only $1600in gas costs. How much of that would really be taxes? I know non-EVs don't pay anywhere near close to hundreds of dollar to renew the registration yearly.
The places to look might be: heavier vehicles might lead to more fatalities in bicyclists and pedestrians, and something in battery manufacture.
Maybe something from charging infrastructure?
Maybe something from charging infrastructure?
Heavier vehicles would also lead to faster degradation of transport infra
Vastly increased power usage would be a big one I would think. For one the USA power grid probably couldn’t handle it as is. Increased brown outs/black outs from higher demand could cause health issues from loss of climate control devices in locales where that’s a dangerous prospect. Like losing heat during a Maine winter or A/c during a phoenix summer.
Even ignoring that, ~20% of us electricity is coal generated. ~60% is fossil fuel generated [1] so it’s ultimately just shifting the problem unless there are equivalent infrastructure investments as well.
[1]https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
Even ignoring that, ~20% of us electricity is coal generated. ~60% is fossil fuel generated [1] so it’s ultimately just shifting the problem unless there are equivalent infrastructure investments as well.
[1]https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
Shifting the problem is the whole point.
Not sure what your grid looks like, but I suspect some of these points will apply to yours: https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero/ele...
Not sure what your grid looks like, but I suspect some of these points will apply to yours: https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero/ele...
“and zero-carbon power in Britain’s electricity mix has grown from less than 20% in 2010 to nearly 50% in 2021.”
This is the key issue, our grid is shit
per another link [1] from the same source I originally posted with significantly more detail it actually states “petroleum, natural gas, and coal—accounted for about 81% of total U.S. primary energy production in 2022.” Which is significantly higher than what I had originally commented. This has renewables dropped to 13% and nuclear to 8%
To be fair some key states have transitioned better. California is ahead of the game, has a significant population, and significant traffic. So it’s not as clear cut as “the grid of the country sucks”
But I would argue a solid public transit system, which the majority of the us does not have, would have a far greater impact. Of course, this alongside the transition to electric personal vehicles for those who still require them would be the best of both worlds
[1]https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/
This is the key issue, our grid is shit
per another link [1] from the same source I originally posted with significantly more detail it actually states “petroleum, natural gas, and coal—accounted for about 81% of total U.S. primary energy production in 2022.” Which is significantly higher than what I had originally commented. This has renewables dropped to 13% and nuclear to 8%
To be fair some key states have transitioned better. California is ahead of the game, has a significant population, and significant traffic. So it’s not as clear cut as “the grid of the country sucks”
But I would argue a solid public transit system, which the majority of the us does not have, would have a far greater impact. Of course, this alongside the transition to electric personal vehicles for those who still require them would be the best of both worlds
[1]https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/
"Primary energy" is bullshit, we care about "final energy". You're basically giving fossil fuels extra credit for being about 4x less efficient.
Hers some numbers that made that explicit:
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/uk-ev-electricity-...
> If we were to electrify transport, we’d need much less energy overall.
> When we look at the amount of energy that countries currently use, it can seem like an overwhelming challenge to replace all of this with low-carbon sources.
> But, we don’t need to produce the equivalent amount of low-carbon energy. Our current energy stack includes the energy that we actually need, but it also includes all of the wasted energy in converting fossil fuels to something useful. When we switch to electric cars or low-carbon electricity, a lot of that disappears.
> We can demonstrate that with transport.
Hers some numbers that made that explicit:
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/uk-ev-electricity-...
> If we were to electrify transport, we’d need much less energy overall.
> When we look at the amount of energy that countries currently use, it can seem like an overwhelming challenge to replace all of this with low-carbon sources.
> But, we don’t need to produce the equivalent amount of low-carbon energy. Our current energy stack includes the energy that we actually need, but it also includes all of the wasted energy in converting fossil fuels to something useful. When we switch to electric cars or low-carbon electricity, a lot of that disappears.
> We can demonstrate that with transport.
The line after the next paragraph: “Now, this only applies to electricity from solar and wind. If we were to produce this electricity from coal or gas, our energy inputs would be much higher. That’s because a lot of energy would be wasted as heat in the power plant”
Therein lies the problem though?
Per my second link 80% of the USA grid is coal or gas. How do you get around that massive number? How do you get around the political gridlock on updating our crumbling infrastructure? It’s inefficient and as a result wastes a ton of potential power as heat while also creating a ton of pollution.
To be clear I am with you. It’s abhorrent that this much of our energy infrastructure is still gas and coal in 2022+. But it’s the reality of the situation
Therein lies the problem though?
Per my second link 80% of the USA grid is coal or gas. How do you get around that massive number? How do you get around the political gridlock on updating our crumbling infrastructure? It’s inefficient and as a result wastes a ton of potential power as heat while also creating a ton of pollution.
To be clear I am with you. It’s abhorrent that this much of our energy infrastructure is still gas and coal in 2022+. But it’s the reality of the situation
You're confusing "energy" and "electricity", as well as "primary vs final", both of which make things seem worse now and less likely to change in future.
I thought the article I linked explained it well, but to summarize quickly:
Moving heating and transport to electric reduces our energy needs dramatically, about a 4x difference. So if your energy is 80% fossil then you only need to double the 20% low carbon sources to account for 100% of your needs (while at the same time saving 100,000 lives and 1Trillion dollars in lung related health costs amongst other benefits)
The new electric generation we need to build will be the cheapest currently available, which is renewables. In the US the new energy generation is already above 90% carbon free, and even the new gas built is designed to be run intermittently.
America is at 60% fossil on its grid, which is 40% gas and 20% coal. This isn't great (it's ironic how often people here complain about the dirty Chinese grid when it would be the middle of the pack if it was a US State) but luckily the states with most of the people and energy use are moving quickly and the pace is increasing.
I thought the article I linked explained it well, but to summarize quickly:
Moving heating and transport to electric reduces our energy needs dramatically, about a 4x difference. So if your energy is 80% fossil then you only need to double the 20% low carbon sources to account for 100% of your needs (while at the same time saving 100,000 lives and 1Trillion dollars in lung related health costs amongst other benefits)
The new electric generation we need to build will be the cheapest currently available, which is renewables. In the US the new energy generation is already above 90% carbon free, and even the new gas built is designed to be run intermittently.
America is at 60% fossil on its grid, which is 40% gas and 20% coal. This isn't great (it's ironic how often people here complain about the dirty Chinese grid when it would be the middle of the pack if it was a US State) but luckily the states with most of the people and energy use are moving quickly and the pace is increasing.
Ah I see. Thanks for clarifying
It's much less brake dust, no exhaust fumes, but slightly more tire rubber particles, because EVs are heavier.
Doubt that accounts for cancer. Petroleum has lots of documented carcinogenic mechanisms and compounds.
-enes and -anes are not good for you.
-enes and -anes are not good for you.
I've already started teaching my son to call ICE cars "legacy cars" and EVs "normal cars."
Yes, this is a bit of a non-sequitur, but electric cars continue to feel like an incremental improvement at best; as someone else mentioned - we're exchanging where the carbon production happens unless we dramatically reduce our fossil fuel usage for power generation. And that doesn't solve the accessibility and affordability problems of car-based transit.