It looks like air particle contamination is going to be worse with more EVs in the future. And it is already a bigger problem than exhaust gas emmisions.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/oth...1&cvid=23f66b848a5a4e189ce94ed826f3c47a&ei=24
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/oth...1&cvid=23f66b848a5a4e189ce94ed826f3c47a&ei=24
Fox are the reporters but it's clear this is coming from elsewhere. The thesis is that particulate emissions from EVs may be higher than anticipated because they're significantly heavier than petrol vehicles and that the Californian legislation and calculations assume equivalent levels of wear particles.
The article also says that wear is the dominant source of particles from both vehicle types.
Apparently the Californians just assumed that, somehow, a miracle would occur and manufacturers would make EVs weigh the same as FF cars.
So interesting and not to be disregarded just because Fox. It's an original MSN article and I'm fairly sure they're not into parroting Fox.
Last edited:
And exactly how do you know that? Or is just an assumption on your part due to bias against Fox News.
Wrong, the data source for that article if you follow the links back is a TV interview on Fox Business. A simple Google search will lead you to academic research which blows the higher-net-PM-for-EV argument to pieces.
How do the mods just let these anti-climate change threads keep reopening?
How do the mods just let these anti-climate change threads keep reopening?
Overpowered heavy electrical SUV's and other oversized types are a problem, but not only on this front.
Since you've done the work you could've linked to the research to ensure we got the right information
Also fwiw is it anti climate change to express an interest in the emissions profile of of what will be a very widespread change?
Though I'd be more inclined to question the ability of California's creaking generating capacity to be able to support the electricity demand widespread EV adoption will create...
No, I'm done with this nonsense. I post something academic, somebody posts a blog with circular links to other blogs, and the idiots who don't get critical thinking say "ah, disproven again". Been there, done that. Until somebody figures a way out of this disinformation mess, there's no point.
Well, ok, your choice. I'm sure the mods will step in if it was getting out of hand. Why not link it then retire?
I just look at cost (and TCO) as an indicator of "greenness". If the price is high, there's more opportunity for the "velocity of money" to burn more real-world resources, whether it's a high manufacturing cost or sales reps flying to exotic places.
Also, >2 tonne EVs R U SRS? The total mass of typical 4-seater family cars should be heading to 500-800 kg total with lightweight materials, and the resulting huge savings in actual energy requirements. Not that bool... with ridiculously over-bulked cars pretending to be green.
Also, >2 tonne EVs R U SRS? The total mass of typical 4-seater family cars should be heading to 500-800 kg total with lightweight materials, and the resulting huge savings in actual energy requirements. Not that bool... with ridiculously over-bulked cars pretending to be green.
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/4a4dc6ca-en/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/4a4dc6ca-en
The OECD. A well known climate change denier organisation. Clearly states that wear particles from EVs may be higher or equivalent than from petrol cars because of increased weight caused by battery packs, while brake wear may be reduced by regenerative braking. The problem may be exacerbated as manufacturers put more battery into cars to increase range.
But in 2020 when the report was prepared the take-home was that we just don't know and more research is required.
So imo a subject that should still be open for discussion and debate.
The OECD. A well known climate change denier organisation. Clearly states that wear particles from EVs may be higher or equivalent than from petrol cars because of increased weight caused by battery packs, while brake wear may be reduced by regenerative braking. The problem may be exacerbated as manufacturers put more battery into cars to increase range.
But in 2020 when the report was prepared the take-home was that we just don't know and more research is required.
So imo a subject that should still be open for discussion and debate.
Why shouldn't they? There are a wide variety of opinions on the subject. Who is to say that only yours should be expressed.
But it causes people to start arguing about it - and not in a technical or constructive way. Every time, without exception.
IMO, the only way for us to leave the planet cleaner than when we found it is to leave it. Humans are essentially little heat engines, and heat engines create entropy.
IMO, the only way for us to leave the planet cleaner than when we found it is to leave it. Humans are essentially little heat engines, and heat engines create entropy.
Fox News is not news. More like a propaganda unit.
They spew huge amounts of misinformation.
dave
Very much.
But we have been ignoring the major impacts of the petroleum industry, with remediation having to cover off all the clean-up needed.
The new EV industry is growing up in a much more environmentally aware world, and cradle to grave is in the works for EV “waste”. SImialr to programs recycling onselete solar panela sand wind turbines.
Pay attention to the attitude of the company doing the EV making, some will stand out i am sure.
dave
FF?
It all comes down to battery weight. The batteries that we see today will be obselete within a decade (likely sooner). Just like my laptops went from Llead-acid (really more of a luggable with terrible battery life), to Nicad, now lithium based. Thise developments were largely driven by portable applicnaces, phones, computers. Now that the vehicle industry needs batteries they ar eporing WAY more money into research. Dozens of candidates.
And batteries largely drive the high relative cost of an EV today.
Tesla would be like the original IBM PC and we are seeing the just strating tpo see the competition. This industry is in its infancy.
dave
Much of this is dominated by the long distances in North America and underwhelming infrastructure, and too many EVs have way more range (and heavy batteries) than they really needed.
The EVs that are likely making the biggest impact are E-Bikes.
And we are seeing more and more city cars — primarily not here — like the Citroen Ami EV.
This one in made in Vernon BC, goes 50 km/hr max, and has a 60km range. Still pricey (relatively) thou. Good for day-to-day around here.
dave
Yes, EVs are likely to create higher levels of pollutants from tire wear. This means we should keep on using ICVs. /s
This will only be a temporary problem once the technology is developed to move away from dirty rubber. The fossil fuel economy, however, spells certain doom.
EDIT: Now I actually bothered to read the article. What hogwash. Focusing solely on "particulate matter" is missing the forest for the trees, at best, but much more likely to be simply malice and greed on the part of those still backing ICVs and fossil fuels. I don't see any of these people bitching and complaining about the lack of mandates to use, for example, aluminum wheels (or other lightening measures) on tractor trailers or multi-axle steering on heavy construction vehicles. You can bet your *** that electrifying all those ancient diesels running on the roads today would result in a huge amount of PM reduction, too.
EDIT2: The title of this thread is disingenuous to say the least.
This will only be a temporary problem once the technology is developed to move away from dirty rubber. The fossil fuel economy, however, spells certain doom.
EDIT: Now I actually bothered to read the article. What hogwash. Focusing solely on "particulate matter" is missing the forest for the trees, at best, but much more likely to be simply malice and greed on the part of those still backing ICVs and fossil fuels. I don't see any of these people bitching and complaining about the lack of mandates to use, for example, aluminum wheels (or other lightening measures) on tractor trailers or multi-axle steering on heavy construction vehicles. You can bet your *** that electrifying all those ancient diesels running on the roads today would result in a huge amount of PM reduction, too.
EDIT2: The title of this thread is disingenuous to say the least.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.