Slashdot Mirror
Scientists: Electric Vehicles Produce As Many Toxins As Dirty Diesels (dailymail.co.uk)
An anonymous reader writes: Thanks to ongoing efforts to reduce engine emissions, nowadays only 10% to 15% of particulate emissions from traffic are coming from vehicles' tailpipes. The remainder originates in tire, road surface and brake wear. A study by Victor Timmers and Peter Achten published in Atmospheric Environment has now found that the extra weight of electric vehicles causes non-tailpipe emissions to increase by about as much as the omission of the internal combustion engine saves. Atmospheric particulates have been shown to cause cancer, cardiovascular disease and respiratory diseases and are widely considered as the most harmful form of air pollution. Achten said, "We found that non-exhaust emissions, from brakes, tires and the road, are far larger than exhaust emissions in all modern cars. These are more toxic than emissions from modern engines so they are likely to be key factors in the extra heart attacks, strokes and asthma attacks seen when air pollution levels surge." The study shows that non-exhaust emissions a vehicle produces is directly related to its weight. Scientists found that electric and eco-friendly vehicles weighed around 24 percent more than conventional vehicles, which in turn contributes to more wear on the tires.
Can a legitimate news outlet tell us if this is a REAL concern?
Same preface as the Exxon/Mobil employee handbook.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
nt
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
Everyone is familiar with the smell of internal combustion.
You need pretty extreme conditions to smell the brakes or tires.
Are you smelling brakes and tires a lot now?
the Petroleum Institute and Oil Producing Export Countries.
When you use the brakes in an EV the brake pads generally aren't used, instead the motor is used as a generator converting kinetic energy into stored power. I don't see this mentioned in the abstract, are the authors really not including this?
Who knew that stuff was so deadly toxic? Really?
First off, electric cars use their brake pads less, not more. Regenerative brakes do most of the work, and the brakes last 2-3x longer than a regular gasoline car. Tire do last a little less long, but most of those are big particles, and I have never heard of tire dust being considered a major health risk.
Sounds like a hatchet job...
According to this, we should obviously ban trucks from city streets. How many cars would it take to equal the weight of an 18-wheel rolling warehouse loaded with plates, cutlery and mini-fridges for Walmart?
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Electric and hybrid cars use regenerative breaking, such that when the driver brakes lightly the car will use the electric motor as a generator and recharge the battery, hence the braking emissions would be largely reduced. Heavy breaking will use the disc brakes as well as regenerative braking at the same time, so there will be some emissions then, but still less than classical vehicles.
And they also cut down on brake dust by using regenerative braking as much as possible.
I think there's some room to move here, to ensure EVs are better on particulates.
Maybe we have to discourage the purchase of 6,000lb Teslas and instead encourage the purchase of 3600lb LEAFs and Bolts.
This thing that particulates being widely considered the most harmful form of air pollution is also new to me. They're a serious problem for sure, but I think other trace emissions like NOx are still quite significant. And that's all ignoring CO2.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Regenerative braking does NOT use the brake pads. So how can they produce more pollution? Blaming EV's for stirring up tire materials on the road put there by every vehicle is disingenuous as well.. Bad science.
Only two wheels, so less tire and brake wear.
Significantly lighter than a 4-stroke equivalent.
Serious fun, oh right, that doesn't count.
But I'm thinking it's pushing the logic used by this study in the right direction to make the stupidities obvious.
Do they account for the fact not every car is a 500lb sub-compact? I find the 24% heavier data point bogus as I watch SUVs and heavy duty trucks drive by.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
Not only that, the disc pads on a vehicle are very small compared with the fuel burned. Imagine a 0.1kg brake pad that lasts 200,000km verses 160'000 Litres of fuel burned over the same distance.
You ever wonder why there aren't piles of rubber dust on the sides of the interstate? I used to wonder as well. IIRC, the UV rays from the sun break the rubber down into smaller organic molecules. Seems like they're making a bigger deal out of tire pollution as well.
Obviously driving has environmental impacts. This is not news. Bringing this up reminds me of this essay:
http://www.abstractconcretewor...
But when comparing the two classes of vehicles, the entire supply chain needs to be considered. You can use existing electrical infrastructure (and possibly renewable energy) to charge an electric vehicle. For a traditionally-fueled vehicle, you need to consider exploration, extraction, refinery, transportation, and disaster mitigation.
I think the lesser of two evils is clear.
Why bother trying? Those wealthy people think they're superior to us with their expensive electric cars so they won't listen to facts.
I am sad to say that this is last nail in the coffin of my Slashdot reading. Slashdot is nothing but an advertising portal anymore. The editors have now turned into Corporate shills. The editors no longer do any due diligence of any kind. This is utter nonsense news(?). You can't pay me to read this moronic propaganda anymore. So long Slashdot, I hope you find a quick death from here.
Clear proof that electric cars cause autism.
Is this first-hand knowledge or is this your repeating what you've heard elsewhere?
I ask because I don't have first-hand knowledge of how regen-braking works. I would love to think that traction motors do all of the braking and that pads are only put into use for either emergency stops or for parking brakes when the vehicle is off, but I do not know and I do not claim to know.
If you have first-hand knowledge, as a designer, or as a manufacturer, or as a mechanic, or even as an owner I would like to hear how the systems have performed, but if all that you're doing is repeating what others, who themselves lack first-hand experience, have said, then perhaps you need to stop repeating what you don't know.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Enjoy, you deserve it for being easily poked.
Answer is one bite at a time.
Gotta start somewhere. Sorry petroleum industry, but it looks like the focus of your products will have to change. Trying to forestall it with claims so transparent even auto enthusiasts are embarrassed by them won't help.
Whatever remaining aspects of pollution from electric cars can be addressed in-time.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
This is talking about particulate matter and toxic substances released into the air during operation. Modern ICEs are really incredibly clean when it comes to these emissions.
It is NOT talking about carbon emissions. ICE vehicles emit carbon as they burn fuel, and electric vehicles do not. Electric vehicles can be 100% carbon-neutral in operation if they are charged by appropriate technologies (solar, wind, etc).
I could not read the Elsevier (almost synonymous for low impact factor) article, since it's behind a paywall. So I could not see whether the authors had declared conflict of interest in the acknowledgements section of the paper, or by what money the study was funded.
However, I did find the following: Peter A.J. Achten works at INNAS BV, Breda, the Netherlands, a company that manufactures hydraulic systems for hybrids and fuel-efficient cars and free-piston diesel engines.
I have first-hand knowledge that pads aren't used much with an electric car, and second-hand knowledge that that's how it works with a hybrid, as well -- my co-worker with the hybrid said the people at the garage marvelled at the lack of brake pad residue.
Yes, virginia, many of the hybrids and electrics if not all of them use regen braking. And yes, it does work. You feel a noticeable drag on the car when it kicks in.
You do use your regular brake pads though. The regen braking is good for a lot of things but it is not enough to stop the car quickly enough. I will say this though your brake pads last for frigging ever, as in so far they have lasted through over 150k miles on the factory pads, and there is still life left.
TO be honest though this is all well publicized including with studies. Why don't you google it.
My Prius C doesn't weigh anywhere near as much as all those SUVs that are on the road.
And they’re just talking about emissions here. Don’t forget that electric car batteries are loaded with toxic metals and other hazardous materials. Suddenly e-cars don’t look so green.
From the paper: "...brake wear of EVs tends to be lower because of their regenerative brakes ...so we have assumed a conservative
estimate of zero brake wear emissions for EVs"
But hydrogen has terrible energy density and we don't have widespread distribution networks for it. Ultimately it'd just be a battery for an electric car that's not as good as other options.
Most hydrogen comes from steam acting on hydrocarbon fuel, the electricity for making the steam also from burning hydrocarbon fuel. Glad you like to keep big petro in business, Trump is your man
With recent events coming to light about auto-manufacturers falsifying emissions output, I'm having a hard time believing this study accounts for those discrepancies. Especially on the scale, and longevity that they have been occurring. Also, the fact that some, even to this day, are still coming to light.
Give me this study in a year, and I'll take with a less than massive grain of salt.
It's one thing to see how light you can make a vehicle. But it's another to make it safe. When 99% of the other vehicles are SUVs, trucks, and 18 wheelers it doesn't make sense to be the lightest, smallest thing around.
And when people don't like it, all you have to do is put up walls around the city to keep them from leaving. Problem solved.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
"AND THE ROAD" :drops mic:
Hydrogen is not a better way to store energy for electric drive cars. You need to do more research if you really believe this.
Yes - how are the emissions from tires on EVs different than ICE cars? And definitely have to double down on the brakes - due to regenerative braking, I finally had to replace the pads on my Prius - at 160000 miles (the battery is still doing fine). So if you want to attack EVs then go after the additional initial energy expenditure and emissions when the car (and its components) are produced.(one of the reasons the best thing to do is rive a car until it's engine fails emissions).
My boss had to replace the front brake pads on his Prius after ten years and 120,000 miles. The rear ones are still good.
In order to scale hydrogen vehicles to the point of being attractive to consumers you need lots of local filling stations converting natural gas to hydrogen. How efficiently that conversion process can sequester byproducts will dominate the overall carbon footprint of the hydrogen vehicle ecosystem. We are already all too familiar with the environmental impacts of petrol fuel stations (leaky holding tanks, overflow spillage, etc) but what does an 'oops' at a hydrogen filling station look like? I'd seriously like to know more about that before anyone starts building them in my backyard.
The fact that toxic emissions are primarily not from the ICE is news to me and very interesting. Further, it is nice to see a second reason for the EPA to encourage low vehicle weights. Thanks to safety equipment (which, to be clear, I am happy to have) and increasingly absurd amounts of automation, cars have become substantially heavier even as materials science has made strides. Weight doesn't have much of an effect on highway fuel economy and in North America that is more important than in-town for most people. The side-effect has been that low-cost cars aren't as fast or lively in the corners as they could be. As a person who will take weight-savings over displacement any day, things haven't really been going my way. Any impetus for regulation to focus on weight will make things better for everyone, car lovers and people who just want to get from A to B.
As for EVs, this sounds like another problem that is looking for new battery tech. I still feel like the EV needs another 20 years or so. That said, I'd strangle a sea-monkey for any Tesla as a second (erm, third) car.
As a previous owner of a propane car, the typical reaction from others was "bomb on wheels". And that was despite being shown that propane is harder to ignite than gasoline, and that the tanks were impervious to small and medium arms fire! Hydrogen is an even harder sell because it's easy as all get out to ignite and... "hindenberg on wheels".
Never going to happen in any popular way, sorry.
Don't tell me, tell Toyota.
Hmm, I wonder if Toyota knows more about engineering cars, or you?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Spare tires are 12 Kg of unnecessary extra weight that every single car carries around all the time, wasting gas and releasing more toxins to the environment.
How about getting rid of the spare tire for commuting cars, and rely on some service to bring a spare tire to you when you need it?
The service should be provided for free by all cities as a measure to reduce pollution.
And thinking on a global scale, it would add up to a save us from a lot of CO2 emissions.
I would expect brakes to last a lot more than 2-3x longer - on my last Prius, after 250,000km (155,000 miles) 80% of the brakes were still on the pads.
As for tires, if a 24% increase in weight is SO bad, why aren't they going after the vehicles that are 100% heavier than the average car - SUVs?
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
In order to scale hydrogen vehicles to the point of being attractive to consumers you need lots of local filling stations converting natural gas to hydrogen.
"Natural gas" is terribly short-sighted, but otherwise yes, exactly, and that is the BENEFT of the technology. You have can have much shorter distribution networks for most areas than you have with gasoline, with many more stations spread all over.
That is ALSO a vastly better system in times of crisis, rather than a few electric plants scattered here and there, or relying on vast networks of roads and refineries needing to function, local hydrogen production makes many areas somewhat self-sufficient in terms of energy,
That is why hydrogen is the best answer, there are so many benefits at all levels.
How efficiently that conversion process can sequester byproducts will dominate the overall carbon footprint of the hydrogen vehicle ecosystem.
The carbon footprint will not matter one whit within a decade, and again you are short-sighted about production techniques.
but what does an 'oops' at a hydrogen filling station look like?
A harmless cloud dissipating almost instantly.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Here is an article that discusses the health risks of rubberized materials such as crumb rubber on football fields.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Personally I do not think that this is a big issue for electric cars being the weight of batteries is what causes tire wear. It is the fact that electric cars are so damn quick off the line. If we can only make electric vehicles as sluggish as gas cars the tire problem would go aware.
-rd
What about the other 10,000 pollutants in the cities? They forgot to rule those out. Saying that brake dust is bad and X amount of brake dust is released and X amount of cancer exists in the cities is about as much fiction as it is science. That's extremely loose correlation molded into a rather specific headline, could be as much marketing as it is science.
Brake dust is toxic?! OMG ban electric cars now! Funny how none of this stuff was an issue until it was put onto electric cars. Do millennial's really fall for this stuff?
Doing a two minute google search turns out the authors are an undergrad university student (according to LinkedIn) without a research background (google scholar turns empty), and a researcher with a company that develops combustion engines
Not to pull an ad-hominem here, but I'd take the paper with lots of grains of salt.
Hydrogen storage is inferior in terms of energy efficiency.
We are not supposed to use electric heating because it is inefficient, how are cars supposed to be any different? What does it matter if the fuel is burned in a car or a power plant. If it reduces the weight of the car, how it is not more efficient to burn it on site?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
What's a reasonable time? It takes only a few seconds after arriving home to plug in an electric car. Is a few seconds reasonable?
For longer journeys, there are fast DC chargers which will charge Teslas or other brands to 80% charge in about 30 minutes. Unfortunately, there are 3 incompatible standards for the DC chargers.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Boy, does Toyota have a video for you!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Or did you guys already forget the VW emissions scandal?
As a savvy owner of a Prius c hybrid, I think I have some insight into this... Basically, the brake pads *are* used quite a lot by aggressive drivers who tailgate and have to brake hard when the car in front of them slows down. People who drive with a proper following distance ahead of them will rarely have to use the disc brakes.
Hybrid vehicles (and EVs, probably) have smaller brake pads than similarly sized conventional vehicles (though the actual stopping power of the disc brakes in an emergency is just as good as regular cars). The brake pads are about half as thick on my Prius c as the brake pads on my Honda Civic. That's because the manufacturer expects you to use them less often. I'm sure there are some insane drivers out there who can burn through the brake pads on a vehicle like mine in well under 50,000 miles, but those same people would burn through the brakes on any vehicle just as quickly.
I've learned to "feel" the difference between the cut-over between regenerative braking and the disc brakes. The disc brakes slow you down WAY faster. There's not a discrete and obvious jolt when you gradually depress the brake pedal; it's incredibly smooth; but to use an analogy, as long as I'm slowing down at about the same rate as a truck can slow down when using the jake brake (engine braking - that loud "farting" sound that large trucks sometimes make when slowing down), I'm using the regenerative braking system only. If I'm slowing down much faster than that, the disc brakes are being engaged (the brakes and the regenerative braking can be active at the same time, unless you are braking at what would be considered "emergency" speeds, in which case the regenerative braking system disengages, perhaps because it can't handle that amount of torque or current).
As for the article itself: 24 percent?! That's total bullshit.
The Prius c is literally a Yaris Hybrid (it's marketed as such in some parts of the world). It's the Toyota Yaris -- a compact car -- with the Toyota Hybrid Synergy Drive in it. So, it's a Yaris, *plus* the weight of the HSD.
The curb weight of the Yaris is 2335 pounds. The curb weight of the Prius c is 2500 pounds. That's only a 7.066% increase. That's a far, far cry from the 24% the article cites.
OK, you say, let's look at *electric* vehicles specifically, not just hybrids. Because hybrids don't have to lug around 500 pounds of lithium-ion batteries. Hybrid batteries tend to weigh under 200 pounds, with the smallest hybrids' ~1 kWh batteries weighing less than 100 pounds.
Let's take the Chevy Spark. The conventional Spark weighs in around 2270 pounds. The EV? 3000 pounds. That's a 32% increase for basically the same passenger and cargo volume. Fair enough. But 3000 pounds isn't out of this world, and is in the ballpark of many upscale compact cars like the (conventional) Honda Civic.
Another example. The 2016 Nissan Leaf weighs around 3150 pounds. I did some research to try and find a conventional vehicle with similar interior measurements (headroom, cargo space, etc.) and I came up with this: The 2016 Honda Civic EX has a total (usable) interior volume of 110.1 cubic feet with a curb weight of 2799 pounds. The 2016 Nissan Leaf has an interior volume of 116 cubic feet. So for 6 more cubic feet of interior (5.4% more), the vehicle weighs 351 pounds (25.4%) more.
Based on these limited comparisons, it seems like the article's claim about the increased weight of electric vehicles is factual. However, it is absolutely not valid to make the leap to saying that plug-in hybrids or conventional hybrids are anywhere near as bad in terms of added weight.
What I'm not convinced of, however, is the severity and environmental impact of tire and brake wear, regardless of vehicle weight. EVs and hybrids also run with low rolling resistance tires, which should reduce the amount of tire "stuff" in the air, in any case. Did they take that into account?
However, switching out a gasoline engine for a TDI diesel engine adds about 300 pounds to a sedan-
They aren't even talking about C02, they're only talking about non fuel related emissions. The headline is intentionally deceptive, calling "dirty diesel" to make you think they're talking tail pipe emissions: they aren't.
Well, since you ask, EVs have very stiff tires to cut rolling resistance, and consequently have a smaller patch, scrub less, but have cause significantly more damage to asphalt roads.
They are 24% heavier than the same-sized ICE vehicle.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
OH NOEZ!
Say it ain't so Joe! Say it ain't so!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I have first hand knowledge of owning an eGolf. The amount of regeneration depends (in that vehicle) on the charge state of the battery. If you're below about 70% charge, then under normal circumstances, all braking is regenerative. Above that charge level, or when you use particularly heavy braking, and the actual disks will get used a certain amount.
What's a reasonable time? It takes only a few seconds after arriving home to plug in an electric car.
For how many apartment dwellers is that true for again?
Oh what's that, you were only considering people who had homes instead of everyone? A replacement transportation system works only if it works for EVERYONE.
Also that 30 minutes is about ten hours if you increased the number of Teslas on the road substantially. A 30 minute fill-up time, even if reduced to fifteen minutes, simple cannot scale to ALL CARS.
If you take ten seconds to actually think about the implications of what happens when ALL CARS are electric the mass-market solution is dictated to you and requires no skill to predict.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
http://31.184.194.81/10.1016/j... = Sci-hub link.
It's absolute garbage "research". Speculation layered upon speculation. It has the quality of a rant.
Victor Timmers is still getting his BEng. He was a research intern. Yay!
https://www.linkedin.com/in/vi...
Peter A.J. Achten is a hydraulics engineer for INNAS.
http://www.innas.com/
Some gems from their trash:
"Despite the lack of direct research, there is significant indirect evidence..."
"Many studies and emission inventories suggest..."
But here's my favorite:
"It can be hypothesised that..."
WTF?
* Research funded by the petroleum industry cooperative.
sort of ignores the fact that most hybrids use regenerative braking and harder compound tires.
but what does an 'oops' at a hydrogen filling station look like?
A harmless cloud dissipating almost instantly.
Or not
I am by no means expert enough to understand the details of the paper, but I have read them at http://sci-hub.cc/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.03.017 - and yes, as per 2.2 they most definately take this factor into account. I could be wrong, but I think the sensationalism is all in the Slashdot spin - the paper very clearly deals only with Non-exhaust PM emmissions with the idea of further improving EV's environmental footprint - the key being "PM" emissions - which, I believe, exclude most of the harmfull stuff pumped out of your exhaust.
"Most hydrogen comes from steam acting on hydrocarbon fuel,"
I thought most hydrogen has been around since not long after the Big Bang.
13 point something billions years ago.
Of course a lot of people in this country believe that Creation was less than 10,000 years ago,and climate change isn't mentioned in The Bible so its wrong etc.
Sure, it is all true, but it is important to realize that it is also a lot dirtier to manufacturer an electric car.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I've looked at the actual paper and what the paper says is EVs are cleaner than petrol ICEs but dirtier than Diesel ICEs.
It argues Diesel has cleaner exhaust than petrol and they assume the diesel version is the same weight as the petrol equivalent. Because the EV is heavier, it produces more (a lot) tyre wear, road wear etc (no pad wear though).
http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.cc/science/article/pii/S135223101630187X
One other thing I don't see mentioned is Hybrids much lower emissions than regular gasoline cars or diesels. CO, NOX, hydrocarbons are five to ten times lower per mile than similar cars. I am unsure exactly why, only thing I can come up with is that Hybrids avoid operating the engine under conditions that produce high emissions.
The carbon footprint will not matter one whit within a decade, ...
If you're saying that because you think anthropogenic global warming will be disproved you need to be prepared to be sorely disappointed in a decade.
Boy, those 40-tonne tanker trucks must stir up a crap-ton of particulate pollution. If only there existed a car that didn't require all the gasoline those trucks are toting around.
Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.
bollocks!
My PHEV uses the very same tyres (note the correct English spelling) as a good few other vehicles.
I just had to replace one due to a puncture. 14K miles. The mechanic said that it was good (apart from the screw that caused the puncture) for at least another 10K. Far better than I used to get on my old (non hybrid) car.
The report is from the Daily Fail. Everything that comic reports has to be taken with a huge pinch of salt.
The report ignores the fact that for many owners, their driving style changes when driving a hybrid in order to extend the electic range. mine has and that is for sure.
My PHEV is charged from the solar panels on my roof. 20miles of local journeys at zero cost and pollution (IMHO). Get home and plug it in again.
Unless you are driving something on the order of a tank (and a super heavy one at that), there is always going to be a heavier vehicle you can compare to, just as you can always point to someone who is more out of shape/uglier/poorer/etc than you... it doesn't change your own actual position.
The point here I believe is that given electric cars are heavier than their non electric counterparts, their owners are not as green as they thought... and pointing to your neighbor driving a 188 ton faithful reproduction of the Panzer VIII Maus doesn't change the fact that the EV owner is putting off more brake/tire particulates than they would in a conventional auto.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Granted I'm getting old and my eyes probably aren't working as well as they used to... when I'm driving at 60-80mph on the interstate... it's often hard to make out much of any 'dust' on the roads other than snow... which has this odd tendency to come down in significant volumes then be blown away.
Unless vehicles were putting off rather visible plumes of particulate matter when driving down the road, I would imagine nature would help keep the road clean given it's a narrow tract of land where it's deposited and the wind does tend to blow from time to time.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
True - it is a non-falsifiable hypothesis, since every time another "point of no return" prediction fails, they reschedule it another 5-20 years out.
This reminds me of the dire warnings about how such and such is now the leading cause of death. Guess what? There will always be a leading cause of death. There will always be a leading cause of pollution.
It's good news in both cases. The leading cause of death is no longer smallpox or the plague, because we've effectively controlled those. The leading cause of pollution is no longer the tailpipe if we've effectively controlled it.
I believe that in both cases there is no flaw with progress. We simply need to move on to the next problem and solve it, while taking care to make sure that old problems don't reoccur.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Indeed I am driving a Prius, now with 230,000 miles on it - and I have never needed to replace the brake pads. I like getting high mileage, and so manage to use regenerative braking exclusively except for emergency stop situations (e.g. someone pulls in front of you suddenly from a slow lane).
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
You haven't seen the way I drive a hybrid.
For what its worth:
i) It is a review paper, not original research. They say this in the abstract. For those that don't know what I'm talking about, review papers summarize other papers on the subject to give an overview of knowledge/observations on a given topic.
ii) Yes, electric vehicles use their brakes less because regen.
iii) No, braking is not the only way tyres wear. Brake pads/shoes tend to be metallic/ceramic. Tyres, on the other hand, are carbon-based. If a vehicle is heavier, it will wear its tyres more. More tyre debris = more particulate matter. More particulate matter = more lung disease. You don't have to smell it - your tyres are wearing down all the time while you drive. Tyre wear is the bigger problem, not brake wear.
iii) No, this does not automatically mean we should ban trucks. Thi
1. First they ignore you
2. Then they laugh at you
3. Then they fight you (make shit up) here we are hooray!
4. Then you win...
Why is The Daily Mail, a lowest-rung tabloid, being linked on the /. main page?
The paper itself is so full of faults that I would have to write more than the paper's authors in order to describe them all. Others in this thread are doing that. I will take the time to make two counter-points, though:
(1) Heavier cars, eh? You mean, like SUVs? The logical conclusion here is to promote sub-compact cars, public transport, and cargo transport by rail, rather than big-rig transport, of goods around the country. I don't think Rupert Murdoch would be in favor any of this, considering his investments in the fossil fuel industry.
(2) Electric cars rely primarily on regenerative braking. Essentially, the motors work in reverse to produce electricity when reducing speed (momentum, but ultimately kinetic energy) of the car – transforming that back into potential energy that is stored in the car's batteries. These motors are brush-less, meaning that there is no frictional contact, and thus no particulates produced. Compare this to regular car brakes, which are entirely frictional and heat-dissipating. Do we still use asbestos in car brake drums? Regardless, 'regular' brakes are two surfaces grinding against each other, creating micro-particulates. Drum brakes are going away, so it's all 4-wheel disk brakes. Usually made of metal.
But on my high-end sports car, which requires ceramic brake pads, braking creates micro-particulates of ceramic materials that are not soluble in the human lung, which is the kind of thing that causes mesothelioma (blacklung, asbestosis, silicosis, and the many others yet to be named... until enough people exhibit direct signs of a specific material causing the mesothelioma). It's not hard to know which materials will be in this class, but my managers tended to 'shush' me when I brought up the topic years ago – but it has since-then become a major area of research. It is not hard to create a definitive list, but NSF only likes to fund incremental research, rather than fundamentals-based studies. Thus, I will simply keep my mouth (and my windows) shut.
Articles like this are almost as popular with news sites as "chocolate/beer/wine/cheese/bacon cures cancer!". From what I can tell, the publication was written by a summer intern who is about a junior in college, by reviewing other publications and making some guesses from the data contained therein. It's a good thought piece, i.e. "Hey guys, there's a lot of stuff that we haven't really done much to improve yet, maybe we should look into that." The publication doesn't make an argument that "electric cars are evil." It doesn't even have any real data of its own. And well over half of the particulate matter that they attribute is just stuff that was lying on the ground and the cars kicked up into the air; and because they claim that an EV is 24% heavier, it will kick up 24% more PM in its wake, which is probably not true. I'd be willing to bet that even if EVs average 24% heavier, they are probably not also 24% larger and 24% less aerodynamic; and the size and shape of the vehicle matter at least as much as the weight in creating a wake, if not more.
On top of that, I don't know that reduction of particulate matter has ever been a huge concern for the EV market. Generally, the concerns are more along the lines of reducing CO2 (/CO/NOx/HCHO/NMOG/NMHC) emissions, oil consumption, monetary support to unfriendly OPEC nations, required maintenance, or fuel costs; or increasing support of new technology, renewable energy, etc. But, PM is certainly a health concern, so maybe the article's best use is just to point out that, as long as we're making a lot of other changes in our transportation system, maybe we should consider how we can change it to reduce PM emissions as well.
TL;DR: Science reporting fails again.
Yes, also, those particles are comparably large and heavy compared to gas emissions. The road particles doesn't really leave the road area to a large extent.
If we take Noah as an example, there was at least one "Climate Change", and it happened damn quickly. But "Noah" was _different_ 'cause... 'cause... "Allegory??"
The Noah story is particularly problematical for the Fundies, and those of the Calvinist persuasion. Here is a Man who went to great effort to save some kin and a bunch of animals from an inevitable Fate. In other words, through his Works he gained Salvation, and not some pie-in-the-sky Salvation either. _Belief_ was not enough.
And then, what became of Noah the Savior? He became the town drunk and a renowned exhibitionist, and the subject of a long-standing Family squabble.
Well, there is always another day...
captcha: eviller
But wouldn't the transfer of kinetic energy of the car to a flywheel generate as many particles as you save by not using the brakes?
I fear that these kind of articles are the business model of the new Slashdot owner.
But wouldn't the disks that are used to transfer the kinetic energy of the car to the flywheel/generator release as many particles as you save by not using the brakes?
If you paid attention to actual time scales in actual published scientific papers instead of sexed up headlines you wouldn't be saying that. For instance observed sea level rise has always been faster than predicted in any of the IPCC reports.
Lungs do not care whether the same particle comes from a tyre or combustion in an engine.
He was talking about elemental hydrogen, IE H2. H2 isn't a naturally occurring thing on earth, not in any significant quantities that is. There are no hydrogen mines.
Ergo, the basic ways we get it are by electrolysis(minor source) and from hydrocarbons, of which the biggest is steam reformation from natural gas. However, this process takes up enough energy that in most applications it's just better to burn the natural gas directly.
I don't read AC A human right
They're taking into account regenerative breaking by assuming negligible PM emissions from the brakes of EVs. According to their literature study, most PM originates from resuspension which is linearly correlated to vehicle weight.
Their results (based on literature averages):
Comparison between expected PM10 emissions of EVs, gasoline and diesel ICEVs.
Vehicle technology Exhaust Tyre wear Brake wear Road wear Resuspension Total
EV 0 mg/vkm 7.2 mg/vkm 0 mg/vkm 8.9 mg/vkm 49.6 mg/vkm
65.7 mg/vkm
Gasoline ICEV 3.1 mg/vkm 6.1 mg/vkm 9.3 mg/vkm 7.5 mg/vkm 40 mg/vkm
66.0 mg/vkm
Diesel ICEV 2.4 mg/vkm 6.1 mg/vkm 9.3 mg/vkm 7.5 mg/vkm 40 mg/vkm
65.3 mg/vkm
The study doesn't look that bad. Would have been nice if they would have taken into account oil, electricity, car or road production as well.
Back to the cancer-causing pollutants that have been tried and tested for generations!
Requiem for the American Dream
And let's see who funded the research...... So why aren't tires and brakes more enviromentally friendly, surely after decades of research we should be able to create tires and brakes that produce less particles, but wait, that propably would mean a much longer lifespan, so they won't be able to sell as much as they do now. Also with brakes it would be possible to put all brakes in closures which would collect all the particles without it ever reaching the enviroment except when processed..
If the article really claims that diesel has lower PM emissions than petrol, I think it's safe to say the entire article is bollocks and can be ignored.
Particulates are by far the worst that comes out of the exhaust.
When the goalposts are being shifted that far why bother playing - it's an insult to anyone watching.
No passenger car wears the road beyond negligible amounts.Heavy trucks cause 99.99999% of road wear.
This is probably true. But I personally find this an invalid way to base the whole fucking study on. What if Teslas are 24% heavier on average than other cars in the same class, but as they get popular, they reduce dramatically the number of *even heavier* vehicles in other classes? Say, I drive a 2.5+ tonne SUV at the moment and for any reason (be it legislation or change in personal preference) decide to buy a Tesla instead of buying another 2.5+ tonne SUV, isn't there a net benefit then?
The study is narrow and it doesn't take into account a plethora of interrelated issues. I haven't been able to read the original study (guess what, it's paywalled...) so I can't say for sure what the motivations behind the study are, but it might also be that the papers reporting about it are misunderstanding the whole point. That would definitely not be a first...
Latest news is the Toyota hydrogen car won't ever be sold outside California and they plan to abandon it and go EV. To understand why Toyota went hydrogen you need to understand the legal reasons they needed a zero emission car.
The nice thing with my Tesla is I can charge virtually anywhere there's electricity. Granted, the superchargers take some time, but it's not a huge amount of time. Now, take the amount of time saved by charging every night. It takes only a few seconds to plug in and unplug vs the amount of time spent driving to one of a limited number of hydrogen refueling stations, waiting in line (if they're popular) and filling up. On top of that, the electricity is far cheaper than the hydrogen. Currently virtually all hydrogen is heavily subsidized since the actual price would not be cheap. Currently EVs are over twice as efficient compared to a hydrogen fuel cell car when once considers well to wheel. HFC vehicles aren't much better than hybrid vehicles when it comes to efficiency but they're still a lot more expensive to build. They have a very long way to go. Durability of the fuel cell stacks is currently about half that of a gasoline engine. A fuel cell stack as of the end of 2015 will need to be replaced at 75K miles. I did the math and the batteries in my Tesla will be good for at least double this. See this.
The 2016 Toyota Mirai, a subcompact, is only rated at 66MPG. A Prius is 58 city, 53 highway and costs less than half the price of the Mirai. BEVs are typically over 100 for a similarly sized car. For example, a 2013 Leaf is the equivalent of 115MPG, almost twice as efficient. My 3-year old Tesla, a much larger vehicle with a lot more passenger and storage room, is 89MPGe. The newer ones are even higher. The Model 3 should be considerably higher than that. Long term, I don't see HFC vehicles competing much against pure electric cars. The complexity alone means that they will always be more expensive, especially as the cost of batteries drops. The cost today of a Toyota Mirai is $58,335. This is for a car with 0-60 of 9.4 seconds and a top speed of 108MPH, not much better than a Prius. The Mirai will suffer the same problems as a Prius as well. The Mirai depends on a battery pack for acceleration and regenerative braking, just like a Prius. My last car was a Prius. It does poorly going up mountain grades and the Mirai will suffer the same problem. Unlike a Prius, the power output of the PEM stack will be considerably lower by 75K miles. A BEV car can put out considerably more power for a longer time since it isn't restricted to the limited output of the PEM stack. I've taken my Tesla up a number of steep mountain grades where my Prius would struggle without breaking a sweat. The Tesla Model 3 and other long range BEVs will cost considerably less than the Mirai. The Model 3 will also have considerably more room inside and storage space. The ONLY advantage the Mirai has is that it can be filled relatively quickly. In just about every other metric it falls short. Today I can take my Tesla most places in the country with the number of places I can't drive to without superchargers rapidly diminishing. By the time the model 3 rolls out the entire country will be pretty much covered. As it is, in California where most of them are sold, even out of the way places are getting covered. There's a charging station going in right near the entrance to Yosemite, for example and even highway 395 along the eastern Sierra Nevada mountains is covered.
Let's compare:
Hydrogen filling stations
vs
Plugshare chargers
Tesla Superchargers
Tesla Superchargers by the end of 2016 (click on 2016). This number should double by 2017.
The closest hydrogen fueling station to my house is 15 miles away from my house. My EV charging station is in my garage. This covers over 90% of my driving needs. I pay $50/month for the electricity and drive around 1000 miles/month. According to this article, the Mirai
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know how much(or how little) electric vehicles are able to take advantage of 'regenerative braking' and/or the ability of electric motors to switch between forward and reverse extremely quickly in order to reduce the use of brake pads?
I'd assume that, for regulatory reasons if nothing else, there's just no way that a vehicle without reasonably conventional brakes is going to get approved for highway use; but, in practice, do hybrid or fully electric systems actually end up using their brake pads to slow down very often, or are they typically able to partially or wholly handle the matter within the motor?
Utter shit.
This is just another in a long line of lies, hysteria, propaganda and misinformation on all subjects. Anything that scares its readers into confirming their prejudices and knowing their place as consumer drones.
I have never heard of tire dust being considered a major health risk.
Where I live (.nl), in many places near houses, speed limits are much lower than the road design allows, in order to keep the fine dust in check. Since the advent of clean diesels, the majority of that comes from tires. Tire dust has always been a major health risk, containing irritants, allergenics and carcinogenic compounds and more. There's nothing new here, nevertheless everbody acts surprised :p
0x or or snor perron?!
"their owners are not as green as they thought" They probably are as green as they think though. Don't forget the elephant in the room: CO2. This is why most people buy electric vehicles: to curb CO2 emissions. Where I live most electricity is generated with nuclear power and some wind energy. In lots of places horrible power sources like coal and less obviously horrible but still bad sources like gas are still in use, but at least they can in principle be replaced. As the owner of the car you have reduced the most important part of your emissions by 100%; you've done everything you can. Now it's up to the power companies to do their part too.
This is just another one of those "studies" where they just take the numbers that fit their needs and ignore everything else.
http://theawesomer.com/lwt-sci...
From the abstract of the paper, it is clear that it is only interested in the particulate matter emissions. While I do not want to downplay the importance of such work, it does not address the carbon dioxide emissions at all. Modern internal combustions engines have gone a long way to reduce the PM emissions over the years but clearly carbon dioxide can not be.
A more interesting article would look at the total emission profile of electric vs internal combustion vehicles from iron ore to scrap yard.
Hey, you! Be quiet! Don't you know that everybody with an opinion is an (outspoken) expert now because of the internet?
We didn't have widespread distribution networks for gasolin either. Until we finally had. This is a classic chickend-or-egg problem.
In all this discussion of climate change, pollution, carbon emissions, etc... people almost always leave out the core problem. The solution to these problems starts and ends with having fewer people. With advances in technology, each of us, as individuals, pollutes much less on average than we did in the past. But there are so many more of us, that doesn't matter.
bacon cures cancer!
Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Awesome plan.
Pack people in more tightly.
Increase crime.
Increase conflict brought on by dense proximity.
Increase dependency on government programs.
Increase the absolute reliance on just-in-time shipping and stocking of goods.
And increase taxation to accomodate all the above.
When the predictable results of rebellion become dangerous, jail dissidents and begin capital punishment for crimes against the State.
Historically it's worked without a hitch in Soviet Russia, Maoist China, North Korea... Hey, wait a minute...
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
I wonder if slowing with the regenerative breaking is as efficient as just taking your foot off the gas and coasting for a while. That is assuming you can predict traffic well enough to not need some kind of breaking.
Thus electric cars can be taxed using the existing excuses.
Interesting report, thanks.
I'd like to add that it might be possible to improve on the regenerative braking. The Tesla model S for instance already comes with a dual motor, all-wheel-drive in all current versions. If Tesla can increase the regenerative braking power to approximately the power for accelerating, disc brakes could become a rarely used thing on the Tesla.
C - the footgun of programming languages
The Prius c is literally a Yaris Hybrid (it's marketed as such in some parts of the world). It's the Toyota Yaris -- a compact car -- with the Toyota Hybrid Synergy Drive in it. So, it's a Yaris, *plus* the weight of the HSD.
This is totally wrong. The Prius is a very different car from the Yaris.. They look very different, one is a 5 seater the over a 7 seater, there's a difference of over 2 feet in length, a 36 hp difference, etc.
Anyone who lives or works in a city knows having diesel exhaust blowing in your face is not comparable to fucking smoking tires... I thought they were going to take the power plant angle but this is nuts.
not so. compare Nissan Leaf to Versa, Mazda 3, etc. Compare Tesla Model S vs BMW 5 or 7 series, Audi A8, etc.
Most definitely not 25% differences in those groups.
I can say from experience sweeping public roads that are temporarily used as a racetrack once a year, that there is definitely such a thing as road dust. As you would expect, it's black, so it's probably mostly tire particles. But they don't get whirled up, because they're much too large and heavy (compared to something like diesel exhaust particulates).
Eat the rich.
The article is bollocks because it cites a fact you don't like? Diesels have produced lower PM since the introduction of particulate filters, which petrol engines still don't have.
living next to a well-travelled road, any idiot could tell you it is dustier next to the road than it is even only a block or two away from it.
When you use the brakes in an EV the brake pads generally aren't used, instead the motor is used as a generator converting kinetic energy into stored power. I don't see this mentioned in the abstract, are the authors really not including this?
Having RTFP, they do take regenerative braking into account - EV cars are assumed to use regen and have effectively zero brake-wear.
Did you happen to watch last Sunday's Last Week Tonight with John Oliver? He talked about this very type of bullshit reporting of not very meaningful studies.
When you use the brakes in an EV the brake pads generally aren't used, instead the motor is used as a generator converting kinetic energy into stored power. I don't see this mentioned in the abstract, are the authors really not including this?
The paper does take account of this: regenerative braking is assumed for EVs and (conservatively) zero brake-wear is assumed.
The front wheel bearings wore out on my Prius before the brake pads did. Around 180,000 miles. I replaced the front rotors and pads at the same time, but just because it was already all taken apart - there was still plenty of material on the old pads, maybe 5mm on the thinnest one? The rotors had some pitting from 7 years of winter salt.
TL;DR. Prius brake pads last a LONG time.
It depends. Are you at a speed where aero losses are bigger or smaller than the 66% (for a 2G Prius) round-trip wheels->battery->wheels efficiency?
"their owners are not as green as they thought" They probably are as green as they think though. Don't forget the elephant in the room: CO2. This is why most people buy electric vehicles: to curb CO2 emissions. Where I live most electricity is generated with nuclear power and some wind energy. In lots of places horrible power sources like coal and less obviously horrible but still bad sources like gas are still in use, but at least they can in principle be replaced. As the owner of the car you have reduced the most important part of your emissions by 100%; you've done everything you can. Now it's up to the power companies to do their part too.
No.
If they REALLY cared about reducing CO2 emissions, they'd ride mass transit or a bicycle and not drive a car - of any type. Because electric vehicles are powered by, oh, say, COAL.
Electric vehicles are mostly a positional good - they're used as "badges of honor" that show how much their owners "care" - by spending extra money to shave a few points off their CO2 footprint in lieu of actually giving up something.
They're "See how much I care about the planet! (But not enough to give up my car...)" badges of honor.
If anyone bothered to read the paper, you'd find that the study confined itself to the study of PM2.5 and PM10 emissions. Saying that this is "as bad as diesel" is at best misleading, at worst idiotic. Most diesel emissions are ultrafine, at PM0.1. You should also be comparing by number, not weight.
Go behind a regular "NEW" car and then behind an EV... tell me which one allows you to breathe. I bike to work regularly (when its not raining) and I can say for a fact that EV's would be much better on my lungs than any ICE!
Frekin big auto paid "research"...
study was done in a tunnel.
Not everybody has the money to (lawfully) subscribe to all closed-access journals in which "actual published scientific papers" appear, nor the opportunity to take time off work to visit a subscribing library during regular hours.
The weight of cars has increased dramatically in the last 30 years. The extra weight has gone partly into making the car safer. It would be fun if the lives saved by safer cars would be cancelled by the increase in bad air. You suppress a bump here and it pops up again in another place. In practice one would expect that the net effect is still positive.
This reminds me of a related problem with diesel. As diesel engines got optimized they started to emit increasing amounts of NOx. Well, maybe the net effect didn't increase, but in any case the engines ran hotter and this increased NOx production.
Scientists: Electric Vehicles Produce As Many Toxins As Dirty Diesels
is *not* what the original article in the scientific Journal says.
It more like: Brakes and Tires of electric cars produce as much (slightly more) dust as "dirty diesels" brakes an tires.
Nowhere there is anything about NOx and particles from the exhaust which is probably the main killer in "Dirty Diesels".
This just in: electric cars still have wheels; still use brakes! Film at 11!
No it's not. Stopping power in an emergency depends almost entirely on the tires, not the brakes -- assuming the brakes have the minimum level of capability necessary to lock up / engage the ABS -- and hybrids and EVs almost uniformly have incredibly terrible, skinny, low-rolling-resistance tires.
(Bigger brakes are only important in reducing fade caused by repeated braking.)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Personally I do not think that this is a big issue for electric cars being the weight of batteries is what causes tire wear. It is the fact that electric cars are so damn quick off the line. If we can only make electric vehicles as sluggish as gas cars the tire problem would go aware.
Launches don't eat your tires in EVs because they have such good traction control. What eats your tires is going around turns without traction, which causes sideways slip that causes the abrasive particles in the road to remove parts of your tires. What causes a lack of traction in turns is taking the turns too fast. What makes it too fast? The ultra low rolling resistance tires used on hybrids, which decrease cornering traction due to decreasing traction in general. So you can either drive your EV with respect for your tires, or for other drivers, who don't have the same shitty tire compound nor the same tiny contact patches. And incidentally, EVs and hybrids are quite heavy vehicles which put their weight on much less area than others due to their skinny, hard tires. That means they actually do more road damage!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If the article really claims that diesel has lower PM emissions than petrol, I think it's safe to say the entire article is bollocks and can be ignored.
You are bollocks and can be ignored. Why not educate yourself before "contributing"?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What part of "Prius c " did you not understand? The Prius and the Prius c are two completely fucking different cars! Wikipedia says:
If you're going to be an asshole and "correct" somebody, you'd better make sure you're not the one who's wrong first!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
FTA: "Future policy should consequently focus on setting standards for non-exhaust emissions and encouraging weight reduction of all vehicles to significantly reduce PM emissions from traffic." http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
Over time batteries will get smaller, lighter, and more efficient. So weight on an electric car is not fixed versus on a conventional car.
Not the usual home/work car but the weight of today's hybrid Formula 1 cars is 702 kg, driver included, fuel excluded. They must race with at most 100 kg of fuel. Ten years ago (v8 engines) the minimum weight was 595 kg. It's a 18% increase. Most of it is because of the batteries, electric engines and turbo gradually introduced in the last years. The result is the cars are a little slower than they used to be, with the exception of a couple of tracks where the hybrids broke the old lap record. The first thing you usually do to make a car faster is to make it lighter. They're spending more money per year than they did in the past only to be technologically relevant, not to race better. The last two years were a fight between two Mercedes drivers and this year there could be no fight at all.
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/201...
Granted I'm getting old and my eyes probably aren't working as well as they used to... when I'm driving at 60-80mph on the interstate... it's often hard to make out much of any 'dust' on the roads other than snow... which has this odd tendency to come down in significant volumes then be blown away.
Where do you imagine tires and brakes go as they get worn down? They just vanish into the celestial aether?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Likely a paid shill of the oil industry
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...
Story and facts aside, headline was definitely written for hippies.
Put better tires on your car and stop driving dealer tires.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
10 -15% ... tell that to someone that lives on a busy street ...
They may as well claim blinker fluid and muffler bearing emissions for all the accuracy in the article, and it would become no less accurate.
Tire and road emissions? Really?
I am aware that as with most substances, there is some amount of outgassing and perhaps even predictable if not measurable sublimation of many materials in vehicles... but to claim that any of it is statistically significant is beyond ridiculous. As far as the tire and road emissions go, it's just solid dust, not gaseous, and will settle (I'm sure some rubber from the tires is vaporized at times, but it's negligible). The environmental impact of that is negligible (what is not negligible is when some fucktard salvage yard owner "accidentally" burns piles of tires rather than recycle them).
Brake dust - not so bad as they have moved away from asbestos pads to semi-metallic and ceramic pads. Pad composition iron, cellulose, and glass, or ceramic composites, and it's not like your car is emitting kilograms of this stuff per hour; more like a few grams over thousands of hours, plus a bit of iron from the rotors over that period. It's negligible.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Heh... I did the same with my F-150, more or less. Only it was 10yrs 175,000 miles.
In other news... the lifetime of the brake pad has less than zero to do with this article, unless there was a standard for the material, the size of the contact surface, the depth of the material, the pressure application, the ABS timing, and the composition of the rotor.
Hydrogen storage is effectively a combination of a gasoline car with its gas cap off and a Tesla with a slow short in its battery: the hydrogen is impossible to properly contain (and so dissipates slowly, even through an inch of high-density solid steel, just like if you left your gas cap off and your gasoline evaporated) and requires extreme cooling to reasonably store (usually liquid nitrogen, although liquid helium retains the hydrogen in a properly-built tank for *much* longer; and the LN2 cooling system requires active electrical pumps).
There is no reason to believe storage of hydrogen will ever improve to the point of storing it in a low-energy, low-seepage containment unit. The most advanced hydrogen storage is combining it with carbon to form hydrocarbon--typically methane.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Not even close and I've got the freight scales to prove it. The fucking Tesla Model S-60 weighs 1961kg. A comparably-sized car would be the 2016 Taurus, at 1962kg.
25% my fucking ass, son.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Search your feelings. You know it be true.
"But hydrogen has terrible energy density"
You must be smoking crack. If hydrogen had terrible density, we'd not be using it in HIGH-YIELD NUCLEAR WEAPONRY.
Hydrogen compressed at 700bar has an energy density of 142 MJ/kg.
Diesel is 48 MJ/kg, literally less than 1/3rd of hydrogen.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Research done. I see plenty of loaded hydrogen bombs, at least 20+ years old, in our stockpiles.
I've also done the energy density numbers.
Perhaps you should be quiet until you're actually working with this stuff.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
And you're wrong. Try again when you've actually got an education on the subject outside of Fox News reports.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Put better tires on your car and stop driving dealer tires.
You could do that, yes. In order to get substantially better tires, you would also have to upgrade the wheels. Having upgraded the tires and wheels, you would find that you have substantially increased both wind resistance and rolling resistance, and that you have substantially compromised your mileage and thus your range.
Or you could just slow down, and drive the vehicle like it's meant to be driven. That, however, would require fucking off to the right side of the highway, and we all know that hybrid drivers like to hang out in the passing lane so you get to go around them... usually spending more fuel to do so in a timely fashion.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
As a cyclist, I find that the vast majority of choking pollution comes from a minority of vehicles: old beater trucks and cars, motorcycles, oversized pickup trucks, and industrial vehicles.
You can get Continental's Extreme Contact DWS 06 model for the Toyota Prius stock, which is a particularly high-performance all-season. It's not as high-performance as the Goodyear Assurance TripleTred, which performs almost as well in wet/dry as high-performance summer tires when loaded onto a non-performance passenger vehicle (don't put TripleTreds on your Pontiac GTO and expect PolePosition performance; don't put PolePositions on your Mazda 3 and expect race car performance and a huge improvement in handling characteristics over TripleTreds).
Various top-performing Ponteza summer tires are available for the Toyota Prius stock size as well, although I seriously doubt they outperform a high-end UHP All-Season when mounted on something like a Prius.
Many of these tires hold their form rigid when inflated to rated pressure, rather than bulging. You can run them at a full 50PSI (I've run S04 PolePositions and my TripleTreds at a full 50PSI on a 2,800 pound Mazda 3) at all times in all conditions with all vehicle loads. That gives you a round profile and reduces rolling resistance, while also increasing contact patch pressure and reducing braking distance in wet and dry conditions. For the snow you want real snow tires; UHP all-seasons will drive you around pretty well, but nothing like a real snow tire. I just compensate by driving slower and more cautiously in snow.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Who knew that stuff was so deadly toxic? Really?
First off, electric cars use their brake pads less, not more. Regenerative brakes do most of the work, and the brakes last 2-3x longer than a regular gasoline car. Tire do last a little less long, but most of those are big particles, and I have never heard of tire dust being considered a major health risk.
Sounds like a hatchet job...
Paper takes this into account, their calculations are based on 0 mg/vkm brake wear for EVs.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Yes, it does. 0 mg/vkm brake wear for EVs. Directly from the paper.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Slowing with regenerative braking is not as efficient as just modulating your speed to avoid having to brake. Some figures I've seen say regen braking is 80% efficient. That's always seemed high to me, but I've seen the figure more than once.
In any case, best is to control your speed (within reason, so you don't impede other vehicles), use regen when you have to slow down, and only use the friction brakes when a sudden stop is required.
BTW, different vehicles have differing amounts of regenerative braking, so just because it's very gentle on one vehicle and you may use the friction brakes a lot, doesn't mean that other vehicles don't have aggressive regen braking. It's pretty seldom that I have to tap the brake pedal on my Honda Fit EV...
Gasoline engines do in fact put out a lot of particulates, and always have. It just doesn't seem that way because the size distribution is weighted more towards the smaller end of the spectrum than it is for Diesels, so the soot is less visible. Of course, since smaller particles are worse for people's health than larger ones, it could be argued that gasoline engines are actually worse than Diesels and that the regulations targeting Diesel emissions are actually based on bad science.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Hydrogen is difficult and dangerous to store (both because of its flammability and the high pressure needed to store enough of it in a reasonably-small space). However, there is a solution: simply add a little bit of carbon to it and you end up with an energy-dense liquid fuel that's much easier to handle -- so easy, in fact, that we've already built the infrastructure to do it!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I keep having these Prius drivers pull out in front of me - drive as if they are overly entitled.
My theories have been divided between high on pot or trying to get mileage to brag about.
The only real solution is electric hovercars.
That may be true of the eGolf but some hybrids charge differently. The Volt for example does not charge beyond 80% when plugged in, leaving a 20% cushion for regenerative braking.
Cities need to move to a ski-lift small "PeoplePod" using monorails over sidewalks and parking places with linear motors and plenty of self-sensing computer controls to get people from one spot to another without any liquids, consequential brake or tire dust.
The alternative is roads continually more congested and resources wasted when people travel at only an average of 20-40 mph, which a pod can average just to get out 1-10 miles typically.
It's been proven over and over how clean solar is. Argue all you want about toxins used to produce solar panels. But the return on clean energy is far cleaner than pumping diesel into your tank!
The US lags behind many countries in renewable energy to no surprise. Just like bankers, the oil industry is in your congressman's pockets!
Even nuclear is cleaner!
Everything about what you just said is ridiculous.
My Insight has ~180k on it, factory brake pads are at ~40%.
Resuspension is caused by the wake of a vehicle, which in turn is determined by the size, weight and aerodynamics of the vehicle.
At first I didn't understand what they meant by "resuspension". I was confused because they lump this in and still call it an "emission". It doesn't seem to me to be accurate to call this an emission. That makes it seem like that PM is coming from the car in question. Is this important to understand in terms of measuring air quality near a road? Sure. Is it misleading to call it an emission? I think so...
I'm also not sure it's accurate to measure resuspension by weight. While it is true that a larger car will resuspend more particles than a smaller one, it seems to me that aerodynamic drag (and speed) is the important factor to consider here, and EVs tend to be pretty clean aerodynamically (in order to get the range up). So, to assume that a smaller, aerodynamically clean (but heavier) EV will stir up more PM sitting around on the road surface than a vehicle of greater size that weighs the same just seems wrong.
On the highway this will likely be even more true. Electric vehicles take a big hit from drag if they are driven fast. On the shorter range EVs (like my Honda Fit EV) I tend to drive much slower on the highway than when I'm in my ICE vehicle. This almost certainly means I'm stirring up a lot more PM in my ICE car on the highway than my EV. (but, Tesla drivers probably drive faster than I do because their bigger battery gives them the luxury of doing that...)
By using the data from Simons (2013) on the effect of weight on emissions and the average exhaust and non-exhaust emission from the various emission inventories, we can compare the total PM emissions from EVs with those from gasoline and diesel cars. When we do this, we find that EVs emit the same amount of PM10 as modern gasoline and diesel cars. See Table 5 for the comparisons.
See, this just seems misleading to be comparing ICE vs EV emissions and have resuspension as part of that equation. And the resuspension number is really large. When you eliminate that, the EV looks very good compared to the ICE vehicles.
Is that fully charged or not? :-P
Its amazing that you all fall hook, line and sinker for climate change based on the science, knowing full well the data sets used as the basis for that science were cherry picked and manipulated time and time again.. you don't even question it. But here we have some more science that doesnt support your bias and all of the sudden its bullshit. In most of your words "he's a scientist who are YOU to question it?!?!" fucking hypocrites.
Ok, but I've been wondering for a while why Toyota and Honda were pushing Hydrogen so hard, and saying EV wasn't the way to go.
The cynic in me believed this was their way to make it look like they were working on non-polluting vehicles without having to actually produce any (because the production and fueling infrastructure would delay the deployment for several decades).
I've seen some things lately that Honda might be finally be changing their minds about producing EVs (and I really enjoy the Honda Fit EV I lease from them).
Anyone know any other reasons why Toyota and Honda are/were so gung ho for H2 instead of EV?
They don't take into account particulate emissions from the 'dirty' diesels here and, so, this seems awfully deceptive. If you add together particulate emissions from diesel engines *plus* emissions from their brakes, tires, etc., you're still going to wind up with more than electric cars which have zero emissions from their engines. This, even if non-engine particulate emissions are elevated due to the weight of electrics.
Regenerative braking dramatically reduces brake wear.
Are they seriously arguing that the 1/2" of tread wear over 36,000 miles is a serious pollutant? All that smog in the LA basin must be caused by tire wear, brake wear and electrons falling out of batteries.
I call shenanigans. To be fair I propose a test, we take the authors of this article into an enclosed garage where first an EV vehicle will run at 60mph on rollers for 60 minutes then a gas vehicle for 60 minutes. Then can post a report after each run. I look forward to their results.
Lies to prove your point, or just ignorance?
Taurus is a much bigger car than the Tesla for starters. And the S-60 has very low autonomy, but lets go with it.
Taurus specs: http://www.edmunds.com/ford/ta...
Tesla specs: http://www.edmunds.com/tesla/m...
The Tesla is 700lbs heavier than one of the heaviest sedans you could find for your comparison AND its a smaller car.
If you want to call bullshit, makes sure you smell your reply first.
Which is marvellous, except for the fact that the filters aren't fully effective till hot, so they don't work well on short journeys (read: most urban traffic) or in cold days. And they are fairly frequently removed on the after-market to improve performance. And lots of the diesel fleet is old and therefore does not have modern filters, and in many cases has no fIlter at all. So in real world conditions, diesel cars emit much more PM than petrol cars.
That article says not a single word about the relative emissions of petrol and diesel cars. It's sweet that you think it's relevant, but then, you also think that a phrase like "you are bollocks" is meaningful English, so I guess it's not terribly surprising.
What part of "Prius c " did you not understand?
The part where the 'c' was not a typo. Never heard of the 'Prius c' before despite looking at hybrid cars recently. So I stand corrected.
If you're going to be an asshole and "correct" somebody, you'd better make sure you're not the one who's wrong first!
And if you feel the urge to insult people it means you should cool off a bit before posting...
If you really thought about how much work it is to wire EVERY parking space with electrical wiring capable enough to charge an electric car, you would realize just how breathtakingly wrong your statement is.
FAR easier to build 100 hydrogen stations across a city than wire a million parking spaces.
Not to mention MAINTAINING a few million miles of wiring and complex charging stations compared to a relative handful of stations.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
the disc pads on a vehicle are very small compared with the fuel burned. Imagine a 0.1kg brake pad [...] verses 160'000 Litres of fuel burned
This is more-or-less irrelevant. Modern ICE engines are very good at ensuring that fuel is thoroughly burned, so there are no remaining particulate emissions. It's entirely reasonable that the fraction of the fuel mass that ends up as particulates is less than one in a million, so burning 160,000 litres of fuel produces less particulates than abrading 0.1 kg of brake pad.
The GP's point here is the relevant one: electric cars produce less particulate emissions both because (a) they don't have an exhaust, and (b) they primarily use electromagnetic braking instead of brake pads.
Just some quick back-of-napkin math shows the numbers presented aren't sound.
A typical car tire masses slightly under 10kg. Less than half of that mass is tread.
Average driving distance is 15,000 km/year.
Based on that, and the numbers above, their theoretical cars would be driving on the steel belts in their tires in about 4.5 years (67,500 km). Car tires are commonly rated at 50,000 miles (~80,500 km) before tread wear should be a concern.
...except during warmup, any time the ambient temperature is under 20C, when more than 75% throttle is depressed, and all the other exemptions manufacturers are allowed...
Truth. Damage to roads is proportional to between the 4th and 5th power of axle weight, depending on roadbed construction.
As a hunch, heavy trucks are likely also responsible for the vast majority of roadside non-exhaust particulates with passenger vehicles (electric or non) being rounding-error.
Wow, this article is super hinky. How did this get past moderation? Next we'll be hearing that Cowboy Neal 's poll options cause nuclear waste.
Fiber pollution from tattered sails is at an all time high, contributing to nothing bad!
Did I mention the majority of the population lives near shore! Move em inland boys!
Only if you are using a Mr. Fusion in your car. Otherwise, you sir are the one smoking crack. Using hydrogen in a fuel cell(or burning it) is not fusion.
That supercharger map does look like pretty impressive coverage.
However, I don't really find that 100% helpful. If I'm just driving around town, I won't use 200 miles in a day, and can easily charge at home. If I'm driving long distances, the dang thing takes too long to charge even with the Supercharger.
For example, I'm noticing from one of those maps that there are about 4 stations proposed between Tulsa and St. Louis (the old hallowed RT66 route), roughly 160 miles apart. The car's advertised range is about 200 miles. I could charge to 80% in about half an hour, but that would be cutting it really close, with no room for error (or air-conditioning). So I'll want to spend at least an entire hour, if not the full 90 minutes, charging at each stop. This turns what is about a 6-hour trip in a gasoline car (counting fuel stops) into a 9+ hour trip. Effectively, you spend more than A THIRD of your trip sitting around waiting for a charge.
OTOH, if I were running one of those traditional roadside "tourist trap"s, I'd be all over getting myself on this charging network. Might as well go look over the World's Largest Ball of Twine while you are charging.
I've never seen an S60 on the road. Al S-85's. Fucking your ass with an extra 25 something or other prob accounts for the 25%.
TL;DR: "Daily Fail" reporting fails again.
FTFY
assume 2000 g of tread mass per tire (~20%)
assume 4 tires
6.1mg / 4 tires = 1.525 mg tire wear "emissions" per vehicle km per tire
assume total tire wear is 10x higher than "emissions": 15.25 mg total tire tread wear per vehicle km per tire
allows for ~131,000 km of tire life.
I am not so sure about the rational of classifying "re-suspension" as an "emission" however.
No, they are exactly the same weight as the same-sized ICE vehicle (where "size" is measured by "mass").
What the fuck is "resusupension" (no, of course I didn't RTFA, this is Slashdot!)? Are they talking about how much loose dust the vehicle kicks up (resuspends) as it goes by? Are they taking into account the drag coefficient of the vehicle? (EVs tend to be more aerodynamic than ICE vehicles, to save battery power at speed).
My Tesla stops just fine with only regenerative braking. I apply the brakes to keep from moving on hills until it's time to move again.
Uhh, did you bother doing a simple google search on curb weight?
If so, you'd see the EXACT NUMBERS LISTED for the EXACT MODELS LISTED.
Here's a screencap for your lazy ass.
Try again when your bullshit cannot be defeated by simple direct screencaptures.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
And then, to further compound the error of your ways, here's a screencap of the dimensions of both vehicles.
The difference in size is essentially fucking NEGLIGIBLE.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Agreed, I have a Prius C, hardly ever activate the friction brakes (aside from coming to a complete stop after slowing with the regenerative), and have yet to notice any brake dust buildup (unlike any other car I've ever owned) on the rims. I'd be shocked if I didn't get over 50k miles on the original pads.. in fact I think I can do 100k at the current rate of use.
On the other hand, my Hyundai Elantra only weights about 200lbs more.. and I'm on my third set of pads at 65k miles.
I can smell the burrrnnn a mile away. :-)
Most polution is produced in towns with cars idling and not on the motorway and don't most electric cars use regenerative braking. It would be interesting to know who funded this report and is there a link to it.
So your screen cap shows the Tesla is a smaller car.
What is your point again?
7" isn't negligible on a vehicle.
I posted the links to the specs, which contained the right Curb Weights for comparison.
Taurus : 3969 lbs (SE, smallest version for 2016)
Tesla : 4647 lbs (s-70, smallest version for 2016)
Now, if you want to cheat and use the curb weight of a Taurus SHO AWD V6 Twin Turbo. Then by all means, you win, I guess....
p.s. Also, There is no S-60 model for Tesla in 2016...
If you paid attention to actual time scales in actual published scientific papers instead of sexed up headlines you wouldn't be saying that.
The predicted high rate of warming from the early work of NASA and the IPCC has already been falsified. This is why more recent IPCC reports forecast much lower rates of warming (while still predicting catastrophe).
For instance observed sea level rise has always been faster than predicted in any of the IPCC reports.
The sea level is hardly rising at all right now; it is plain to see from the actual data that a massive acceleration in the rise would be required to fulfil the predictions of flooded cities and so forth. Moreover, those dramatic predictions come from sensational numbers like 7 meters, but these days the IPCC is predicting a rise of less than 1 meter over the next century, which would be more than usual, but still not terribly exciting in the grand scheme of things.
So the rubber, metal and ceramic particles released by a car will be the same if the car is electric. Breathing those will be worse then disel exhaust. How about breathing those with disel exhaust at the same time? What if you add a cup of used engine oil to that?
I like arguing a different point
Let's mandate ANOTHER multi-billion dollar policy nostrum for global warming without bothering to check to see if it works!
Of course the heaviest vehicles would cause the most of this type of pollution. Essentially this is BEST viewed as yet another reason to disparage heavy, wasteful, vehicles like SUVs. Vehicles that are typically accelerated maximally, and braked in the same fashion. Of course, since I drive a Prius, and never had a brake job done in ~70K miles I had my first one, I sincerely question the hypothesis that hybrids create more particulates than non-hybrid vehicles of the same weight/class (my Neon needed new brakes @30K).
Yeah, vehicles pollute. But saying that the heaviest EV cause more damage than other vehicles of the same weight is silly.
They usually do try and place the superchargers at places where there are things to do nearby. Many of them are located within easy walking distance of malls and restaurants. Tesla has also said that they plan to double the number of charging places in the next year. My guess is that they'll have multiple battery options, just like they do for the Model S. It really would not surprise me if they come out with a version with an EPA rated range of 300 miles.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
I have a Corolla with about 110k miles and the original brakes. Anecdotes are fun, this one is true but it doesn't mean all Corollas get 110k miles on their brakes.
It is when the overall cubic-inch usage is not even 0.5% (actual, not calculated by simple lxwxh) off from each other.
And even if you calculated JUST on lxwxh, the size difference is ~8%.
Do you fail at numbers?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Year of manufacture means jack shit. The comparison still works as they're both in the same fucking actual car class despite what they may call it.
Car dealerships, I've worked at 'em.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
In my case, my Prius was used in Boston commuter traffic, with occasional New England highway trips. I averaged a little less than 10K a year. For dealing that well with years of Boston commuter traffic (and general service phobic performance) I think the designers of the Prius should get kudos. If I hadn't totaled my first, I expect (body integrity aside) it would still be right & tight. With the Electronic Traction & Stability package, it was a surprisingly nimble car through our (many) round-a bouts and still able to keep MPGs near 50 in warm weather. If the Prius was so hard on tires/etc, it was still WAY better than my Neon Sport. And to try to pin schmutz on a hybrid when mini vans devour front brake pads is silly.
You got owned, son.
CAPTCHA: farthing
And if you feel the urge to insult people it means you should cool off a bit before posting...
Unless he's a fire elemental, you insensitive clod!
I did, about a day after posting my comment. Well worth watching. Clearly, I'm just retroactively prescient.
Coming up in next month's newsletter:
Eating bacon can extend your life by several years!
In a controlled study, one group of people ate only bacon for all meals, and lived several years longer than the control group! The control group consumed the exact same diet, but without the bacon. While the control group mostly died within a month or two, the bacon-eaters survived several years before succumbing to normal diseases like heart attack, arteriosclerosis, and uncontrollable joy from eating bacon.
They need to disclose a lot more of their methodology for this to be taken seriously. Regenerative braking that is used very heavily in electric cars cause a lot less brake pad use - not more. Teslas have normal tire wear for the type of tire they use. I don't have experience with other electric cars, but they are all small vehicles. It raises an important point I hadn't considered but certainly not to the detriment of electric cars.
Greed is the root of all evil.
I have no idea what a 2016 Taurus is, but 1961kg is very heavy for a passenger car, even a large one like the Tesla Model S. Most large cars are well under 1600kg. Moreover, the Model S-60 was the lightest model, which they stopped making last year. Current Tesla's are even heavier.
It may be true for "dirty diesel" operating with emission controls on, but not for "clean diesel" (TM) that has emission controls legally (or not) disabled because outside temperature is lower than 18 C or just because some CEO pushed to meet unrealistic targets.
You got owned again but are too dumb to realize it. We all laugh at you, high school dropout.
Sure. but what does that have to do with this thread? The point isn't about safety. The point is EV's may be heavier than a comparable ICE today but they will drop in weight. Thus if heavier == more polluting, then EV"s will evolve to pollute less. And btw, the crash data shows that more people get hurt/die in heavier vehicles than the lighter ones, especially top heavy SUV's. Light cars being dangerous is a fearmongered myth.
Nope, you fail at numbers and logic. Again. And again. And again.
Let's recap. You disputed the 25% number here: "25% my fucking ass, son." in your normal insulting way. It would be a wrong approach even if you were correct, but your own arguments are going to prove you to be incorrect.
Let's look at the size difference that you say is ~8%. Math says the true number is 9.4%. Let's show how this works.
Taurus
(203 ) x (76 ) x (61 ) = 15 421.997 liters
Tesla
(196 ) x (77 ) x (57 ) = 14 096.8735 liters
15422 / 14097 = 1.094 = 9.4% difference.
So you picked a comparison of a larger car to try to make your point.
Weight of a Taurus: 3969 lbs.
Weight of a Tesla: 4647 lbs.
Tesla is 17% heavier than a larger gas powered car.
Factor in the 9.4% weight difference and the claim of 25% heavier is true.
Now, will you admit you are wrong? No, you won't. Psychologically you are incapable of doing so. But people like me will continue to ridicule your behavior.
Oh, and your "actual" cubic inches fail as well.
Taurus
EPA INTERIOR VOLUME 122.3 cu.ft
Tesla
EPA INTERIOR VOLUME 120.0 cu.ft.
If you calculated this to be under 0.5% then you need to stop talking trash. Seriously. Even if we choose to use these interior cubic feet numbers, cbeaudry's claim of 25% isn't far off the mark and if you are arguing about 20% vs 25% you really are a bigger ass than I thought.
"Taurus
EPA INTERIOR VOLUME 122.3 cu.ft
Tesla
EPA INTERIOR VOLUME 120.0 cu.ft."
That's not 25% heavier, or larger, by any means.
Try again when your karma hasn't tanked enough that you can post using your account.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
" the claim of 25% heavier is true."
You're trying to use OTHER NUMBERS versus my posted numbers.
You are being 100% disingenuous and you fucking know it. That's why you had to post as AC this time, your karma bombed like a fucking tank from every other person on this planet proving your sorry ass wrong.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I may be a dropout but I kept learning and now possess three degrees. Whatcha got, anonymous furry trash? Not a goddamned thing but your shitty lulz.net website.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
But I guess you had mod points and that's why you were posting anonymously.
Everything about that is still ridiculous, BTW.
You are a stupid individual. I already showed that the weight is 17% larger, so the fact that you cannot follow a simple train of thought shows your stupidity.
As for 4 degrees, I sincerely doubt it. The only way you'd reach four degrees is if you stood outside naked in a snow storm.
C'mon! Let's get into context here. What about the CO2 and NO emissions?! You CANNOT expect me to believe a gas-powered vehicle is no dirtier than an electric vehicle! How about my horse? It farts methane regularly! Talk about "pollution"! So, come on now, and get all context accurate and divulged here.
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
On the off chance this were real, If the weight of vehicles is a concern for pollution, and Diesels are a big polluter for internal combustion engines, shouldn't interstate trucking be the biggest concern not electric cars? Freight trains are more efficient and less polluting per ton than trucks and can get the cargo most of the way to any destination.
Side note - although there are a lot of hazardous materials and pollutants involved in creating and disposing electric and hybrid vehicles, these can all be easily contained and controlled at the source, vs low efficiency burning of fuel throughout the lifetime of the vehicles.
Depends on the source of electricity. In the 12 advanced US states and 4 advanced Canadian provinces with green energy for 50-100 percent of their electricity mix, this is a false analogy.
Only if you live in a deadender state or province that still uses coal to make electricity is this true.
If you live in the West, this is definitely NOT THE CASE.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Most Tesla drivers have "regenerative breaking" enabled so you almost never use the break pedal except for emergencies. Breaking comes from electromagnetic resistance which also charge the car instead of wearing down the break pads.
And ow much could be reduced by investing in infrastructure. Repaired roads would reduce particulate from the roads and alleviate congestion that leads to more use of the brake.
Nope, the numbers I used were the same that you used in your little png. And no I am not the person who you argued with. But he happens to be right, and you are wrong. But you cannot admit this because you are incapable of doing so.
Pro tip: when you are wrong, admit it and people will actually think more highly of you.
Of the 5 Prii that I have owned the average 'first brake job' is well pas t150,000. Contrast that to the Dodge vehicles we drove before that where attaining 40,000 on a set of brakes was extraordinary! Our Toyota dealer echoes this explaining that the average Prius goes 'about double' the miles of a Corolla before needing brakes.
There are two rules to success in life: 1) Don't tell everyone all that you know.
Since ICE cars already have all the same pollutants, you can't single out electric cars as being unique or new - basically they are table stakes or sunk costs to any comparison. It's only everything else that matters!
" I already showed that the weight is 17% larger,"
No, you didn't. You cherry-picked a number after I had already set a specific baseline, your proof isn't shit.
Try admitting you're right and your karma might come back to normal.
"As for 4 degrees, I sincerely doubt it. "
Considering I said absolutely nothing about 4 degrees anywhere, I can only assume you're on fucking drugs, which explains your argumentativeness and inability to process information properly.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Hybrids and electric vehicles barely have any brake wear. It's not zero, but damned close. When you brake any vehicle capable of regenerative braking (electrics or hybrids) you simply use the motor as a generator and turn your forward motion to battery charge. The brake pads only make contact as you come to a stop at the very end, or if you are braking harder than the battery can accept charge.
So I call bullshit on the methodology of whoever did the study.
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
If you want to call bullshit, makes sure you smell your reply first.
Tell me though - are you concerned by this? does this make you believe that EV's are dirty?
It then follows, do you take the lightest EV out there and declare every vehicle that weighs more than it as unacceptable?
Personally, if I was teh type of person who liked his Escalade or Lexus LX570, I would be telling the Daily Mail to shut the hell up. Because my Lexus at 6000 pounds curb weight is not only throwing off more of these particulates, but has it's IC pollution as well. If it's bad for say a Tesla, it's much worse for a cehicle that has alomst two normal cars of weight. Glass houses, meet their brick.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Did I say any of those things? Or do you just like to make up stories in your head and pretend others believe in them?
I called someone out on vehicle specs, full stop.
This is hilarious. I'll just sit back and have some popcorn!
Your baseline was wrong, as was demonstrated to you.
Why would he use your baseline then?
Did I say any of those things? Or do you just like to make up stories in your head and pretend others believe in them?
I called someone out on vehicle specs, full stop.
No - I like to ask questions. Answer or do not answer - It is your option. And if you do not answer - or if you demand I don't ask the questions, that is also an answer.
Thank you, you have answered very well.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The predicted high rate of warming from the early work of NASA [wattsupwiththat.com] and the IPCC [wattsupwiththat.com] has already been falsified. This is why more recent IPCC reports forecast much lower rates of warming (while still predicting catastrophe).
Your first cite is about James Hansen's 1988 model. Hansen used 3 scenarios for future emissions of greenhouse gases, Scenario 1 was continued acceleration, B was slowing to a constant growth rate and C was rapid decline after 2000. Watts' headline is based on comparing Scenario A to observations but in reality Scenario B is closest to reality but slightly higher than observations. Hansen's model also had too high a value for climate sensitivity (around 4.2 IIRC) while subsequent research came up with a value around 3.2. If you fixed those two thing Hansen's 1988 model would probably come pretty close to observed temperatures. It was still a remarkable piece of work nearly 30 years ago.
The sea level is hardly rising at all right now; it is plain to see from the actual data [epa.gov] that a massive acceleration in the rise would be required to fulfil the predictions of flooded cities and so forth. Moreover, those dramatic predictions come from sensational numbers like 7 meters [theguardian.com], but these days the IPCC is predicting a rise of less than 1 meter over the next century, which would be more than usual, but still not terribly exciting in the grand scheme of things.
There are already cities like Miami and Norfolk, VA that are flooding in areas when the king tides occur. It's only going to get worse as the slow steady rise of sea level continues. If you look closely that EPA graph does show some acceleration.
In the Guardian article I think you misread "several meters" as "7 meters". Several meters of sea level rise this century is impossible to rule out. We don't know much about the dynamics of ice sheet breakup. There could be a catastrophic failure of an ice sheet causing a foot or more of sea level rise in a decade. Even if that doesn't happen do you think a SLR of around 3 feet by 2100 wouldn't cause massive problems for low lying cities?
There is merit in reporting about particulates. They are real. They are bad to breath. Most come from burning coal. Particulates produced by cars & trucks & trains etc. should be monitored and reduced over time too. Who's brilliant idea was it to make it a face off between gas and electric cars?! CO2 is the planet killer. Don't derail the conversation for a few cheap clicks.
this was not an exhaustive study.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
hydrogen is miserable to handle. it's corrosive to metal, it doesn't liquefy nicely (volume for volume, there is more hydrogen in gasoline than in liquid hydrogen), and when it burns the flame is hard to see in daylight. the only advantage of hydrogen is that it could bridge the gap; used as fuel for heat engine vehicles, or in fuel cells for electric vehicles.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
What's a reasonable time? It takes only a few seconds after arriving home to plug in an electric car. Is a few seconds reasonable?
For longer journeys, there are fast DC chargers which will charge Teslas or other brands to 80% charge in about 30 minutes. Unfortunately, there are 3 incompatible standards for the DC chargers.
come to think of it, there are three grades of gas at the gas station too, not to mention diesel.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
True - it is a non-falsifiable hypothesis, since every time another "point of no return" prediction fails, they reschedule it another 5-20 years out.
well, if you think about, whenever we reach a point of no return, we never do return.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
And...... I presume the average driver changes the oil in the internal combustion engine once in a while. The used crankcase oil isn't exactly suitable for frying chicken in. AFAIK you don't have to do that to an electric motor. One more score for the electric. Not sure what goes on re transmission lube, needs replacing or what.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Diesels are problematic due to the number of PM10s and smaller they produce, which can be directly inhaled.
The important part (and which is omitted) is what the size of these extra particles are. Larger ones fall out of the air very quickly.
This is Khyber's MO. He likes to spout off at the mouth and put others down. When he is shown to be wrong, he doubles down. He likes to brag about all of his accomplishments when in reality he hasn't done 1/2 the things he brags about. Deep down he is an insecure and miserable person.
3 degrees, 4 degrees... either way you are full of shit. You cannot even divide two numbers properly, remember the numbers you provided or even follow a basic line of logic. Go brag about how smart you are when everyone can see how dumb you are.
This makes sort of sense but problem is that at least for Tesla the brakes last 150,000 miles not 30-40,000 like conventional cars and the tires are lasting the same 40,000 I get with regular usage. I doubt that there is any additional wear. I don't deny what the article says but they may not have considered that the weight may change its linear relationship with electric vehicles because of other factors. One question would be what size are the particulates being generated? The ones of most concern are the ones at the 2.5um type because these are the ones associated with heart, lung disease and cancer.
Watts' headline is based on comparing Scenario A to observations but in reality Scenario B is closest to reality but slightly higher than observations.
Hansen's scenario A has mankind's CO2 output rising exponentially at 1.5% per year (see the second paragraph on page 5 of the original paper) since 1988, but the actual rate of increase has been substantially higher - about 2% per year based on this graph from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Hansen's scenario A has the average global surface temperature rising over 1 C between 1988 and 2014 (see figure 3 on page 7 of Hansen's paper). The actual temperature rise during that period was somewhere between 0.2 C and 0.4 C depending on which of the many data sets you believe.
Since Hansen's basic hypothesis was "more CO2 emissions = faster warming", scenario B certainly was not "closest to reality"; in fact none of his scenarios is at all realistic, since (empirically) he completely failed to accurately predict the relationship between CO2 and temperature - which was the entire point of his paper.
Hansen's model also had too high a value for climate sensitivity (around 4.2 IIRC) while subsequent research came up with a value around 3.2.
[1 C] * [3.2/4.2] = [0.76 C], which is still about double the observed temperature rise.
There is a reason that so much effort has been invested by alarmists into trying to make excuses for the lower-than-predicted temperatures - it's because temperatures have been lower than they predicted! That's still true, even if you use more recent models with less dramatic sensitivity to CO2.
There are already cities like Miami and Norfolk, VA that are flooding in areas when the king tides occur.
Don't be ridiculous - Miami (1.8 m) and Miami Beach (1.2 m) were both built practically at sea level to begin with; they have always been highly vulnerable to flooding since their founding. The sea level has only risen perhaps 0.25 m since that time, whereas the natural range of tides + waves + storm surges is 5+ m (especially in hurricane country!).
Norfolk, Virginia is likewise built at such a low elevation (2.1 m) that flooding problems are inevitable, although in their case the founding was long enough ago (1682) that the danger may be due to subsidence and pre-AGW sea level rise, rather than it originally being an obviously bad location.
If you look closely that EPA graph does show some acceleration.
Hardly, unless you want to count the little bump at the end which is too short to be statistically significant given how chaotic the climate system is.
In the Guardian article I think you misread "several meters" as "7 meters".
No, the original paper contains numerous statements along these lines: "Sea level reached 6–9 m in the Eemian, a time that we have concluded was probably no more than a few tenths of a degree warmer than today."
The introduction also makes reference to an earlier paper: "This uncertainty is illustrated by Pollard et al. (2015), who found that addition of hydro-fracturing and cliff failure into their ice sheet model increased simulated sea level rise from 2 to 17 m, in response to only 2 C ocean warming and accelerated the time for substantial change from several centuries to several decades."
Several meters of sea level rise this century is impossible to rule out. We don't know much about the dynamics of ice
Interesting. This, along with the fact that most electricity is generated using coal and other fossil fuels makes belief in these cars a new religion.
"Your baseline was wrong, as was demonstrated to you."
No, it was not wrong. He re-cherry-picked data.
The vehicles are IN THE SAME GODDAMNED CLASS.
Thus, using them as baseline comparisons is RIGHT.
Had I tried to compare the Model S-60 with say a fucking Ford F-150, then yes, my baseline would be wrong.
Try again when you've sold cars and understand what the actual differences in vehicle classes are.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
You fail at basic math and when called out on it can't even admit you are wrong. You picked cars and I showed how the weight was 17% different and how the OP's 25% statement was correct or very close to correct depending on which numbers you used.
Man up and admit you are wrong. But you are incapable of doing so.
...that trucks and SUVs are, as usual, contributing way more pollution than passenger cars, regardless of the drivetrain.