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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hydrogen is not a better way to store energy for electric drive cars. You need to do more research if you really believe this.
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.
1) Not all energy comes from burning fossil fuels. Nuclear, Wind, Solar and Hydro could also be used to power an electric car. That alone should make it comparatively cleaner.
2) As for efficiency goes, in a car about only 15% of the fuel energy is converted into motion. The rest is wasted as heat. Power plants are more efficient at using that heat and turn it into electricity, making again electric cars get more efficiency per unit of fuel burned.
3) Gasoline must be carried to gas stations. Think of it as a hidden energy cost: The cost of running you car = the fuel it burns + the energy it took to get it to your car.
On the opposite side, batteries are not as efficient storing energy as gasoline is, and there is also loss of power on transmission lines. I haven't done the math myself, but overall electric should be more efficient than gasoline cars.
They are 24% heavier than the same-sized ICE vehicle.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
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
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.
After all when someone is done with a Prius they just dump it in a landfill, where all the nickel in the battery will eventually leak out and contaminate ground water. What? No one does this?
Well then, when someone is done with a Prius they BURN it! And all that nickel goes into the air! Wait, no one does that either.
What does happen to a Prius once it exceeds its service life? People sell it to scrap dealers, who take the batteries out and ship them to reclaiming facilities where the valuable nickel is recovered and reused.
Just more anti-environmental BS. Nothing to see here.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
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.