Slashdot Mirror
Electric Cars Are Not the Answer To Air Pollution, Says Top UK Adviser (theguardian.com)
Cars must be driven out of cities to tackle the UK's air pollution crisis, not just replaced with electric vehicles, according to the UK government's top adviser. From a report: Prof Frank Kelly said that while electric vehicles emit no exhaust fumes, they still produce large amounts of tiny pollution particles from brake and tyre dust, for which the government already accepts there is no safe limit. Toxic air causes 40,000 early deaths a year in the UK, and the environment secretary, Michael Gove, recently announced that the sale of new diesel and petrol cars will be banned from 2040, with only electric vehicles available after that. But faced with rising anger from some motorists, the plan made the use of charges to deter dirty diesel cars from polluted areas a measure of last resort only. Kelly's intervention heightens the government's dilemma between protecting public health and avoiding politically difficult charges or bans on urban motorists. "The government's plan does not go nearly far enough," said Kelly, professor of environmental health at King's College London and chair of the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, official expert advisers to the government. "Our cities need fewer cars, not just cleaner cars."
This is no single answer. Not EVs, Not solar and wind, not nuclear, no single answer. They can all help tremendously if approached properly. When one considers socioeconomic challenges, we need a lot more answers than we currently have in our toolbox, and we can't afford to eliminate any of the ones we have.
I'll just get a little red wagon and have my dogs and cats pull me.
Oh wait...
So the fight of gas vs electric is trying to find new ground. Interesting. Some points
a) regenerative braking does not put wear on brake shoes
b) smart cars can drive better to reduce tire wear
Sure, tire-dust is still there, but braking is done regeneratively in any sane electrical car design and conventional, particle-generating brakes are only there for emergencies.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Remove all the air, that way it cannot become polluted.
#DeleteFacebook
Well, actually, it is usually not more than 50% of braking. Varies by speed, but for 2wd cars it stays pretty low because the car is designed to brake in a balanced way to maximize control of the vehicle.
In the future, of course, it might be that all cars have a small auxiliary generator for braking. If they're actually worried about tire dust, that would happen, but of course they're actually just saying stupid shit like that as a way to try to justify continuing to use IC engines.
This. Data point: My Prius (Not pure electric, but uses regenerative braking) is still on its first set of brake pads at 130,000 miles or so.
Prof Frank Kelly said that while electric vehicles emit no exhaust fumes, they still produce large amounts of tiny pollution particles from brake and tyre dust, for which the government already accepts there is no safe limit.
Sigh. Another example of perfect being the enemy of good. No solution is going to be without some drawbacks. Electric cars are CLEARLY an improvement over internal combustion engines if for no other reason than the fact that they can be powered without fossil fuels. No they don't solve everything but that's not an excuse to not move forward. We're going to be using cars for the foreseeable future so we may as well make whatever improvements we can to them. EVs and hybrids are an improvement. Let's take that step and then take the next one when we are able.
"Our cities need fewer cars, not just cleaner cars."
That's fine but probably not going to happen without some VERY substantial investments in public transit.
Hm....nah, that just isn't going to work, just for groceries alone.
Not sure how with a train/bus/streetcar I'm going to manage to get my supplies just for this weekend:
1. 2 large bags of ice and case or two of beer for the ice chest.
2. I whole brisket, about 12lbs for the smoker.
3. A load of logs for the smoker, I lately buy bags from Academy Sports, hickory and mesquite blend...VERY heavy.
And that is just for the fun weekend stuff....that doesn't include my grocery shopping I do weekly...and hit different stores to get the best deals on things.
And on top of that, since it isn't door-to-door, it sure will be fun trying to get all that stuff on multiple trips during rain storms during summer with high heat and humidity.
And if sunday, I want to take some of my long guns out to the rifle range about 40 min away, I"m guessing public transportation wouldn't be too terribly thrilled about my being on there with 2-3 rifles and pistols and ammo.
The 2 examples here are NOT outliers...I do stuff like this regularly....or tow boats to go fishing, etc.
Public transport for routine US living, outside of the few extremely urban closed packed cities is just not practical for regular active families.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The science says optimally a 4-wheel braking system can only recover 40% of the energy anyway so you'll always need a mechanical system that will wear.
The efficiency of the regenerative braking is irrelevant for whether or not you'll need mechanical systems. The need comes from the possibility that you may need to brake faster than the regenerative braking system is capable of slowing the car down.
"can" and "does" are two different things.
Take the example of the Nissan Leaf. It can recover approximately 80% of the energy under regenerative braking, but, it has a hard limit of 30kW of regenerative braking. If you brake sufficiently hard that it puts out more than 30kW, then the car is going to use the conventional brakes as well as regeneration.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
According to earlier /. report, dogs and cats are causing climate change.
Not my dogs. They are rather large and do eat a lot. But I offset that by feeding them humans. That way no pollution is created by farming meat for them, and they help decrease the population as well as removing a source of energy use and CO2 production. I guess it may be a drag on the economy though. I suppose I could offset that by importing people from other countries, but then it would increase the CO2 production to get them here.
I was just behind a truck creating large clouds of black smoke. The cloud just sat there between buildings with all nearby pedestrians forced to inhale. Now I know this was probably brake dust and tire particles.