Let’s discuss particulates from tires. They are another reason to be skeptical of the clean energy claims for EVs.
EV Lie of the Day
The lie of the day is a joint effort from the EPA and the state of California. Both are using rigged tests to get rid of gasoline powered vehicles.
Please note Electric Cars Emit More Particulate Pollution.
The Biden administration is reviewing California’s plan to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035. To get federal approval, California claims it “needs” this ban to prevent harm to public health from particulate matter—airborne particles like dust, dirt and soot. But banning gasoline cars would do little to reduce particulate emissions, and it could even increase them.
According to measurements by an emission-analytics firm, in gasoline cars equipped with a particle filter, airborne tire-wear emissions are more than 400 times as great as direct exhaust particulate emissions.
California calls electric cars “zero emissions vehicles” because they don’t have tailpipes. That is deceptive. Generating the electricity that powers those cars creates particulate pollution, and of course electric cars still use tires, which are made from petroleum. Electric cars weigh far more than gasoline-powered ones, so their tires degrade faster, as electric car buyers are learning. The same analytics firm cited earlier compared two cars—a plug-in electric and a hybrid. The electric car weighed about one-third more than the hybrid and emitted roughly one-quarter more particulate matter because of tire wear. Total direct emissions went up, not down, when the electric car was driven.
But when California’s air agency analyzed the effects of its ban, it used a model that assumes both kinds of cars have the same tire wear. When the public pointed out the error, the agency doubled down, claiming it would be “speculative” to assume that electric cars will continue to be heavier than gasoline cars. The agency mused that in the future automakers could probably “offset” the weight of heavy batteries with unspecified “weight reduction in other components or the vehicle body.”
What’s “speculative” is assuming that electric cars will soon weigh the same as the gasoline cars they replace. Electric cars are 15% to 30% heavier because batteries store far less energy per pound than liquid fuels. While weight differences between electric and gasoline cars have remained roughly constant over the past decade, the only reasonable prediction of trends is for electric cars to get heavier as manufacturers increase battery size to boost range.
Before California can set any emissions standards for cars, it needs the EPA’s approval. But don’t hold your breath expecting scientific integrity. The EPA’s own emissions model falsely “applies the same tire wear emission rate for all vehicle fuel types (gasoline, diesel, flex-fuel, CNG or electric),” completely ignoring the differences in weight.
Why are California and the EPA so eager to push electric cars when they will increase what EPA administrator Michael Regan calls “one of the most dangerous forms of air pollution”? That’s a good question. Perhaps someone should ask them under oath.
Tire Shock
The Miami Herald reports New tires every 7,000 miles? Electric cars save gas but tire wear shocks some Florida drivers
At EV Garage Miami, a Sweetwater repair shop that services 90 percent electric vehicles, lead technician Jonathan Sanchez said tires are the most frequent thing customers come in about — no matter what model or make of EV they’re driving. Tire mileage can vary widely of course, but he said he frequently changes EV tires at just 8,000 to 10,000 miles — a fourth or even fifth of typical tire wear on a gas-burning car.
There are a number of explanations for the fast wear — from the way EVs work to the composition of the rubber to individual driving habits and maintenance practices — but vehicle and tire makers and industry experts acknowledge the issue. The tire manufacturer Michelin said conventional tires on electric vehicles consume tires 20 percent faster than on a gas-powered car — a figure commonly cited by EV makers as well — but Goodyear also has said they could wear up to 50 percent faster. Automakers and the tire industry are working on improvements.
Some studies have shown that tires actually have more particle pollution than exhaust, 2,000 times as much. “Tires are rapidly eclipsing the tailpipe as a major source of emissions from vehicles,” said Nick Molden, to the Guardian who conducted one study with Emissions Analytics.
Some premium tires suggested for EVs use softer rubber and have foam injected inside that dampens the sound, akin to trading out hard dress shoes for tennis shoes. Those soft textured tires, while quieter, also can wear down faster. Some car companies also have come up with other creative ways to address the lack of noise by pumping in artificial or ambient sound. Toyota announced a system that simulates a gas engine with pre-recorded “vroom vroom” sound pumped through speakers.
Lies About Tires
Apparently we have another lie. The reported 20 percent extra wear my really be 50 percent for some tires.
If the tire industry improves the tires, it will be an improvement for gasoline powered vehicles too.
Tires Are Made with Petroleum
Michelin says “60% of rubber used in the tire industry is synthetic rubber, produced from petroleum-derived hydrocarbons, although natural rubber is still necessary for the remaining 40%.”
In case you did not know, EVs do not come with a spare. You can order one, but a full sized spare will eat up much of your storage space,
In addition to outright lies about particulates, mileage claims, and tire claims, California and the Biden administration act as if green energy is clean.
But the allegedly clean energy isn’t clean due to the minerals needed for wind turbines, for battery storage, and for solar panels.
Insanity Prevails
Meanwhile, please note Biden Weighs Banning Natural Gas Exports to Save the Climate
The climate fear mongers are pressuring Biden to ban natural gas exports. Let’s discuss the ramifications.
Russia will sell more natural gas as a result.
Reducing exports does not change global demand. It will only shift the source of the supply.
Biden Promotes Climate Change at the Expense of More Global Poverty
More importantly, please note Biden Promotes Climate Change at the Expense of More Global Poverty
The mad rush to deal with climate change, even if it works (it won’t), has a nasty tradeoff (more global poverty).
Add tires to the mix of concerns.
I know you have biased views on EVs not for the sake of it but in general you are against paying the cost of “transforming energy sources”. The US has been enjoying cheap petrol past century and continuing to this. You can argue it will continue for a while but not forever -and if you believe in innovation where the US is a frontier, I am puzzled your constant bashing on EVs-. I want to point out the exaggerated numbers about an EV being about 1/3 heavier than ICE or hybrid car. What models (for size and HP comparison) are compared for this report? EVs depending on the battery size, is about 13% to 25% heavier to comparable ICE car. However, in the US we love big “cars”, i.e. heavily favoring SUVs and trucks over sedans. So ICE supply vs. EV supply of vehicles, therefore weights, are skewed (BTW EV manufacturers toying with heavy “crossover” EVs to look like addressing this desire). That’s why in Europe no one argue what you argue here and their adoption of EVs is higher. Now, the main question is, do you believe that climate is changing? if you don’t I have no comment, live on. But if you do, who will pay for it? For whatever its worth: I have a 2015 Nissan leaf (24KWh batter, way small. The car is about 3100 lbs comparable ICE cars are about 2700 lbs) and I am on my second 4 sets of tires with 96K miles on it.
Bottom line: “You will own nothing and be happy,” or else. 🙂
”
Why are California and the EPA so eager to push electric cars when they will increase what EPA administrator Michael Regan calls “one of the most dangerous forms of air pollution”?
”
For the exact same reason AI is pushed: America can’t compete at anything real anymore. And: The reason America can’t compete at anything real, is specifically that it will forever remain impossible; for any productive enterprise; to compete, if it is simultaneously being saddled with the bill to fund the completely unearned transfers which 90% of the “wealth” of the currently wealthy in America “own.”
Only the dumbest of the dumb and most illiterate of the illiterate, are stupid enough to believe a “home” generates value just sitting there. Yet unless the home generates value; it’s “owner”, nor mortgage holder, nor mortgage broker; nor anyone who has “made money” downstream of those from selling anything from Jimmy Choos to stocks to BJs; can “make money” without the purchasing power/wealth this money entails them to ultimately having to first be transferred from someone who actually did create some value. Logic simply don’t get simpler nor more elementary than that. (I do realize neither simple nor elementary is any match for neither #DumbAge, central banking nor the genuinely retarded self aggrandizers enabled in spades by the latter . BUt still….)
Now: look at “who” have, overwhelmingly, “made money” since ’71… And how those clowns “made” that money…. How could any productive enterprise compete, while simultaneously having to fund that size of a looting party?
Of course: They can’t. And then: No longer being even remotely able to compete at anything real: Even otherwise potentially productive people and enterprise recognize the only way to even survive; much less get ahead; is to drop any productive hangups and pretenses in favor of instead getting in on the loot action themselves. Hence why they stop even attempting to make real stuff customers would pay them for; and instead start making up childish hype which dumb and illiterate “investors” will pay them for. After all; given the sheer extent of the Fed and government wealth transfers to the less-than-bright: It’s those guys who now have been handed effectively all the money.
If you start going down the “particulate emissions from tires” rabbit hole how long before pickup trucks & large SUVs are banned in favour of small economy cars?
As time goes by EV batteries are becoming more energy dense hence lighter for a given range. CATL is in the process of launching M3P batteries which are more energy dense than their current LiFePO4 batteries.
“If you start going down the “particulate emissions from tires” rabbit hole how long before pickup trucks & large SUVs are banned in favour of small economy cars? ”
A million economy cars still pollute more than one SUV. Banning is always nonsensical. Instead, pay per amount of particulate emissions.
“As time goes by EV batteries are becoming more energy dense hence lighter for a given range. ”
Currently, and slowing, at a rate of 10% a century or so. Batteries will always remain a joke for high-energy-need anything. Batteries will never make anymore sense for powering big SUVs doing cannonball runs, than they’ll make for powering aluminum smelters.
Electric cars do make sense: When and Only when they can draw power directly from the road/rail/infrastructure. Requiring only a small battery for last-mile operation. A small battery can be made lighter than an ICE engine and tank. And much, much lighter than an all purpose ICE car; once it is only tasked with low speed last-mile operation. While, being definitionally connected to the “highway”/infrastructure: “Self driving”, at potentially much higher and more reliable and predictable speeds, yet doing so while still being more energy efficient; is also baked in.
So: We’ll overwhelmingly likely get electric cars. It’s battery powered ones which is just another in a now near endless line of value destroying dead ends promoted by and for the most retarded of the retarded; simply because those are the ones The Fed feels the least threatened by being enriched.
“The lie of the day is a joint effort from the EPA and the state of California. Both are using rigged tests to get rid of gasoline powered vehicles.”
Another example of fitting the result to the desired outcome. It isn’t science, it’s politics.
More importantly, it clearly shows EVs remain inferior to ICE vehicles at the present moment. Because if they weren’t, you wouldn’t need the mandate, it would happen organically on its own via consumer choice.
EPA estimates are equally biased between ICE and EV cars. They think cars have no driver and drive in a vacuum.
….any emission statistics related to the ongoing wars supported and /or provoked by the undoubtedly wokest double dealing nation on the planet ?!
Here in Alberta we just keep on laughing.
Does the USA have even one (1) engineer working on the climate agenda team?
Can you imagine how it would have turned out if the technical aspects of WWII were managed at this level of technical incompetence? New Jersey launched one Liberty ship per day. Can you imagine the competence and coordination required to achieve that?
Let the electric cars come to market as they are technically ready, and let the customers decide when and how to buy them.
The US does not have a “climate agenda team”. I can only assume you have them in Alberta and that they are funny.
Meanwhile, I hear that your fires are still burning in Alberta, and you are dealing with a severe water shortage. I hope that the water shortage doesn’t restrict the water flooding and fracking that your oil companies are doing. I have a lot of money invested in many of your oil companies.They already lost some production last year due to fires. I don’t want to see further lost production.
For the record, I do not give a shit about Car Emissions. The Government needs to address bigger concerns, such as their incessant lying, cheating and stealing.
Or, better yet: Their existence.
Never was a government that was not composed of liars, malefactors and thieves.
Marcus Tullius Cicero
“Perhaps someone should ask them under oath”
This statement INFERS that they would then be PROSECUTED and JAILED or FINED. Mish, get real: GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS DO NOT GO TO JAIL.
Name TEN from the last fifty years.
I don’t think they’ll be happy until we’re all riding bicycles everywhere or horse-drawn carts. Ain’t no way I’ll ever ride in an EV let alone buy one.
Well. The solution to this particulate crisis from tires and brake pads is obvious. Yet I don’t think anyone here has proposed it yet.
The problem isn’t which type of vehicle is being driven, because they are all bad. The problem is that tires and brake pads release too many particulates. So obviously, tire and brake pad manufacturers should “do the right thing” and change their manufacturing materials and techniques to voluntarily reduce and eventually eliminate particulate emissions from their products.
I’m sure that will work.
But if it doesn’t, and they don’t want to make those changes voluntarily, then we will need government mandates that require them to do so.
Which I am sure that many here will wholeheartedly support, since they are so concerned about particulates.
I bet the cost of the tires would stop EV sales in it’s tracks.
Electric vehicles have an advantage in this regard. They have regenerative braking which means far less wear on the pads. I wish I had it on my pickup!
Downshifting would help, especially if you’re in an overdrive gear. That’s why I like driving a manual transmission.
another fool that knows nothing about compression braking, and or coasting….
ceramic / semi ceramic pads solve most of the brake dust issue. a bit more $$, take heat to work well is the trade-off
High quality ceramic brake pads are a bit better. But lower quality ceramic pads can produce more brake dust than high quality semi-metallic pads.
And you are right. They don’t work as well in cold weather.
link to buybrakes.com
“I’m sure that will work.”
You’re wrong.
Strange as this may seem to the average #Dumbagians: Things.Wear.Out. Strange, eh?
I honestly hope I’m just being an idiot; and you intended to be sarcastic…… Otherwise, you’re starting to scare me…
Yes. I was being sarcastic. Manufacturers will not sacrifice profits for the good of mankind. Which is why we have government regulations and mandates that force manufacturers to do these things.
The answer isn’t EVs or ICE, it’s less of both of them. Of course, I think the problem will fix itself over time anyway. Insurance, energy costs, maintenance and other fees like “mileage tax” will make “owning” a car too expensive so something else will replace it. Road congestion is already bad enough and roads can only be widened so far.
I suspect people will need to Uber and plan their day accordingly to optimize the cost of uber or some type of ride share / short term rental.
Perhaps there will be exceptions for farmers and other unique situations but mass consumer cars will go the way of dinosaurs.
SO, UBER DRIVERS will eliminate cars, TOO? OH, they can CARRY US on their backs and pull wagons with our luggage.
PLEASE GROW A BRAIN and come on back with a better answer.
No, only commercial drivers will make enough money to afford cars boomer. I know thinking is difficult at your age. You won’t need a car when you’re in the nursing home with your 80 million fellow boomers.
No problem. If averyone just moves back to the intercity where they don’t need a car, the problem would be solved. From what I have seen people are moving as far away as they can afford to. This migration will continue to happen.
What evidence do you have of this? I have no doubt that some cities are losing people like San Francisco or Chicago but these folks just end up moving to places like Austin, TX or Houston, TX or Miami, FL or some other city in some other state. City people move from city to city, rural people move from rural to rural or rural to city.
It’s rare people move from city to rural. If this were true there wouldn’t be so many small town dying. Once you get used to all the services a city has like Amazon same day delivery, endless restaurants, and other goodies it’s hard to give up.
Here is the DATA to prove my points. I base my investment decisions on data not “gut feelings” or “hunches” or other conspiracy theory nonsense.
link to ourworldindata.org
“..but mass consumer cars will go the way of dinosaurs.”
They were always a sign of America being a wealthy country.
As “we”‘re now getting poorer and poorer every year; you’re no doubt onto something wrt such symbols of first world status increasingly disappearing. First, roofs over Americans heads. Then cars. Then even basic heath care.Then food.
Just as in America’s role model Argentina. Which we are following in the exact footsteps of; just a few decades in arrears.
Heavy vehicles and high performance vehicles emit more tire particles because mass and torque destroy.
Many EVs are heavy and provide easily accessible high performance.
The weight penalty for EVs is falling as batteries improve. Consumer preferences will probably keep the high performance around.
Batteries will always have a massive weight penalty compared to a carbon based fuel because batteries must carry the oxidizing agent with them. There is no way around it.
Electric trains are great and many countries have them, nationwide. But they don’t run on batteries.
Do shoes emit particulates too? I would hate to think that walking with shoes on will destroy the planet.
Damn flip flops are the problem! They are typically warn when it is hot outside. This heats the tar up, as they park 8 miles away, and have to walk to the beach. Multiply that by 1,000 at every beach, and we got ourselves a potential problem here!
Don’t tell Uncle Sam or we will have to toss away another 100M is Taxpayers Money to fund scientific research and such.
Heck, that could possibly lead to a New Vaccine for “Rubber Decomposing Syndrome” or some/many variations of such. We might need to contact Fauci to get involved? I say let’s leave it alone…
lol!
They do. As do compact real cars.
But even Americans are still not quite as heavy as a Tesla X.
Another issue with EVs; is their dirt-cheap-to-spec, high-torque/high-power-at-common-urban-speeds motors. Resulting in Donny-Dimbulb-The-Not-So-Bright easily being sold the nonsense that he can be fashionably “green”, while still desperately trying to appear as cool at the stoplight as the Porche guys who always looked down on him (and of course still do. But now, at least when safely among fellow dimbulbs, he can at least pretend..)
Higher weight, higher power, softer and grippier tires all contribute to increased wear on both tires and pavement. Both decomposing largely into particulates small enough to become airborne and hence potentially inhaled.
The particles do eventually fall out of the air. Then becoming “microplastics” in water reservoirs. But not quickly enough to not be probably the most problematic air pollutant in urban areas. In the boons, they’re less of an immediate problem. And, again, most EVs high weight; and trivially available high torque at low speeds; make them much more troublesome than traditional “performance” cars, where power/torque is focused above the rev range the average yahoo accesses downtown.
It’s quite clear the push for green energy is really more about geopolitics than the environment. Advanced economies want to produce their own energy given how vulnerable the supply of fossil fuels can be.
Personally, I’ve never fell for this EV scam. I have felt always it is a hoax, like Covid 19, Climate Change, Global Warming, etc. Seems to me, it is always another method to grab a lot of money.
Redistribution via regulation.
Very well said!
Technology is not the problem. Overpopulation is the problem.
I hope this is irony
Population without good brains is the problem.
The problem is stagnation. Management is like water. When it is stagnant, the scum rises to the top.
Next time they will come up with something more deadly than covid or the vax. Its only a matter of time.
Complaining about the weight of EVs vs ICE vehicles and the resulting particulates from tires and brakes is a distraction at best. There are more 18 wheelers than EVs in the US today. They have 18 tires vs 4 on an EV and their tires are much larger. So are their brakes. Fully loaded, they weigh up to 20x a typical EV and most are driven 60,000 miles per year vs 9000 miles for the average EV. So transports are 500-1000 times worse than EVs. And EVs are little a bit worse than ICE.
So when the trucks go electric and need massive batteries for the hours and mileage that they do then if you are correct that trucks are 1000 times worse than EV cars for particulates then just one EV trucks extra weight for batteries will produce more particulates than hundreds of ICE cars.
As for your claim that EVs are only a little bit worse well a 20% increase over 200 million cars is an extra 160 million tyres just in the US or a billion worldwide annually.
The reality is that all vehicles are bad for particulates.
I am merely pointing out that the desire by some to target EVs in particular, is an exercise in personal bias, that isn’t worth the effort. If you want to waste your time bashing electric vehicles because they offend your ideology, go ahead.
Regarding EV semis. Trucks are not going electric in large numbers anytime soon. The number of EV semis will remain minuscule for a very long time. So it’s a moot point.
If you truly care about particulates, which I suspect you don’t, you should be more concerned about how tires and brake pads are constructed so that they don’t release particulates and microplastics. That’s the actual issue.
It’s not just personal bias. The actual issue is California is attempting to mandate electric vehicle usage based off manufactured data. It results in actual damage to individuals who can’t even afford to own one. Electric vehicles are being massively subsidized on the basis they pollute less. That you argue it comes to personal bias shows how garbage these mandates and subsidies are.
Electric trains, trolleys, subways and some buses emit very little total mass of particulates. They all have very low rolling resistance. I think Montreal subways have the only rubber tire cars. Electric doesn’t have to be battery. Many urban transport systems were electrified 100 years ago.
Touche!
But: 100 years ago “we” were still an advanced country. And central banks had not yet redistributed all wealth; hence power; to only the rankest of rank idiots. Those were different times indeed.
What’s your point? We were talking about tires and brake pads on 1.5 billion road vehicles. Not trains and trolleys.
PS: Remember railrodes run on steel wheels. Some of them even run on electric power.
What’s your point? We were talking about tires and brake pads on 1.5 billion road vehicles. Not trains.
What’s your point?
Can’t handle folks that disagree with you?
“I am merely pointing out that the desire by some to target EVs in particular, is an exercise in personal bias,”
The issue is that what, in reality, determines how polluting a vehicle is; is largely size and power. All modern powerplants are massively cleaner than the road contact points.
Hence; entirely arbitrarily promoting one type of powerplant over another; doubly so when the arbitrarily chosen powerplant is heavier than alternatives, is, as is par for the #DumbAge course, nothing at all aside from dumb.
On this I agree. A partial solution is to rebuild the train and tram system such that trains do long haul to connect states, cities and most towns. Then have modern freight yards to economically move the loads to a tram/light rail to distribute to industrial estates. That takes care of 90% of the problem. Will still need trucks to haul grains and livestock from farms to silos and abattoirs and farm imputs back. Also need trucks for places not suited or economic for rail. EV trucks for short haul in cities as well.
The better rail and tram network would also make commuting easier and many would prefer that to driving so less demand for cars. But each person should have the right to own cars without mandates forcing anything.
Of course until the society returns to decency and the control of 2 legged vermin on public transport then many will not risk giving up their car for public transport.
Don’t forget diesel exhaust particulates.
Correct. Semis using diesel fuel also release much more particulates in their exhaust than gasoline vehicles.
“There are more 18 wheelers than EVs in the US today.”
They do generate A LOT of road/tire particulates.
Mostly out on the open highway, though. The particles do eventually fall down. In the middle of nowhere, mostly before at least humans get to inhale them. In urban settings,OTOH…. It’s a bit like putting polluting power plants away from urban centers ( most 18 wheeler miles), vs mid Manhattan ( BEVs).
Nope. 11% are small enough to become airborne and travel all over the world through the atmosphere.
This can be improved easily. Another article from CNN has a London startup that is collecting tire dust electrostatically as a solution to the problem. This also means in busy 4 and 6 lane corridors, the huge numbers of heavy trucks suggests really massive amounts of tire dust flying off. An 18 wheeler would need at least 9 filters catching tire dust going down the road. Possibly slowing down to reduce tire dust would be another solution. As much as people love power and speed, this is an interesting problem
link to theguardian.com
The average weight of all cars has been increasing. But there has been particular debate over whether battery electric vehicles (BEVs), which are heavier than conventional cars and can have greater wheel torque, may lead to more tyre particles being produced. Molden said it would depend on driving style, with gentle EV drivers producing fewer particles than fossil-fuelled cars driven badly, though on average he expected slightly higher tyre particles from BEVs.
Dr James Tate, at the University of Leeds’ Institute for Transport Studies in the UK, said the tyre test results were credible. “But it is very important to note that BEVs are becoming lighter very fast,” he said. “By 2024-25 we expect BEVs and [fossil-fuelled] city cars will have comparable weights. Only high-end, large BEVs with high capacity batteries will weigh more.”
I have ridden in a Tesla. The acceleration is incredible. It is really tempting to apply it for the trill of driving. It tears the daylights out of the tires. It may be that in Florida where tires last 10,000 miles they have innumerable stops and starts at traffic lights.
I agree battery tech will solve the weight problem, I favour ceramic supercapacitors with 25 times the energy density of lithium batteries. That will solve the weight problem, but not the fun. I hope.
“Another article from CNN has a London startup that is collecting tire dust electrostatically as a solution to the problem.”
And Comic books have all manners of cool solutions to stuff.
This isn’t exactly “new” news. Many studies on car tire particulates and car brake pad particulates have been done over the last decade that show the large amount of particulates from all vehicles. These studies show up to 2000x the amount of particulates emitted compared to ICE vehicle exhausts per mile driven. Since only 11% of the particulates are small enough to be airborne, it still means up to 200x airborne particulates.
In addition, tires produce a lot of microplastics that end up everywhere; oceans, rivers, crops, and in humans (including in newborn babies).
There are 1.5 billion vehicles in the world. It doesn’t matter whether they are ICE, EV, PHEV, etc. They all have tires and brakes. And they all emit particulates.
Many particles are carcinogenic. Many cause lung problems. These are the biggest concerns.
Some particulates warm the atmosphere, while some cool the atmosphere. So not much net effect on global warming itself. The issue from particulates is a health issue. Not a global warming issue.
Many particles are a health problem, Many more are not.
The EPA says they treat all particles as equally toxic (the equitoxicity rule) and that there is no lower limit that causes no harm (the Linear No Threshold nonsense).
PM2.5 is a diameter, not a substance. The idea that our health is harmed at any level of diameters is crazy.
“Particulates” means anything, literally. A single H2S molecule is a cloud condensation particle. Particles of 0.05 microns are inhaled then exhaled again, almost 100%, because they are too small to be collected by a moist surface. This applies to pretty much everything below 0.1 microns. They are only absorbed by diffusion, like a gas. Particles above 4 microns are collected in the airways and never get to the lungs (then expelled). Combustion particulates coagulate into giant dendritic agglomerations and fall to the ground.
There is an awful lot of undiluted BS in the air quality biz. Don’t snort too much of it. It is addictive.
We agree. Some of the emitted particulates are a health hazard.
Here in wealthy Silicon Valley a lot of the inhabitants want to exert no personal effort for the quality of life. They want tech to do it all for their own lazy convenience. They zoom around here in EV’s pushing on the accelerator for that thrilling electric motor acceleration that wears out both tires and the road. The heavy batteries are trashing the roads here and if commercial trucks get batteries that will wear out the roads and tires even faster. Most of the people around Stanford University are an aging population retired and not commuting. Everything I need is close by and I bike most of the time or use uber. No real practical need to spend money or tire wear or on a full time car. People pay to go to a gym for some exercise probably driving there in a car instead of biking or on foot. Basic chemistry and physics indicates that batteries may get lighter but nothing can be lighter than a mass of oil molecules. The amount of dust getting into my garden and my lungs from drivers flooring it between stop signs is a big negative. There is little by way of personal responsibility. Just pay money and use equipment to the maximum capacity and trash the place. Petroleum will not last forever and pushing personal responsibility off to government or business to “do something” is also flawed.
Only MORONS buy EVs
They do this because they have low IQs.
This is why H2 fuel cell continues to be the best candidate for future vehicles. Many advances are being made to more efficiently produce H2 from water and to better seal containers that H2 is stored in to reduce leakage.
And don’t forget that because H2 is such a light gas, H2 cars will be lighter overall and will reduce the car weight on the tires, as they float across the roads, thus resulting in LESS tire wear. This is why all the tire makers are against H2 cars and why governments everywhere should be FOR them!
Sorry. H2 powered vehicles have been around for 50 years already and just can’t reach sales numbers that would justify building out the necessary infrastructure. Particularly since we are already spending so much on EV infrastructure.
There are 1.45 billion ICE vehicles in the world today. 50 million EVs. And just 35000 H2 fuel cell vehicles.
And H2 vehicles still have tires and brakes which release particulates.
Uh huh, wrong as usual PD..
——
Global Hydrogen Market Set for Significant Expansion: Projected Value of $761.3 Billion by 2040 – ResearchAndMarkets.com
September 11, 2023
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230911450901/en/Global-Hydrogen-Market-Set-for-Significant-Expansion-Projected-Value-of-761.3-Billion-by-2040—ResearchAndMarkets.com
Deloitte forecasts clean hydrogen market to hit US$1.4T per year by 2050
04 July 2023
In a new report, Deloitte forecasts that the clean hydrogen market will top the value of the liquid natural gas trade by 2030 and grow further to US$1.4 trillion per year by 2050.
link to greencarcongress.com
It currently costs ~$150 to fill a modest hydrogen powered car (4.5 kg H2), and that is good for 210 miles. Why would anyone buy that?
No but as with everything, volume will reduce the cost to levels acceptable to consumers.
What volume? In 2023 there were 14,451 H2 cars sold worldwide; a 30% decline from 2022.
Compare that to:
ICE: 72 million
EV: 10 milion
PHEV: 4.2 million
Volume doesn’t have to be in autos alone. H2 is making big inroads in buses and trucks. There is also work being done in use in airplanes. In the aggregate, the potential volume is much larger than your simple POV.
I asked Perpexity AI to show Model T sales by year. As you can see, sales were low at first and then picked up. The same thing will happen with H2 cars, when they become more generally available. :
As usual, you try to change the discussion when the facts don’t suit your narrative. Lets compare fuel cell vehicle sales to your model T numbers:
1966: first fuel cell vehicle sold by Chevy
Then, only 56 years later!
2022: highest ever worldwide sales of FC vehicles at 20,600
Then, after reaching that all-time high:
2023: Fuel cell vehicle sales DECLINED by 30% to 14,451
I have no problem with someone promoting fuel cell vehicles. But you are delusional if you think they will ever amount to anything of significance. They will remain a niche market in busses, forklifts, etc. But they will not be sold in large numbers for consumer passenger vehicles.
What also isn’t discussed in polite company is that because EV’s are much heavier than ICE vehicles accidents cause much more serious injuries. This is especially true in collisions with bikes, motorcycles, pedestrians etc but is also true for collisions with other vehicles.
Some of the EV trucks like the Fords F150 Lightning weigh more than 3 tons!
Accidents will be a thing of the past when human drivers are replaced by autonomous, networked cars.
We are starting on this path now as Waymo just received permission to offer driverless taxi service in San Mateo county, the next county south of the city/county of San Francisco and in LA.
link to abc7news.com
Accidents will never be a thing of the past even with autonomous driving. There is just too many random factors (weather, pedestrian suddenly runs on street or someone on a bike falls or a tire blows out etc) for even the best AI to reach 0 accidents.
Interesting take on tires in EVs giving off particulates. The story just keeps getting better.
The notion that CO2 is a pollutant is ridiculous. CO2 is plant food. It greens the planet. Water vapor must also be a pollutant since it contributes more to the greenhouse effect than CO2. Next thing you know there will be proposals to drain the oceans.
Water may be the most abundant greenhouse gas, but it is meaningless by itself without the other greenhouse gasses. Without CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth’s temperature would be -18C and a ball of ice. There would be very little water left in the atmosphere as it would mostly be locked up in the frozen surface.
Au contraire Dave. Water vapor is the most important factor. It is also the biggest unknown factor since it gives rise to clouds and the cloud assumptions used in the modeling can cause wildly different outcomes.
You are clueless when it comes to the science of global warming. I might as well be debating with a flat earth believer. There is no point in explaining it to you because you keep posting the same garbage over and over.
Here is a link, though you probably will ignore it:
link to e-education.psu.edu
The idea that the earth would be frozen if there were no GHG’s in the atmosphere is quite incorrect. The atmosphere would still be heated by the sunlight hitting the ground. That would warm the GHG-free air, but the air would have no means of cooling, except to heat the ground at night. At night the ground would radiate energy into space. If there were no GHG’s (water being one) the temperature at 2m above the ground would be ~150 C and hotter with altitude. The numbers you cite are from an invalid comparison of the moon with no atmosphere (18 C) , and an atmosphere with GHG’s in it (15 C). That is the infamous “33 degrees of warming”. It is like comparing a cut of coffee with cream saying the colour of the mix is caused entirely by the cream, and proving it by comparing it with an empty cup. Look up GHG effect on Wikipedia. The stupid comparison is There in all its IPCC-approved glory. Empty cup v.s. coffee with cream, all colour attributed to the cream. If challenged, you could not make up something this stupid.
The air is primarily heated by two things: the ground during the day and absorbed radiation. Removing the absorber would a) allow the ground the be heated by twice as much insolation, b) greatly increase the warming of the atmosphere by convection heat transfer, and c) remove the ability of the atmosphere to cool by radiation. As GHG’s are added to a GHG-free atmosphere, it gains the ability to cool by radiation and the temperature drops (rapidly).
In these short paragraphs I have destroyed the whole GHG heating catastrophe narrative. It is rooted in an appalling ignorance of basic science. BTW Gavin Schmidt, the head of NASA/GISS, has repeated the Wiki-version of reality numerous times in his publications. Read them and see.
Lol! Time for you to learn some science. Scientists can tell you the temperature of every planet and moon in our solar system, including earth. The science has been understood since the 1800s. Maybe you never learned it.
Scientists know that the earth has been a complete ball of ice several times in the past. Care to explain why?
And how do you account for the ice ages that have occurred every 100k years, where a good chunk of the northern hemisphere down to New York is covered by a mile of ice?
How does that fit with your understanding of surface temperatures?
Wow! I’ve known about toxics in the tires that are killing life in creeks and larger waterways but this is a new one on me.
I’m feeling like a truly green nerd driving around in my beater Prius. Lol! Nowadays if you are male and drive a Prius it’s hard to get laid if you are single.
Hybrids probably cut brake particulates as well. Brake pads last close to 200k miles with the regenerative braking and my tires last about 80k miles.
Prius is about as rational as current-infrastructure cars will ever get. It was, and still is, the so-far high point. With nothing foreseeable to dethrone it for quite a while. Combine it with electric kick scooter rentals, pedelecs and 125s (and trains where good ones are available) for when a 5 seat car is not necessary; and there is nothing on the current horizon to upset that status.
Problem is: Idiots who “made money from my home” can’t competitively build Priuses. Nor can even non-idiots; if forced to fork over enough to the above idiots. Which, combined, account for 100% of the frenzy for hyping all manners of trivially inferior technologies which the above idiots can pretend to be more “involved” with. Since doing so requires neither talent nor ability.
As usual…. the more government gets involved in literally ANYTHING, it screws it up.
This madness needs to end. We need to go back to a full market based economy and let the chips fall where they may.
I’m probably going to buy a Cadillac Lyriq if interest rates drop or incentives kick in. Cadillac offers 100% warranty on tires up to 12,000 miles and then it’s phased out at 50,000. Dealership says unlike ICE cars they are covered for wear for the first 12K but after that they’re looking for defects.
I have an Acura NSX that I use as my daily driver. Generally I drive it in the slow, least sporty mode and don’t spend my days stoplight racing. It’s a hybrid, and granted makes about 600HP, but even just driving it like an old grandpa the thing chews through rear tires at an astounding rate. I can only chalk it up to the hybrid nature. Heck it’s even AWD.
Toyota got it right and held back on any big EV production push. Respect for them.
With GV’s & Hybrids why would they bother. Then again, it appears why would anyone bother. If Toyota is pushing out GV’s with 50+ MPG why would anyone even consider an EV at this point. They are way more expensive to own and drive. They actually are not yet actually proven to be a benefit to the environment, when all things are measured and not just cherry picked. I have yet to see any complete study that states factually that they do anyway.
It is just not the time for EV’s for countless reasons, and most are related to infrastructure (charging mainly) financial (cost and disposal of batteries, and unable to manufacturing key components at home due to material availability, and that’s just for starters, and they are so far behind in just those few I selected, that it will be another decade or so before they are all on board as an option, if needed by then, with the better and available technology we do have already, but I digress…
Side note in regards to Tires: I drive my cars into the ground, and I never buy new. In fact of my 3 vehicles, 2 are 2014’s, and both run excellently (disclosure). When my wife retired recently we bought her the first as a retirement gift. A GV Suv with AWD.
Come to find out, new ones don’t come with whole tires if you will, but rather much lower tread tires are given on some? All? New ones I found out. Got a nail in the side panel (unfixable) and to my surprise this is what I was told and shown.
I was also told you must replace ALL 4 tires in AWD vehicles, or you can severely damage the vehicle much more than tires. So a nail cost me $1,000.00 the other day!! Who Knew? Not ME!!
Uh, I have about 30k miles on my bolt tires at this point. Where does this crap come from?
Agreed, although EV’s are heavier, tires wearing out at 8-10k clicks verges on the ridiculous.
Lower wear on EV’s has been reported for years. It’s not just the added weight of EV’s but also the instant torque that might contribute to more tire wear.
Lead-footed drivers burning out at every stoplight. The same drivers in gas cars that have to replace brake pads every 60,000 miles.
A big part of the problem is the soft tires put on many cars today. Tires this soft were, until recently, only put on sports cars. Now they’re put on everything from economy cars to SUVs. Sure, they handle great but they wear quickly.
Softer tires also ride smoother.