5 ms·

This doesn't seem to be true: see pages 83 and 84 of the link below, suggesting around 20% of UK PM2.5 emissions come from road transport - this is not negligib

This doesn't seem to be true: see pages 83 and 84 of the link below, suggesting around 20% of UK PM2.5 emissions come from road transport - this is not negligible. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69635/pb13837-aqeg-fine-particle-matter-20121220.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

sjg007 8y ago
Yeah, diesel cars and trucks are a menace. I remember getting black soot in my nose in London.
- growlist 8y ago
  I read somewhere that 50% of particulate pollution comes from brake discs/pads and tyres, meaning that electric cars will still cause air pollution. But hey, half as bad is twice as good.
  - kaybe 8y ago
    The existence of regenerative breaking means that the amount of pollution from the little friction breaking still necessary should be much less.
  - NullPrefix 8y ago
    Regenerative breaking doesn't wear pads, so only emergency breaking would count towards that 50%.
- Symbiote 8y ago
  > black soot in my nose in London. That's probably dust from the London Underground, which is mostly iron (from the rails and wheels), brake dust (ceramic) and dead skin.
nradov 8y ago
There are far more diesel passenger cars in the UK than in the US. Diesel is generally far worse for particulate emissions.
endorphone 8y ago
That isn't refuting my statement. Road transport includes all vehicles on the road, and my statement is that trucks are by far the largest source of particulate matter on the road. The standards on trucks (and buses) are exponentially worse than passenger vehicles -- justified by the notion that they're doing something more worthwhile -- and many horribly polluting older models are grandfathered in. The average age of a passenger car on the road is much, much newer than the average age of a transport truck. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.8b01914 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.8b01914 The crux of that is that particulate pollution had a low correlation with passenger car volume, and a high correlation with trucks. Indeed, they found low utilization trucking routes had worse pollution than the busiest highway in North America (which would have been much more pronounced if the latter didn't also have significant truck volume). Though it is worth noting that there are a number of worse sources of particulate pollution. Wood burning fires, for instance, or home gardening equipment with virtually no pollution control.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  > The standards on trucks (and buses) are exponentially worse than passenger vehicles How can one group be 'exponentially worse' than just one other group? How can you see an exponential relationship between two data points? That doesn't make any sense. You'd need to be looking at a relationship between at least three data points to say it was exponential.
  - egwynn 8y ago
    You’re not wrong, but colloquially it’s common for people to use “exponentially” to mean “a lot”. Just like it’s common for people to use “massive” to mean “big” (i.e. large spatial volume).
  - MR4D 8y ago
    Exponentially is often used to mean "10 times more". So if one date point is 10 times higher than a second data point, than the wording would hold colloquially.

sjg007 8y ago

Yeah, diesel cars and trucks are a menace. I remember getting black soot in my nose in London.

growlist 8y ago
I read somewhere that 50% of particulate pollution comes from brake discs/pads and tyres, meaning that electric cars will still cause air pollution. But hey, half as bad is twice as good.
- kaybe 8y ago
  The existence of regenerative breaking means that the amount of pollution from the little friction breaking still necessary should be much less.
- NullPrefix 8y ago
  Regenerative breaking doesn't wear pads, so only emergency breaking would count towards that 50%.
Symbiote 8y ago
> black soot in my nose in London. That's probably dust from the London Underground, which is mostly iron (from the rails and wheels), brake dust (ceramic) and dead skin.

nradov 8y ago

There are far more diesel passenger cars in the UK than in the US. Diesel is generally far worse for particulate emissions.

endorphone 8y ago

That isn't refuting my statement. Road transport includes all vehicles on the road, and my statement is that trucks are by far the largest source of particulate matter on the road. The standards on trucks (and buses) are exponentially worse than passenger vehicles -- justified by the notion that they're doing something more worthwhile -- and many horribly polluting older models are grandfathered in. The average age of a passenger car on the road is much, much newer than the average age of a transport truck. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.8b01914 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.8b01914 The crux of that is that particulate pollution had a low correlation with passenger car volume, and a high correlation with trucks. Indeed, they found low utilization trucking routes had worse pollution than the busiest highway in North America (which would have been much more pronounced if the latter didn't also have significant truck volume). Though it is worth noting that there are a number of worse sources of particulate pollution. Wood burning fires, for instance, or home gardening equipment with virtually no pollution control.

chrisseaton 8y ago
> The standards on trucks (and buses) are exponentially worse than passenger vehicles How can one group be 'exponentially worse' than just one other group? How can you see an exponential relationship between two data points? That doesn't make any sense. You'd need to be looking at a relationship between at least three data points to say it was exponential.
- egwynn 8y ago
  You’re not wrong, but colloquially it’s common for people to use “exponentially” to mean “a lot”. Just like it’s common for people to use “massive” to mean “big” (i.e. large spatial volume).
- MR4D 8y ago
  Exponentially is often used to mean "10 times more". So if one date point is 10 times higher than a second data point, than the wording would hold colloquially.