12 ms·

I don't know why Tesla and other electric car manufacturers don't yell and shout more about how much better electric cars are for human health in cities. The cl

I don't know why Tesla and other electric car manufacturers don't yell and shout more about how much better electric cars are for human health in cities. The climate change argument for EVs is kind of weak, since you still have to produce the electricity. But it's much better for lung health to produce the electricity in a far-off place and then transport it via the power grid to the EVs in a city, than to have the vehicle itself burn the gasoline and emit the exhaust right out on the streets where people are walking around.

namdnay 7y ago
> The climate change argument for EVs is kind of weak, since you still have to produce the electricity Depends where you are. Electricity in France for example is 90% carbon-free
- comnetxr 7y ago
  > The climate change argument for EVs is kind of weak, since you still have to produce the electricity I also find this line of reasoning problematic. The climate change effect of EVs is _indirect_, but that doesn't mean it's _weak_. It a required step for a huge amount of emissions reductions. Climate change is hard precisely because the economy is full of network effects and path dependencies where you can argue against each individual change by saying that it doesn't do that much for the climate by itself (and for each change, there will be motivated actors making those arguments when the alternative will hit their pocketbooks).
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  Also the grid is getting less carbon dependent over time. So an EV's effective CO2 emissions per mile gets lower over time. Me I think the CO2 emissions problem from transportation and electricity production is fixable. Which then leaves us with all the other problems.
wffurr 7y ago
Because Teslas emit a ton of PM 2.5. They're heavy compared to ICE cars, and thus wear out brakes, tires, etc. faster. "PM2.5 emissions were only 1-3% lower for EVs compared to modern ICEVs. ... Non-exhaust emissions already account for over 90% of PM10 and 85% of PM2.5 emissions from traffic. ... 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." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297889793_Non-exhaust_PM_emissions_from_electric_vehicles https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297889793_Non-exhau...
- polyomino 7y ago
  https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297889793_Non-exhaust_PM_emissions_from_electric_vehicles https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/... looks like they're just assuming electric vehicles behave like light trucks because they're heavier than most passenger vehicles and therefore attribute 67% more emissions due to brake wear and don't account for regenerative breaking. (They estimate 2% more emissions from tire wear than lighter vehicles).
  - mikepurvis 7y ago
    Yeah, extrapolating on the brake thing seems especially hinky and ill-informed. If you want to have a discussion about brakepad emissions from a Tesla, you should probably be working from real data about how often the brakes are actually applied, or perhaps extrapolate it from service records about mileage numbers on cars when the brake pads are serviced/changed. I expect Tesla would happily hand you a bunch of this anonymized data since it's likely to paint them in a positive light.
    - m463 7y ago
      anecdotally, teslas routinely get 100,000 to 200,000 miles on their brake pads because of regenerative braking. There are ways to get brake wear - switch the regen setting to LOW, or do a track day :)
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  They didn't actually measure the emissions, and they ignored the benefit from regenerative braking (Tesla brakes basically never need to be replaced unless you drive very aggressively).
- gwbas1c 7y ago
  Brakes last much longer on electric cars due to regenerative braking.
  - rconti 7y ago
dcolkitt 7y ago
On a per-dollar basis, it's more efficient to replace older cars with worse emissions profiles than it is to shift new production to EVs.
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  I'm not sure that's actually true any more. But even if it is: That's low hanging fruit that simultaneously locks in fossil fuel vehicles for longer and risks the Jevons Paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox Need to go full EV to meet our goals.
- tankerdude 7y ago
  Data on that point? What's the comparison to new ICE production?
  - Robotbeat 7y ago
    Right. I doubt it's actually true. An newer vehicle may get ~25% better efficiency and so a factor of 1.25 lower carbon emissions, but an electric car (which may only have a 20% price premium, if that) in a state like California (which has the most EVs) has a factor of 5 lower carbon emissions.
    - dcolkitt 7y ago
      Carbon emissions are an entirely different issue from air pollution.
- mikepurvis 7y ago
  I think that depends a lot on your usage pattern. My family is low-car— I'm a four season bike commuter and my partner can largely get around during the day by walking and transit. Because we put less than 10k km on our car each year, I don't think buying a new Tesla or Prius makes sense for us, either from a cost or environmental standpoint. We were previously in a 2003 Volvo station wagon, and now in a 2013 Mazda 5. Neither of these cars is the most efficient on a per-km basis, but we're tackling that by just keeping the total number of km to a minimum. Now, I am in Ontario where we have snowy winters, so almost all cars tend to rust out and be done within 10-15 years— it's not like the southwest where there are lots of truly ancient vehicles still being used as daily drivers. Perhaps the situation is different there.
Robotbeat 7y ago
The climate argument is not "weak for electric cars." Electric cars are about a factor of 2.5 better in terms of emissions per mile even with the current US electric grid. A 35mpg car emits about 250 grams of carbon per mile (a gallon of gasoline emits about 20 pounds of CO2). US emissions per kWh using the most recent data is about 400-410 grams per kWh. A Model 3 gets about 4.1 miles per kWh. So each mile emits just 100 grams. And in California (which has the most EVs of any state by far), where the electricity carbon intensity is more like 200 grams per kWh, it's just 50 grams per mile in the Model 3, or about a factor of 5 better than the gasoline car.
- mikemotherwell 7y ago
  What percentage of emissions is usage vs manufacture? I've looked, but I can't get a figure.
  - Robotbeat 7y ago
    The main difference between EVs and standard cars is the battery. Estimates of battery emissions vary widely, but reviews show an average of about 110kg of CO2 per kWh of capacity: https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-life-cycle-GHG_ICCT-Briefing_09022018_vF.pdf https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-life... (Although this is improving with time and may be as low as 56kgCO2/kWhcapacity). So a 50kWh Model 3 has about 5.5mT of emissions from its battery. The rest of it may have lower emissions than a conventional car (since there's no engine, exhaust, fuel tank, etc), but pessimistically we can just assume that the difference in manufacturing emissions between EV and standard is just the battery. Over a 175,000 mile lifetime, a 35mpg gas car will emit 45.4 tonnes of CO2. And a Model 3 (4.1kWh/mile) will emit about 8.5 tonnes with Californian electricity or 17 tonnes with US average grid electricity. In either case, the vast majority of emissions is in the actual energy to fill up the vehicle, not the battery, and electric cars are FAR better (even with a >200 mile range battery which is considered very large in much of the literature) in this respect. A factor of 3.2 times better in California (including the battery) and still a respectable factor of 2 times better in the US with current electricity mix. But of course, if you buy the EV now and it lasts 10-15 years (including secondary and tertiary owners), the US and Californian electric grid will be much better as coal (and later natural gas) is phased out.
ThinkBeat 7y ago
You should factor in the human and environmetal cost that goes into constructing them, especially the batteries. Comparing driving an existing gas/diesel burner for 10 years, instead of buying a brand new electric car. Comparing between a new gas car vs a new electric car is of course favorable for the electric car under most circumstances.
webwielder2 7y ago
Will people who ignore and distort some facts in bad faith not do so for other facts? Seems unlikely.
megaremote 7y ago
> I don't know why Tesla and other electric car manufacturers don't yell and shout more about how much better electric cars are for human health in cities. Well, because they are not that much better. Still more people are killed directly by cars (40,000 a year in the USA, more than guns deaths), and they still cause plastic pollution due to their tires. If anyone actually cares about pollution or human health, they will not be buying any car.
countryqt30 7y ago
Because if you would REALLY CARE, you would walk by foot or not leave the house at all! ;)

namdnay 7y ago

> The climate change argument for EVs is kind of weak, since you still have to produce the electricity Depends where you are. Electricity in France for example is 90% carbon-free

comnetxr 7y ago
> The climate change argument for EVs is kind of weak, since you still have to produce the electricity I also find this line of reasoning problematic. The climate change effect of EVs is _indirect_, but that doesn't mean it's _weak_. It a required step for a huge amount of emissions reductions. Climate change is hard precisely because the economy is full of network effects and path dependencies where you can argue against each individual change by saying that it doesn't do that much for the climate by itself (and for each change, there will be motivated actors making those arguments when the alternative will hit their pocketbooks).
Gibbon1 7y ago
Also the grid is getting less carbon dependent over time. So an EV's effective CO2 emissions per mile gets lower over time. Me I think the CO2 emissions problem from transportation and electricity production is fixable. Which then leaves us with all the other problems.

wffurr 7y ago

Because Teslas emit a ton of PM 2.5. They're heavy compared to ICE cars, and thus wear out brakes, tires, etc. faster. "PM2.5 emissions were only 1-3% lower for EVs compared to modern ICEVs. ... Non-exhaust emissions already account for over 90% of PM10 and 85% of PM2.5 emissions from traffic. ... 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." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297889793_Non-exhaust_PM_emissions_from_electric_vehicles https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297889793_Non-exhau...

polyomino 7y ago
https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297889793_Non-exhaust_PM_emissions_from_electric_vehicles https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/... looks like they're just assuming electric vehicles behave like light trucks because they're heavier than most passenger vehicles and therefore attribute 67% more emissions due to brake wear and don't account for regenerative breaking. (They estimate 2% more emissions from tire wear than lighter vehicles).
- mikepurvis 7y ago
  Yeah, extrapolating on the brake thing seems especially hinky and ill-informed. If you want to have a discussion about brakepad emissions from a Tesla, you should probably be working from real data about how often the brakes are actually applied, or perhaps extrapolate it from service records about mileage numbers on cars when the brake pads are serviced/changed. I expect Tesla would happily hand you a bunch of this anonymized data since it's likely to paint them in a positive light.
  - m463 7y ago
    anecdotally, teslas routinely get 100,000 to 200,000 miles on their brake pads because of regenerative braking. There are ways to get brake wear - switch the regen setting to LOW, or do a track day :)
Robotbeat 7y ago
They didn't actually measure the emissions, and they ignored the benefit from regenerative braking (Tesla brakes basically never need to be replaced unless you drive very aggressively).
gwbas1c 7y ago
Brakes last much longer on electric cars due to regenerative braking.
- rconti 7y ago

dcolkitt 7y ago

On a per-dollar basis, it's more efficient to replace older cars with worse emissions profiles than it is to shift new production to EVs.

Robotbeat 7y ago
I'm not sure that's actually true any more. But even if it is: That's low hanging fruit that simultaneously locks in fossil fuel vehicles for longer and risks the Jevons Paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox Need to go full EV to meet our goals.
tankerdude 7y ago
Data on that point? What's the comparison to new ICE production?
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  Right. I doubt it's actually true. An newer vehicle may get ~25% better efficiency and so a factor of 1.25 lower carbon emissions, but an electric car (which may only have a 20% price premium, if that) in a state like California (which has the most EVs) has a factor of 5 lower carbon emissions.
  - dcolkitt 7y ago
    Carbon emissions are an entirely different issue from air pollution.
mikepurvis 7y ago
I think that depends a lot on your usage pattern. My family is low-car— I'm a four season bike commuter and my partner can largely get around during the day by walking and transit. Because we put less than 10k km on our car each year, I don't think buying a new Tesla or Prius makes sense for us, either from a cost or environmental standpoint. We were previously in a 2003 Volvo station wagon, and now in a 2013 Mazda 5. Neither of these cars is the most efficient on a per-km basis, but we're tackling that by just keeping the total number of km to a minimum. Now, I am in Ontario where we have snowy winters, so almost all cars tend to rust out and be done within 10-15 years— it's not like the southwest where there are lots of truly ancient vehicles still being used as daily drivers. Perhaps the situation is different there.

Robotbeat 7y ago

The climate argument is not "weak for electric cars." Electric cars are about a factor of 2.5 better in terms of emissions per mile even with the current US electric grid. A 35mpg car emits about 250 grams of carbon per mile (a gallon of gasoline emits about 20 pounds of CO2). US emissions per kWh using the most recent data is about 400-410 grams per kWh. A Model 3 gets about 4.1 miles per kWh. So each mile emits just 100 grams. And in California (which has the most EVs of any state by far), where the electricity carbon intensity is more like 200 grams per kWh, it's just 50 grams per mile in the Model 3, or about a factor of 5 better than the gasoline car.

mikemotherwell 7y ago
What percentage of emissions is usage vs manufacture? I've looked, but I can't get a figure.
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  The main difference between EVs and standard cars is the battery. Estimates of battery emissions vary widely, but reviews show an average of about 110kg of CO2 per kWh of capacity: https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-life-cycle-GHG_ICCT-Briefing_09022018_vF.pdf https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-life... (Although this is improving with time and may be as low as 56kgCO2/kWhcapacity). So a 50kWh Model 3 has about 5.5mT of emissions from its battery. The rest of it may have lower emissions than a conventional car (since there's no engine, exhaust, fuel tank, etc), but pessimistically we can just assume that the difference in manufacturing emissions between EV and standard is just the battery. Over a 175,000 mile lifetime, a 35mpg gas car will emit 45.4 tonnes of CO2. And a Model 3 (4.1kWh/mile) will emit about 8.5 tonnes with Californian electricity or 17 tonnes with US average grid electricity. In either case, the vast majority of emissions is in the actual energy to fill up the vehicle, not the battery, and electric cars are FAR better (even with a >200 mile range battery which is considered very large in much of the literature) in this respect. A factor of 3.2 times better in California (including the battery) and still a respectable factor of 2 times better in the US with current electricity mix. But of course, if you buy the EV now and it lasts 10-15 years (including secondary and tertiary owners), the US and Californian electric grid will be much better as coal (and later natural gas) is phased out.

ThinkBeat 7y ago

You should factor in the human and environmetal cost that goes into constructing them, especially the batteries. Comparing driving an existing gas/diesel burner for 10 years, instead of buying a brand new electric car. Comparing between a new gas car vs a new electric car is of course favorable for the electric car under most circumstances.

webwielder2 7y ago

Will people who ignore and distort some facts in bad faith not do so for other facts? Seems unlikely.

megaremote 7y ago

> I don't know why Tesla and other electric car manufacturers don't yell and shout more about how much better electric cars are for human health in cities. Well, because they are not that much better. Still more people are killed directly by cars (40,000 a year in the USA, more than guns deaths), and they still cause plastic pollution due to their tires. If anyone actually cares about pollution or human health, they will not be buying any car.

countryqt30 7y ago

Because if you would REALLY CARE, you would walk by foot or not leave the house at all! ;)