4 ms·
So does it make sense for people to spend more time indoors?
by drpgq 7y ago
So does it make sense for people to spend more time indoors?
- goda90 7y agoIt makes more sense to eliminate air pollution.
- alexgmcm 7y agoElectric vehicles would eliminate a lot of noise pollution too. As a city dweller there is nothing I long for more than complete electrification of all transport and the death of the ICE.
- ljcn 7y agoSadly tyre, brakes, and road abrasion apparently account for far more particulate pollution than the exhaust does. I'd like to find another source for this because it's so surprising. The only solution I suppose is no cars. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7236155/Electric-cars-WONT-end-air-pollution-release-brake-tyre-particulates.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7236155/Elec...
- Kaiyou 7y agoNo cars is no solution, unless you can solve the problem of people needing to go places. Public transport just doesn't cut it and I'm from Europe.
- anonymou2 7y agoThere are a lot of particles coming out of tires and brakes.
- simonsarris 7y agoI'd love gasoline to go away too but most particulate would still be there in the switch because of brakes and tires: http://www.soliftec.com/NonExhaust%20PMs.pdf http://www.soliftec.com/NonExhaust%20PMs.pdf (2016) Study highlights: * A positive relationship exists between vehicle weight and non-exhaust emissions. * Electric vehicles are 24% heavier than their conventional counterparts. * Electric vehicle PM emissions are comparable to those of conventional vehicles. * Non-exhaust sources account for 90% of PM10 and 85% of PM2.5 from traffic. * Future policy should focus on reducing vehicle weight Part of this is that we already spent a lot of deliberate effort on reducing emissions from engines. As the study notes: > Before the introduction of air quality standards, exhaust emissions used to be a major source of PM, especially for diesel cars (Miguel et al., 1998). Since then, PM emission standards for vehicle exhausts have become increasingly strict and now all new diesel passenger cars are fitted with a diesel particulate filter (DPF). Bergmann et al. (2009) found that DPFs are very effective at reducing PM emissions, lowering the emitted mass of PM by 99.3%
- gryzzly 7y agoIt is unclear to me how everyone misses these points when discussing electric vehicles. My utopian view is electric bikes and electric velo-rickshaws in cities where heavy vehicles aren’t allowed (at least inside the living areas). Current road safety standards must account for collisions of heavy metal boxes moving at high speeds. Imagine how much less protection you need with vehicles weighing under 100kg and going at max speed of 25kmh. In a city like Berlin current average speed for cars is 17kmh. It is just stupid to keep going the way we do :'(
- telchar 7y agoThat paper has some flawed assumptions, I think. For one, they tie resuspension linearly to vehicle weight, but say that it's related to the vehicle's wake. It seems that they're confounded by the typical relationship of weight and size (therefore wake). But electric vehicles while heavier, are typically the same size as ICE vehicles. Thus they might break the assumption that greater weight means greater resuspension. The paper says that resuspension is the largest part of non-emissions particulates, so we have lowered brake sources (because regen means less pad wear) and lower emissions, and probably not greater resuspension. Maybe tire wear is higher. Put those together and it seems like electric vehicles should come out ahead, particularly if we're talking about diesel vehicles.
- j88439h84 7y agoThanks for sharing this.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- lm28469 7y agoDepends where, many things are constantly releasing chemicals indoors: bed foam, floors, paint, pm10/2.5 from cooking, most furnitures.