4 ms·

Tire particles are emissions? When I walk are my shoe particles emissions? My skin shedding?

hexchain 7y ago
Electricity. In some places, electricity is still largely produced in thermal power plants, which do pollute a lot. In France and Norway, I guess most of their electricity is from nuclear and water?
klyrs 7y ago
Yes, those are particulate emissions. Your skin biodegrades quite readily so it's not much of an issue. Leather-soled shoes could be a tradeoff that I'm unprepared to compute... but yes even your shoes pollute, if to a lesser degree than a motor vehicle. When it snows, do you notice that slush turns black? Much of that is shredded tires; that ends up polluting our waterways or (hopefully) burdening water purification plants.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  What does this have to do with comparing a Leaf to non-BEVs? Is there some reason why the tires would be significantly more or less polluting?
  - klyrs 7y ago
    It has everything to do with the "zero emissions" claim, and nothing to do with a comparison.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      If nothing has zero emissions, then the phrase "zero emissions" would have no use whatsoever, so applying a context where nothing has zero emissions is internally inconsistent. It can't be a null phrase and not a null phrase at the same time. If something has zero emissions, but it's not a BEV, then maybe you should say what and why the correct definition excludes BEVs.
      - speedgoose 7y ago
        The "zero emission" label is on the back on the car, maybe they should use something else for their marketing.
        perl4ever 7y ago
        If you don't like "zero emissions vehicles", what do you think of: - partial zero emissions vehicles - transitional zero emissions vehicles (plug-in hybrids) - advanced technology partial zero emissions vehicles All of these have tailpipes! To the extent that "zero emissions" does mean "no tailpipe" it's pretty straightforward and reasonable.
      - klyrs 7y ago
        > If nothing has zero emissions, then the phrase "zero emissions" would have no use whatsoever Yes, that's the ideal: don't claim that you've achieved the impossible. I don't want to see folks marketing "perpetual motion" machines for the same reason. For a detailed comparison: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297889793_Non-exhaust_PM_emissions_from_electric_vehicles https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297889793_Non-exhau... Seems fair to call these vehicles "zero exhaust." Electric rail vehicles have extremely low emissions -- if the rails and wheels are carbon steel without added heavy metals, then the direct emissions are relatively benign. Maglev vehicles are even better -- but even so, there's friction with air, moving parts such as doors and lynch pins. Still not zero.
        perl4ever 7y ago
        Perhaps you should explain further the distinction you are making between emissions and exhaust, and why it is correct, and why everyone else should adhere to it. But I stand by my previous comment - you can't treat a phrase or term as meaningless just because you refuse to acknowledge the context.
        klyrs 7y ago
        The EPA[1] defines particulates produced by tires and brakes as emissions, and lists exhaust as one kind of emission. Exhaust[2] is a term used to describe the gas byproduct of a combustion engine. The "context" is a category error mistaking a part for the whole. [1] https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sbai_pres.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas

Electricity. In some places, electricity is still largely produced in thermal power plants, which do pollute a lot. In France and Norway, I guess most of their electricity is from nuclear and water?

klyrs 7y ago

Yes, those are particulate emissions. Your skin biodegrades quite readily so it's not much of an issue. Leather-soled shoes could be a tradeoff that I'm unprepared to compute... but yes even your shoes pollute, if to a lesser degree than a motor vehicle. When it snows, do you notice that slush turns black? Much of that is shredded tires; that ends up polluting our waterways or (hopefully) burdening water purification plants.

perl4ever 7y ago
What does this have to do with comparing a Leaf to non-BEVs? Is there some reason why the tires would be significantly more or less polluting?
- klyrs 7y ago
  It has everything to do with the "zero emissions" claim, and nothing to do with a comparison.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    If nothing has zero emissions, then the phrase "zero emissions" would have no use whatsoever, so applying a context where nothing has zero emissions is internally inconsistent. It can't be a null phrase and not a null phrase at the same time. If something has zero emissions, but it's not a BEV, then maybe you should say what and why the correct definition excludes BEVs.
    - speedgoose 7y ago
      The "zero emission" label is on the back on the car, maybe they should use something else for their marketing.
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        If you don't like "zero emissions vehicles", what do you think of: - partial zero emissions vehicles - transitional zero emissions vehicles (plug-in hybrids) - advanced technology partial zero emissions vehicles All of these have tailpipes! To the extent that "zero emissions" does mean "no tailpipe" it's pretty straightforward and reasonable.
    - klyrs 7y ago
      > If nothing has zero emissions, then the phrase "zero emissions" would have no use whatsoever Yes, that's the ideal: don't claim that you've achieved the impossible. I don't want to see folks marketing "perpetual motion" machines for the same reason. For a detailed comparison: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297889793_Non-exhaust_PM_emissions_from_electric_vehicles https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297889793_Non-exhau... Seems fair to call these vehicles "zero exhaust." Electric rail vehicles have extremely low emissions -- if the rails and wheels are carbon steel without added heavy metals, then the direct emissions are relatively benign. Maglev vehicles are even better -- but even so, there's friction with air, moving parts such as doors and lynch pins. Still not zero.
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        Perhaps you should explain further the distinction you are making between emissions and exhaust, and why it is correct, and why everyone else should adhere to it. But I stand by my previous comment - you can't treat a phrase or term as meaningless just because you refuse to acknowledge the context.
        klyrs 7y ago
        The EPA[1] defines particulates produced by tires and brakes as emissions, and lists exhaust as one kind of emission. Exhaust[2] is a term used to describe the gas byproduct of a combustion engine. The "context" is a category error mistaking a part for the whole. [1] https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sbai_pres.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas