4 ms·

Idk if you tried looking at any evidence when making your claim, but this clearly supports the gp and contradicts your statement [1] [2]. [1]https://www.ridef2

Idk if you tried looking at any evidence when making your claim, but this clearly supports the gp and contradicts your statement [1] [2]. [1]https://www.ridef2.com/blog-del-direttore-ridef/will-electric-vehicles-contribute-less-particulate-matter-pm10-and-pm25-to-our-air-recent-analysis-and-meta-analysis-conclude-negligibly-and-policies-to-reduce-number-and-weight-of-vehicles-are-needed4720595 https://www.ridef2.com/blog-del-direttore-ridef/will-electri... [2]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S135223101630187X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13522...

deeviant 5y ago
Idk, if you bothered to read the study that you are pointing to in your coup de grace, you'd would realize your cited sources admit that EV's create no more particulate pollution than ICE engines. Your cited study actually states that EVs do reduce particulate pollution but only by a couple percent, which is opposite of "creating more" for those who prefer evidence based positions. It's almost as if regenerative breaking reduces break wear and compensates for the marginal increase weight as many other people have already pointed out?
- briefcomment 5y ago
  The original GP's post had two points: - most PM 2.5 pollution is produced by brake pad and tire wear - which [i.e. PM 2.5 pollution produced by brake pad and tire wear] is made worse by EVs due to their weight These are direct quotes from my links: - "A large fraction (50-85% and up to 90%) of traffic generated PM10 and PM2,5 is not due to the exhaust emissions by the motor, but rather to non-exhaust emissions (brake wear, road wear, tyre wear and road dust resuspension)" - "A positive relationship exists between vehicle weight and non-exhaust emissions."... "Electric vehicles are 24% heavier than their conventional counterparts."
  - thomasmeeks 5y ago
    What’s your point? That we should continue to favor gas cars over EVs? That cars should be taken off the road entirely? Something else?
    - briefcomment 5y ago
      My point was to defend ADSSDA's post against deeviant's claims. Personally, I would like light EVs.
      - TheParkShark 5y ago
        So en EV without a battery? They didn’t make them weigh more just because they wanted to.
    - hattmall 5y ago
      I think it's just that EVs will not reduce asthma caused by small particle air pollution. They may in fact make it worse.
  - askvictor 5y ago
    > "A positive relationship exists between vehicle weight and non-exhaust emissions."... "Electric vehicles are 24% heavier than their conventional counterparts." Both are true. However, without factoring in decreased friction-brake usage in EVs (due to regenerative braking), this point is meaningless or deceptive.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deeviant 5y ago
    The study cited to me in order to defend the point that EVs make more particulate pollution flat out found that EV's create less particulate pollution. > A positive relationship exists between vehicle weight and non-exhaust emissions." As others already pointed out, that is the same study, the same study that found that EV's create less particulate pollution. The more weight = more particulate emission part did not control for EV regenerative breaking. So your position is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worse. This will be my last comment here on the account that I will not debate facts with random people on the internet. If you can't be bothered to read the study, don't cite it, don't reference it and for god's sake don't try to use it to say something that is literally the opposite of it's findings.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  Brake. The word is brake.
  - deeviant 5y ago
    I am dyslexic, I swap words like that frequently, shit happens. But if that is all you have to add to this discussion, I wonder why you bothered.
sdflhasjd 5y ago
Both those sources are the same paper, fyi. Found a PDF here: http://www.soliftec.com/NonExhaust%20PMs.pdf http://www.soliftec.com/NonExhaust%20PMs.pdf And the claim is a bit dubious, imo. It looks like they're counting "resuspension" (kicking up existing settled PM2.5 in the wake) as a source.
- briefcomment 5y ago
  The first link cites multiple papers, including the one in the second link. Looks like the study that mentions "resuspension" is a different study[1] than the one in the second link. [1]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231014007419?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13522...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

deeviant 5y ago

Idk, if you bothered to read the study that you are pointing to in your coup de grace, you'd would realize your cited sources admit that EV's create no more particulate pollution than ICE engines. Your cited study actually states that EVs do reduce particulate pollution but only by a couple percent, which is opposite of "creating more" for those who prefer evidence based positions. It's almost as if regenerative breaking reduces break wear and compensates for the marginal increase weight as many other people have already pointed out?

briefcomment 5y ago
The original GP's post had two points: - most PM 2.5 pollution is produced by brake pad and tire wear - which [i.e. PM 2.5 pollution produced by brake pad and tire wear] is made worse by EVs due to their weight These are direct quotes from my links: - "A large fraction (50-85% and up to 90%) of traffic generated PM10 and PM2,5 is not due to the exhaust emissions by the motor, but rather to non-exhaust emissions (brake wear, road wear, tyre wear and road dust resuspension)" - "A positive relationship exists between vehicle weight and non-exhaust emissions."... "Electric vehicles are 24% heavier than their conventional counterparts."
- thomasmeeks 5y ago
  What’s your point? That we should continue to favor gas cars over EVs? That cars should be taken off the road entirely? Something else?
  - briefcomment 5y ago
    My point was to defend ADSSDA's post against deeviant's claims. Personally, I would like light EVs.
    - TheParkShark 5y ago
      So en EV without a battery? They didn’t make them weigh more just because they wanted to.
  - hattmall 5y ago
    I think it's just that EVs will not reduce asthma caused by small particle air pollution. They may in fact make it worse.
- askvictor 5y ago
  > "A positive relationship exists between vehicle weight and non-exhaust emissions."... "Electric vehicles are 24% heavier than their conventional counterparts." Both are true. However, without factoring in decreased friction-brake usage in EVs (due to regenerative braking), this point is meaningless or deceptive.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deeviant 5y ago
  The study cited to me in order to defend the point that EVs make more particulate pollution flat out found that EV's create less particulate pollution. > A positive relationship exists between vehicle weight and non-exhaust emissions." As others already pointed out, that is the same study, the same study that found that EV's create less particulate pollution. The more weight = more particulate emission part did not control for EV regenerative breaking. So your position is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worse. This will be my last comment here on the account that I will not debate facts with random people on the internet. If you can't be bothered to read the study, don't cite it, don't reference it and for god's sake don't try to use it to say something that is literally the opposite of it's findings.
throwawayboise 5y ago
Brake. The word is brake.
- deeviant 5y ago
  I am dyslexic, I swap words like that frequently, shit happens. But if that is all you have to add to this discussion, I wonder why you bothered.

sdflhasjd 5y ago

Both those sources are the same paper, fyi. Found a PDF here: http://www.soliftec.com/NonExhaust%20PMs.pdf http://www.soliftec.com/NonExhaust%20PMs.pdf And the claim is a bit dubious, imo. It looks like they're counting "resuspension" (kicking up existing settled PM2.5 in the wake) as a source.

briefcomment 5y ago
The first link cites multiple papers, including the one in the second link. Looks like the study that mentions "resuspension" is a different study[1] than the one in the second link. [1]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231014007419?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13522...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]