9 ms·

I think air quality is often neglected severely. Best personal solution would probably to move to the countryside. I have no sources at hand, but some said tha

I think air quality is often neglected severely. Best personal solution would probably to move to the countryside. I have no sources at hand, but some said that electric cars don't solve the worst pollution because tire wear and breaks causes the worst problems. You find many articles that state it is 1000 times worse, but they aren't too credible in my opinion. Still, the pollution is real. Dust can also come from pollen. Aside from allergies, it is probably not as unhealthy as plastic.

elric 5y ago
Ah yes, the countryside. Not quite sure how we're going to be housing 7+billion in the countryside. Doesn't seem like a practical solution. Not in the least because moving the countryside will increase car dependence and pollution. But I guess the view might be nicer in the short term. I agree that air quality is probably neglected. Mechanical ventilation (with or without heat/enthalpy recovery) with filters seem like a net win in every dwelling. I haven't had to open a window since installing mine. Less pollen, way less mosquitos, and constant fresh air. A lot cheaper in the long term than those gimmicky devices which circulate indoor air and filter out a bit. If it's in your house, you've already inhaled it.
- mariushn 5y ago
  Mechanical ventilation (with or without heat/enthalpy recovery) with filters -- what should one look for when evaluating what to purchase? Do you recommend specific brands?
  - elric 5y ago
    I opted for Zehnder using a DIY package. If you have basic DIY skills you can install it yourself in a couple of days. Comes with semi-flexible ducting, which is super easy to use. I have fresh air delivered to the living room & bedrooms, and extraction in the kitchen/bathroom/utility room. The unit does heat recovery in winter, which ought to save a bit on the heating bill. It's early days, so we'll see how that goes.
    - mariushn 5y ago
      Thanks!
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    * Do try to get an HRV/ERV if you live in places where the outside air temperature gets >30C or <10C. Otherwise bring in fresh air will cause issues. * Make sure your system can handle MERV16 filters: they catch more things, but may create more back pressure, so the system has to be designed to handle it. Further nice-to-have upgrades would be HEPA capabilities, and (if you live in wildfire zones) charcoal filters (for smoke/fire smells). You don't have to (always) use the finer filters, but having that option is useful. * The filter should ideally be 4"/10cm, as they have more surface area, so reduce back pressure and often only have to be swapped every 6 months (sometimes even every 12). They do cost a bit more because of the extra material, but you get convenience. Don't go less that 2"/5cm though. * The mentioned Zehnder is a good brand, but AFAICT, are higher end systems, and so may be a bit more pricey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrG7oG8Tvp8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrG7oG8Tvp8 https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/urban-rustic-installing-erv https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/urban-rustic-in... * Consider getting a separate whole house dehumidifier, depending on your climate: sometimes the indoor air temperature may be comfortable (20-25C), but if the relative humidity (RH) gets too hight (>60%) it will feel hot. But the AC won't run because its thermometer will say everything is fine. Temperature and moisture needs to be dealt with via separate mechanical systems.
    - mariushn 5y ago
      Thanks!
    - hollerith 5y ago
      >Temperature and moisture needs to be dealt with via separate mechanical systems. Are there dehumidifiers on the market that aren't air conditioners with a bucket under the condenser coils to collect the water? And if you have a whole-house version of one of those, do you need another whole-house air conditioner?
      - throw0101a 5y ago
        Yes, there are "portable" dehumidifiers: * https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/appliances/g27192069/best-dehumidifier/ https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/appliances/g27192069/best-d... It's a matter of volume: one of the portable ones could be useful in a small apartment/condo, or (if you close the door) a bedroom. But if you have something that is 1000 sq. ft. / 100 sq. m. or larger, you may need multiple portable units. It may be simpler to just install a fixed unit and patch it into your existing ducts. There's also the fact that you have to empty the portables, so they may stop at 'random' times until you do so. Not sure about their efficiency, given that have space-volume and weight constraints compared to a fixed whole house unit. Plus you have the noise of the unit running in your living space, compared to having it in your mechanical area.
- coldtea 5y ago
  >Not in the least because moving the countryside will increase car dependence and pollution. Not if you move AND stay in the countryside for the most part. Countryside != suburbs, where you might come and go to some city everyday.
  - wccrawford 5y ago
    Having lived in the "countryside" most of my life, it would absolutely increase "car dependence" (and thus pollution) for people to move there. Public transportation simply isn't possible on those scales. We had maybe a dozen neighbors within a mile of us. Town was 5 miles away. School was in town. We had a nursery next to us, but the next nearest job was in town. Even if you restricted what you're saying to the actual towns, that town currently has 3000 people in it. It only had 1000 when I lived there. I just checked, and they do apparently have "public transportation" there now. They recommend that you book it 3 days in advance to make sure there's availability. It's pretty clearly designed for people who can't otherwise get around, but does clearly state that it's available for everyone.
    - coldtea 5y ago
      >Having lived in the "countryside" most of my life, it would absolutely increase "car dependence" (and thus pollution) for people to move there. Public transportation simply isn't possible on those scales. It's also not needed most of the time, and surely not everyday. Plus, the US model of "countryside" life is not the same as in Europe or elsewhere: e.g. "We had maybe a dozen neighbors within a mile of us. Town was 5 miles away. School was in town. We had a nursery next to us, but the next nearest job was in town." That's not countryside, that sounds like some a rural desert. Countryside in most of Europe e.g. is networks of villages, that are more or less autonomous.
      - pjc50 5y ago
        > networks of villages, that are more or less autonomous. Apart from the fact that most people there have to do a big shop once a week at the nearest supermarket, or that all the professionals commute out of the countryside to their urban workplaces? Only the islands are properly autonomous, and even then that just increases the length of time between supermarket trips.
- dudeman13 5y ago
  >Ah yes, the countryside. Not quite sure how we're going to be housing 7+billion in the countryside. A short-term solution may be viable for the individual while not doing anything for society at large. Mind you, the short-term solution still seems crap to me anyway since "lolz just move your life" is bollocks.
  - corpMaverick 5y ago
    Seems like on of those cases where "what is good for the individual is bad for the whole population if every body follows the advice" I remember seeing this when I took economics but I can't remember how it is called.
    - verbify 5y ago
      Tragedy of the commons
    - chiefofgxbxl 5y ago
      Sounds like a prisoner's dilemma, where from an individual perspective it makes sense to make a certain decision, but the same holds true from anyone else's perspective, and when everyone does it you end up in a worse-off situation than if everyone had cooperated.
    - sjwalter 5y ago
      The universal principle of Kant's categorical imperative is likely this. Something like, take actions that were the principles behind them applied to and adopted by all of society, that society would still be one you'd like to live in. FWIW, I moved outta the city and bought a farm and it's been the best move of my life.
      - p_j_w 5y ago
        It sounds like you violated the very imperative you mentioned, though. If everyone did what you did, the world would be worse. This doesn't address the problem at hand.
kieranmaine 5y ago
A 2019 UK government report found tyre wear, brake wear and road surface wear to be problematic: From "Report: Non-Exhaust Emissions from Road Traffic" (https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/library/reports.php?report_id=992 https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/library/reports.php?report_id=99...) "Data from the UK National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory indicate that particles from brake wear, tyre wear and road surface wear currently constitute 60% and 73% (by mass), respectively, of primary PM2.5 and PM10 emissions from road transport, and will become more dominant in the future. Currently they contribute 7.4% and 8.5% of all UK primary PM2.5 and PM10 emissions. Therefore to achieve further gains in PM2.5 and PM10 air quality in relation to road transport sources requires attention to reducing non- exhaust emissions, not solely a focus on lowering exhaust emissions. The magnitudes of non-exhaust emissions are, however, highly uncertain, particularly when compared to data for exhaust emissions."
- xputer 5y ago
  That's pretty scary, don't brakes contain asbestos?
xorfish 5y ago
Or to city that is not car dependent. Moving to the countryside will just worsen the problem for other people while a city that is not car dependent has other advantages: * Less air pollution * Less travel time for groceries/errands * Less noise pollution * More activity * Kids can play on most streets * 5-20k more disposable income per year because you don't need a car
- elric 5y ago
  Reducing car dependence really ought to be in the top 3 of environmental action points. Clean up energy production, reduce car dependence, start removing CO2 from the atmosphere. There are about 1 BILLION cars in use. It boggles the mind.
  - xorfish 5y ago
    It is not only an environmental necessity. It is also an economic one. Car dependent suburbs are bankrupting cities left and right. They don't pay for themself. Not just bikes made a really good series about the concept of cities, that don't bankrupt themself: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN69ehUTVa https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6...
  - mattbk1 5y ago
    This is the big thing hidden behind all projects (renewables, capture, efficiency upgrades) that claim "this is the equivalent of taking 60,000 cars off the road." Think of the savings for health and the environment if we just spent the money trying to get an actual 60,000 cars off the road in the first place.
metafunctor 5y ago
Many electric cars use the motors for regenerative braking instead of the actual breaks. I also have no sources at hand, but I believe brake dust is greatly reduced with electric cars. Tire wear, well, from what I can tell electric cars seem to chew through tires more quickly due to the weight of the vehicles and the high torque. No sources at hand for this, either…
- gambiting 5y ago
  Even in a PHEV that effect is very noticable. I have a Volvo XC60 T8, 2.2 tonne SUV, and 10k miles in the brake pads are like new. When I had the car serviced recently all pads measured the same thickness as new pads - I'm 100% convinced it's because I just use regenerative breaking all the time, extremely rarely engaging actual brakes. In a car this heavy the pads should be at least half gone after 10k miles, but since they are rarely used they just don't wear out. >>Tire wear, well, from what I can tell electric cars seem to chew through tires more quickly due to the weight of the vehicles and the high torque. I think part of it is the incidental result of most electric cars being both very high torque and very high horsepower. Any 400bhp+ car is going to chew threw tyres quickly, and that's what a lot of the big expensive EVs are. I'd like to see if something like the the Leaf or ID3 use tyres anywhere near as quickly - I suspect very much not.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Not as quickly as the Teslas, but my 21K mile LEAF is due for front tires soon. That’s significantly sooner than OE tires on a typical competitive car.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    The value priced EVs typically come with narrow low rolling resistance tires that have the kind of friction coefficient that tends to get online comment sections whipped into a frenzy of pearl clutching about safety when poor people buy them for their 20yo ICE cars. It's hard to make a 1 for 1 comparison with the luxury EVs that use soft wide tires to take advantage of all that torque. Nitpick: Most EVs are pretty low horsepower. You just don't care because you have ~100% of it available at any RPM.
mosselman 5y ago
I have never heard the brake and tire argument, but it sounds like the 'batteries are worse for the environment than gas' argument which is not very accurate. Makes you wonder if there are companies who benefit from information such as this being believed. Companies such as Shell maybe? Edit: Not saying it isn't true! Just saying there might be more sides to this.
- kebman 5y ago
  Tire wear is a matter of friction. Higher weight, higher friction, thus more wear. In this isolated instance, electrical cars are likely to be worse off than regular cars due to generally higher weight. Perhaps this is offset by regenerative breaking systems though. I'm sure you could make that argument on other parts of the EV as well. Outside of isolated areas like that, I would be seriously surprised if electrical cars comes worse off than gasoline cars on the whole. There has been some talk about CO2 emissions made when making hydro electric dams, for instance, but then there's also CO2 emissions when making oil platforms, and so on, so IMHO those kinds of discussions quickly become very theoretical. Either way, I'm sure EV's are better off in terms of local emissions, meaning that they reduce local smog, and so on. On the other hand, EV's can very well run on coal, if that's how your local electricity is produced. In that case, how well EV's do environmentally speaking is due to the total effort made by society. For that reason I'd love to see a comparison of gasoline and diesel versus coal. Which one is the cleanest? AFAIK there are some real issues with the way lithium is mined for the batteries, however, that doesn't strictly involve emissions. So there are many pros and cons in the debate on electric vs gas cars that aren't obvious to the casual on-looker. I don't have a particular horse in this race myself, but I do note that those who do, tend to offer arguments that are more strongly coloured by their preference. Personally environmental safety isn't the only deciding factor. There's also such things as cost and reach. And I don't just mean how many miles a car can run on one tank, but also its longevity. On the whole it seems to me that EV's have a higher capital cost (up front cost), that might not make up for the savings you make by running it. On the whole it seems to me that gasoline cars have far better overall longevity than EV's, with the offset that EV's are cheaper to run, though with slightly more hassle in the "refuelling" department. For me personally, winter cold is an issue, since it severely affects battery capacity. On the other hand, those Teslas do look pretty cool.
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
The tire thing is real, but EVs are better for brake dust too, as well as local and atmospheric pollution, so it's an overall win. In some countries they're also displacing leaded gasoline which is a double win when it comes to intelligence affects of pollution.
- gambiting 5y ago
  >>In some countries they're also displacing leaded gasoline which is a double win when it comes to intelligence affects of pollution Excuse me, but what? Leaded petrol has been phased out almost everywhere in the world, even according to wiki: "only Algeria, Yemen, and Iraq continue widespread use of leaded gasoline. None use it exclusively". I doubt any of those countries are seeing significant EV uptake either. The only potential real connection here is how in some countries where leaded petrol is still legal but extremely rare(UK), and pretty much only ever used by classic car owners and even then rarely due to its extreme cost, maybe some of these cars are getting converted to EV drivetrains and therefore don't actually burn leaded petrol anymore. Maybe. But that will be extremely negligable, and literally a statistical error compared to the amount of leaded fuel still being burnt by the aviation industry.
alliao 5y ago
this is a fallacy, I drive around countryside a lot. And they use a lot of chemicals. You just end up swapping one set of nasty chemical with another.
ajuc 5y ago
> Best personal solution would probably to move to the countryside. Depends on the country. In Central and Eastern Europe countryside often has worse air quality than cities during winter (because in the cities there's central heating system and co-generation and in the countryside almost each house burns coal for heating).
throw0101a 5y ago
Or just use (at least) MERV13, and ideally MERV16, filters in your fresh air intake ducts: * https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/understanding-filter-ratings-merv-fpr-and-mpr https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/understanding-f... * https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Mean-PM-25-removal-efficiency-for-HVAC-filters-listed-by-MERV-classification_fig1_280321614 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Mean-PM-25-removal-effic... You'll take care of >70% of PM2.5 particles.
- ihattendorf 5y ago
  Careful with this, the increased resistance can damage systems that aren't designed for it.
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    In another comment I mention back pressures: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28085720 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28085720
oakfr 5y ago
The country side is not a silver bullet. It has its own set of problems with pesticides and second-order pollution such as ozone which can be higher than in urban areas. And as other have pointed out, moving to the country side does induce significant extra driving.
cableshaft 5y ago
Not all countryside have clean air. Air from more polluted areas can carry pretty far (like Wildfire smoke, Ozone). For current air quality levels and maps, you can check AirNow[1] for US and Canada, or IQAir[2] for anywhere in the world. It fluctuates every day (like today for me it's just under 50 or 'good', but just yesterday it was over 100) so it's better to look at trends. AirCompare EPA[3] can tell you how many poor air quality days over the past several years on a county by county basis, although not every county reports this (and probably generally the more rural counties don't). [1]: https://www.airnow.gov/ https://www.airnow.gov/ [2]: https://www.iqair.com/us/earth https://www.iqair.com/us/earth [3]: https://www3.epa.gov/aircompare/ https://www3.epa.gov/aircompare/
- specialist 5y ago
  "Move to the country side" is clearly "go to where the air is better". I do appreciate the links though.
  - ihattendorf 5y ago
    What happens if the air quality changes a couple years after you move? Do you uproot your life again?
hattmall 5y ago
Brake and tire wear is the pollution that harms humans, EVs are worse. Greenhouse emissions harm the environment and EVs are far superior.

elric 5y ago

Ah yes, the countryside. Not quite sure how we're going to be housing 7+billion in the countryside. Doesn't seem like a practical solution. Not in the least because moving the countryside will increase car dependence and pollution. But I guess the view might be nicer in the short term. I agree that air quality is probably neglected. Mechanical ventilation (with or without heat/enthalpy recovery) with filters seem like a net win in every dwelling. I haven't had to open a window since installing mine. Less pollen, way less mosquitos, and constant fresh air. A lot cheaper in the long term than those gimmicky devices which circulate indoor air and filter out a bit. If it's in your house, you've already inhaled it.

mariushn 5y ago
Mechanical ventilation (with or without heat/enthalpy recovery) with filters -- what should one look for when evaluating what to purchase? Do you recommend specific brands?
- elric 5y ago
  I opted for Zehnder using a DIY package. If you have basic DIY skills you can install it yourself in a couple of days. Comes with semi-flexible ducting, which is super easy to use. I have fresh air delivered to the living room & bedrooms, and extraction in the kitchen/bathroom/utility room. The unit does heat recovery in winter, which ought to save a bit on the heating bill. It's early days, so we'll see how that goes.
  - mariushn 5y ago
    Thanks!
- throw0101a 5y ago
  * Do try to get an HRV/ERV if you live in places where the outside air temperature gets >30C or <10C. Otherwise bring in fresh air will cause issues. * Make sure your system can handle MERV16 filters: they catch more things, but may create more back pressure, so the system has to be designed to handle it. Further nice-to-have upgrades would be HEPA capabilities, and (if you live in wildfire zones) charcoal filters (for smoke/fire smells). You don't have to (always) use the finer filters, but having that option is useful. * The filter should ideally be 4"/10cm, as they have more surface area, so reduce back pressure and often only have to be swapped every 6 months (sometimes even every 12). They do cost a bit more because of the extra material, but you get convenience. Don't go less that 2"/5cm though. * The mentioned Zehnder is a good brand, but AFAICT, are higher end systems, and so may be a bit more pricey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrG7oG8Tvp8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrG7oG8Tvp8 https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/urban-rustic-installing-erv https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/urban-rustic-in... * Consider getting a separate whole house dehumidifier, depending on your climate: sometimes the indoor air temperature may be comfortable (20-25C), but if the relative humidity (RH) gets too hight (>60%) it will feel hot. But the AC won't run because its thermometer will say everything is fine. Temperature and moisture needs to be dealt with via separate mechanical systems.
  - mariushn 5y ago
    Thanks!
  - hollerith 5y ago
    >Temperature and moisture needs to be dealt with via separate mechanical systems. Are there dehumidifiers on the market that aren't air conditioners with a bucket under the condenser coils to collect the water? And if you have a whole-house version of one of those, do you need another whole-house air conditioner?
    - throw0101a 5y ago
      Yes, there are "portable" dehumidifiers: * https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/appliances/g27192069/best-dehumidifier/ https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/appliances/g27192069/best-d... It's a matter of volume: one of the portable ones could be useful in a small apartment/condo, or (if you close the door) a bedroom. But if you have something that is 1000 sq. ft. / 100 sq. m. or larger, you may need multiple portable units. It may be simpler to just install a fixed unit and patch it into your existing ducts. There's also the fact that you have to empty the portables, so they may stop at 'random' times until you do so. Not sure about their efficiency, given that have space-volume and weight constraints compared to a fixed whole house unit. Plus you have the noise of the unit running in your living space, compared to having it in your mechanical area.
coldtea 5y ago
>Not in the least because moving the countryside will increase car dependence and pollution. Not if you move AND stay in the countryside for the most part. Countryside != suburbs, where you might come and go to some city everyday.
- wccrawford 5y ago
  Having lived in the "countryside" most of my life, it would absolutely increase "car dependence" (and thus pollution) for people to move there. Public transportation simply isn't possible on those scales. We had maybe a dozen neighbors within a mile of us. Town was 5 miles away. School was in town. We had a nursery next to us, but the next nearest job was in town. Even if you restricted what you're saying to the actual towns, that town currently has 3000 people in it. It only had 1000 when I lived there. I just checked, and they do apparently have "public transportation" there now. They recommend that you book it 3 days in advance to make sure there's availability. It's pretty clearly designed for people who can't otherwise get around, but does clearly state that it's available for everyone.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    >Having lived in the "countryside" most of my life, it would absolutely increase "car dependence" (and thus pollution) for people to move there. Public transportation simply isn't possible on those scales. It's also not needed most of the time, and surely not everyday. Plus, the US model of "countryside" life is not the same as in Europe or elsewhere: e.g. "We had maybe a dozen neighbors within a mile of us. Town was 5 miles away. School was in town. We had a nursery next to us, but the next nearest job was in town." That's not countryside, that sounds like some a rural desert. Countryside in most of Europe e.g. is networks of villages, that are more or less autonomous.
    - pjc50 5y ago
      > networks of villages, that are more or less autonomous. Apart from the fact that most people there have to do a big shop once a week at the nearest supermarket, or that all the professionals commute out of the countryside to their urban workplaces? Only the islands are properly autonomous, and even then that just increases the length of time between supermarket trips.
dudeman13 5y ago
>Ah yes, the countryside. Not quite sure how we're going to be housing 7+billion in the countryside. A short-term solution may be viable for the individual while not doing anything for society at large. Mind you, the short-term solution still seems crap to me anyway since "lolz just move your life" is bollocks.
- corpMaverick 5y ago
  Seems like on of those cases where "what is good for the individual is bad for the whole population if every body follows the advice" I remember seeing this when I took economics but I can't remember how it is called.
  - verbify 5y ago
    Tragedy of the commons
  - chiefofgxbxl 5y ago
    Sounds like a prisoner's dilemma, where from an individual perspective it makes sense to make a certain decision, but the same holds true from anyone else's perspective, and when everyone does it you end up in a worse-off situation than if everyone had cooperated.
  - sjwalter 5y ago
    The universal principle of Kant's categorical imperative is likely this. Something like, take actions that were the principles behind them applied to and adopted by all of society, that society would still be one you'd like to live in. FWIW, I moved outta the city and bought a farm and it's been the best move of my life.
    - p_j_w 5y ago
      It sounds like you violated the very imperative you mentioned, though. If everyone did what you did, the world would be worse. This doesn't address the problem at hand.

kieranmaine 5y ago

A 2019 UK government report found tyre wear, brake wear and road surface wear to be problematic: From "Report: Non-Exhaust Emissions from Road Traffic" (https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/library/reports.php?report_id=992 https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/library/reports.php?report_id=99...) "Data from the UK National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory indicate that particles from brake wear, tyre wear and road surface wear currently constitute 60% and 73% (by mass), respectively, of primary PM2.5 and PM10 emissions from road transport, and will become more dominant in the future. Currently they contribute 7.4% and 8.5% of all UK primary PM2.5 and PM10 emissions. Therefore to achieve further gains in PM2.5 and PM10 air quality in relation to road transport sources requires attention to reducing non- exhaust emissions, not solely a focus on lowering exhaust emissions. The magnitudes of non-exhaust emissions are, however, highly uncertain, particularly when compared to data for exhaust emissions."

xputer 5y ago
That's pretty scary, don't brakes contain asbestos?

xorfish 5y ago

Or to city that is not car dependent. Moving to the countryside will just worsen the problem for other people while a city that is not car dependent has other advantages: * Less air pollution * Less travel time for groceries/errands * Less noise pollution * More activity * Kids can play on most streets * 5-20k more disposable income per year because you don't need a car

elric 5y ago
Reducing car dependence really ought to be in the top 3 of environmental action points. Clean up energy production, reduce car dependence, start removing CO2 from the atmosphere. There are about 1 BILLION cars in use. It boggles the mind.
- xorfish 5y ago
  It is not only an environmental necessity. It is also an economic one. Car dependent suburbs are bankrupting cities left and right. They don't pay for themself. Not just bikes made a really good series about the concept of cities, that don't bankrupt themself: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN69ehUTVa https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6...
- mattbk1 5y ago
  This is the big thing hidden behind all projects (renewables, capture, efficiency upgrades) that claim "this is the equivalent of taking 60,000 cars off the road." Think of the savings for health and the environment if we just spent the money trying to get an actual 60,000 cars off the road in the first place.

metafunctor 5y ago

Many electric cars use the motors for regenerative braking instead of the actual breaks. I also have no sources at hand, but I believe brake dust is greatly reduced with electric cars. Tire wear, well, from what I can tell electric cars seem to chew through tires more quickly due to the weight of the vehicles and the high torque. No sources at hand for this, either…

gambiting 5y ago
Even in a PHEV that effect is very noticable. I have a Volvo XC60 T8, 2.2 tonne SUV, and 10k miles in the brake pads are like new. When I had the car serviced recently all pads measured the same thickness as new pads - I'm 100% convinced it's because I just use regenerative breaking all the time, extremely rarely engaging actual brakes. In a car this heavy the pads should be at least half gone after 10k miles, but since they are rarely used they just don't wear out. >>Tire wear, well, from what I can tell electric cars seem to chew through tires more quickly due to the weight of the vehicles and the high torque. I think part of it is the incidental result of most electric cars being both very high torque and very high horsepower. Any 400bhp+ car is going to chew threw tyres quickly, and that's what a lot of the big expensive EVs are. I'd like to see if something like the the Leaf or ID3 use tyres anywhere near as quickly - I suspect very much not.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Not as quickly as the Teslas, but my 21K mile LEAF is due for front tires soon. That’s significantly sooner than OE tires on a typical competitive car.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  The value priced EVs typically come with narrow low rolling resistance tires that have the kind of friction coefficient that tends to get online comment sections whipped into a frenzy of pearl clutching about safety when poor people buy them for their 20yo ICE cars. It's hard to make a 1 for 1 comparison with the luxury EVs that use soft wide tires to take advantage of all that torque. Nitpick: Most EVs are pretty low horsepower. You just don't care because you have ~100% of it available at any RPM.

mosselman 5y ago

I have never heard the brake and tire argument, but it sounds like the 'batteries are worse for the environment than gas' argument which is not very accurate. Makes you wonder if there are companies who benefit from information such as this being believed. Companies such as Shell maybe? Edit: Not saying it isn't true! Just saying there might be more sides to this.

kebman 5y ago
Tire wear is a matter of friction. Higher weight, higher friction, thus more wear. In this isolated instance, electrical cars are likely to be worse off than regular cars due to generally higher weight. Perhaps this is offset by regenerative breaking systems though. I'm sure you could make that argument on other parts of the EV as well. Outside of isolated areas like that, I would be seriously surprised if electrical cars comes worse off than gasoline cars on the whole. There has been some talk about CO2 emissions made when making hydro electric dams, for instance, but then there's also CO2 emissions when making oil platforms, and so on, so IMHO those kinds of discussions quickly become very theoretical. Either way, I'm sure EV's are better off in terms of local emissions, meaning that they reduce local smog, and so on. On the other hand, EV's can very well run on coal, if that's how your local electricity is produced. In that case, how well EV's do environmentally speaking is due to the total effort made by society. For that reason I'd love to see a comparison of gasoline and diesel versus coal. Which one is the cleanest? AFAIK there are some real issues with the way lithium is mined for the batteries, however, that doesn't strictly involve emissions. So there are many pros and cons in the debate on electric vs gas cars that aren't obvious to the casual on-looker. I don't have a particular horse in this race myself, but I do note that those who do, tend to offer arguments that are more strongly coloured by their preference. Personally environmental safety isn't the only deciding factor. There's also such things as cost and reach. And I don't just mean how many miles a car can run on one tank, but also its longevity. On the whole it seems to me that EV's have a higher capital cost (up front cost), that might not make up for the savings you make by running it. On the whole it seems to me that gasoline cars have far better overall longevity than EV's, with the offset that EV's are cheaper to run, though with slightly more hassle in the "refuelling" department. For me personally, winter cold is an issue, since it severely affects battery capacity. On the other hand, those Teslas do look pretty cool.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

The tire thing is real, but EVs are better for brake dust too, as well as local and atmospheric pollution, so it's an overall win. In some countries they're also displacing leaded gasoline which is a double win when it comes to intelligence affects of pollution.

gambiting 5y ago
>>In some countries they're also displacing leaded gasoline which is a double win when it comes to intelligence affects of pollution Excuse me, but what? Leaded petrol has been phased out almost everywhere in the world, even according to wiki: "only Algeria, Yemen, and Iraq continue widespread use of leaded gasoline. None use it exclusively". I doubt any of those countries are seeing significant EV uptake either. The only potential real connection here is how in some countries where leaded petrol is still legal but extremely rare(UK), and pretty much only ever used by classic car owners and even then rarely due to its extreme cost, maybe some of these cars are getting converted to EV drivetrains and therefore don't actually burn leaded petrol anymore. Maybe. But that will be extremely negligable, and literally a statistical error compared to the amount of leaded fuel still being burnt by the aviation industry.

alliao 5y ago

this is a fallacy, I drive around countryside a lot. And they use a lot of chemicals. You just end up swapping one set of nasty chemical with another.

ajuc 5y ago

> Best personal solution would probably to move to the countryside. Depends on the country. In Central and Eastern Europe countryside often has worse air quality than cities during winter (because in the cities there's central heating system and co-generation and in the countryside almost each house burns coal for heating).

throw0101a 5y ago

Or just use (at least) MERV13, and ideally MERV16, filters in your fresh air intake ducts: * https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/understanding-filter-ratings-merv-fpr-and-mpr https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/understanding-f... * https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Mean-PM-25-removal-efficiency-for-HVAC-filters-listed-by-MERV-classification_fig1_280321614 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Mean-PM-25-removal-effic... You'll take care of >70% of PM2.5 particles.

ihattendorf 5y ago
Careful with this, the increased resistance can damage systems that aren't designed for it.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  In another comment I mention back pressures: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28085720 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28085720

oakfr 5y ago

The country side is not a silver bullet. It has its own set of problems with pesticides and second-order pollution such as ozone which can be higher than in urban areas. And as other have pointed out, moving to the country side does induce significant extra driving.

cableshaft 5y ago

Not all countryside have clean air. Air from more polluted areas can carry pretty far (like Wildfire smoke, Ozone). For current air quality levels and maps, you can check AirNow[1] for US and Canada, or IQAir[2] for anywhere in the world. It fluctuates every day (like today for me it's just under 50 or 'good', but just yesterday it was over 100) so it's better to look at trends. AirCompare EPA[3] can tell you how many poor air quality days over the past several years on a county by county basis, although not every county reports this (and probably generally the more rural counties don't). [1]: https://www.airnow.gov/ https://www.airnow.gov/ [2]: https://www.iqair.com/us/earth https://www.iqair.com/us/earth [3]: https://www3.epa.gov/aircompare/ https://www3.epa.gov/aircompare/

specialist 5y ago
"Move to the country side" is clearly "go to where the air is better". I do appreciate the links though.
- ihattendorf 5y ago
  What happens if the air quality changes a couple years after you move? Do you uproot your life again?

hattmall 5y ago

Brake and tire wear is the pollution that harms humans, EVs are worse. Greenhouse emissions harm the environment and EVs are far superior.