5 ms·

Brake and tire dust absolutely are a problem, even if it’s inconvenient for you. Reducing fine particulate matter pollution is a major concern. That it translat

by toxik 3y ago

Brake and tire dust absolutely are a problem, even if it’s inconvenient for you. Reducing fine particulate matter pollution is a major concern. That it translates onto railway is fairly unsurprising. By the way, EVs reduce brake dust since they are basically braking magnetically a lot of the time.

bluescrn 3y ago
[flagged]
- muti 3y ago
  Cycling and walking are active and would have a net benefit if more people switched away from sedentary driving. Bike brakes and shoe soles don't have to slow down thousands of kilograms of mass either, so the wear and subsequent particulate emissions are much less than a car.
  - nemo44x 3y ago
    Driving provides far more utility than just moving a person. It moves to-and-fro many people over relatively large distances with many other objects, all on demand and on the whim of the driver. Walking or riding a bike is nice. But they are not suitable replacements for the multitude of utility a car provides.
    - eliaspro 3y ago
      When there's proper public transport in place, cars aren't needed. Trains for medium/long distances, busses for medium/short distances, bikes for short distances and a pair of feet for everything else. Beyond a certain network-density of other modes of transport, there are simply better alternatives to cars (in most cases). Cars by themselves are the most inefficient (cost, space, fuel, economically) and polluting mode of land-based transport we have. I know, it's a completely different thing in the US, which is full of car centric infrastructure and other modes of transport are either absent (passenger trains) or often impossible or outright dangerous due to the sheer danger caused by a lack of proper infrastructure for pedestrians/cyclists, public education/general behavior (road rage, drivers' education, ...) or even impossible to cover by bike due to the distances caused by urban sprawl/a lack of density due to zoning laws.
      - xkcd1963 3y ago
        Man wanted to travel larger distances in shorter time to any place he deemed worthy at any time. And after a while another man came and said "you shall not, its unhealthy. Take a train, which will bring you to a limited amount of places at certain times during the day. Ah and don't forget to pay your bike ticket because a bike is obviously a person as well"
    - muti 3y ago
      Most trips are over a short distance (less than three miles!) and are easily covered by bike or other non-car method [1] I don't have stats but would wager that an even larger proportion of trips are not carrying more cargo than could fit in a backpack either. 1. https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1230-march-21-2022-more-half-all-daily-trips-were-less-three-miles-2021 https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1230-marc...
      - nemo44x 3y ago
        Sure, we'll just throw the toddler, child and his hockey gear, backpacks, the dog and the wife on a bike and drive the 3 miles to drop off the child at hockey camp, then another 2 in another direction to go to the playground (it has to be this particular playground because the one by the house is boring now) and walk the dog in the park while pushing the toddler in the stroller that we somehow transported on our bikes. And then when we stop at Home Depot to pick up a bulky and heavy items, we'll just tie that onto the bike before picking up the kid from hockey. No, a bike is rarely a suitable solution to this problem. People want cars because they solve a lot of problems like freedom of movement at any time to any place with anyone and anything. If this was any way to live then people would actually be doing it. There's a reason MANY people move out the city when the kids start coming because subways and bikes are not very nice to manage these things. This site is full of single dudes who live in urban areas and that's their world view. People with families do not fit into that lifestyle.
- nielsole 3y ago
  Bicycles have much lower mass _and_ lower speed and thus likely far lower emission. To put it into the words of the WHO: > More than 15 years have passed since the publication of Global update 2005. In that time there has been a marked increase in evidence on the adverse health effects of air pollution, built on advances in air pollution measurement and exposure assessment and an expanded global database of air pollution measurements (discussed in Chapter 1. New epidemiological studies have documented the adverse health effects of exposure to high levels of air pollution in low- and middle-income countries, and studies in high-income countries with relatively clean air have reported adverse effects at much lower levels than had previously been studied. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240034228 https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240034228
- lostlogin 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - DonHopkins 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - bluescrn 3y ago
    Yes. I'm against both fringes. Climate denialism is a problem, but so is the idea that you can just turn off the oil pumps/transport networks and not expect millions/billions to die, or at best face a life of extreme impoverishment.
    - lukebitts 3y ago
      Who is advocating for immediate turning off of oil pumps and transport networks?
- moooo99 3y ago
  > nobody ever mentioned brake/tyre dust until the switch to EVs had begun, Remember asbestos brake pads?
bboygravity 3y ago
Intercity trains in Netherlands are EVs.
technocratius 3y ago
I believe that EVs on average are associated with higher particulate matter "emissions". Noowadays the majority of PM comes from the friction/erosion of tires on the road (as combustion soot gets filtered out due to regulations). Since EVs are typically much heavier due to their batteries, their tires give of more PM per km driven.
- VBprogrammer 3y ago
  Much heavier is stretching things. An VW ID3 is about 200kg heavier than the identical sized petrol Golf. A lot of EVs will be lighter than plenty of bigger petrol or diesel SUVs.
  - sspiff 3y ago
    Most EVs will still be SUVs or crossovers, sadly. Even moreso than with current ICE vehicles.
    - Robotbeat 3y ago
      In the US, I’d blame the IRA’s tax incentive structure which incentivizes the vehicles that GM (and Ford) find most profitable.
      - sspiff 3y ago
        Regardless of regulation, the same market shift has occurred in Europe. As someone who prefers low and light vehicles I can lament this, but we can only blame ourselves. Wagon and sedan sales have plumetted. Even the king of affordable cars, the hatchback is suffering, with mainstays such as the Fiesta and Focus being discontinued.
  - tokamak-teapot 3y ago
    Could you point to the specs you’re using please? I’m seeing 1800 for the ID.3 and around 1160 for the most recent petrol Golf.
- 3y ago
Symbiote 3y ago
Many trains, including diesel trains, use the motors as generators for braking. Electric trains might return the power to the grid, diesel ones can dump it into a large bank of resistors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_braking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_braking
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  To be clear, even diesel locomotives use electric motors to drive the wheels. The diesel engines drive an on-board generator to make electricity. This avoids the need for a transmission, which would have trouble delivering the torque needed to start the train from a standstill.
ilyt 3y ago
Is that net negative ? They are heavier so I'd imagine more tyre dust

by toxik 3y ago

bluescrn 3y ago

[flagged]

muti 3y ago
Cycling and walking are active and would have a net benefit if more people switched away from sedentary driving. Bike brakes and shoe soles don't have to slow down thousands of kilograms of mass either, so the wear and subsequent particulate emissions are much less than a car.
- nemo44x 3y ago
  Driving provides far more utility than just moving a person. It moves to-and-fro many people over relatively large distances with many other objects, all on demand and on the whim of the driver. Walking or riding a bike is nice. But they are not suitable replacements for the multitude of utility a car provides.
  - eliaspro 3y ago
    When there's proper public transport in place, cars aren't needed. Trains for medium/long distances, busses for medium/short distances, bikes for short distances and a pair of feet for everything else. Beyond a certain network-density of other modes of transport, there are simply better alternatives to cars (in most cases). Cars by themselves are the most inefficient (cost, space, fuel, economically) and polluting mode of land-based transport we have. I know, it's a completely different thing in the US, which is full of car centric infrastructure and other modes of transport are either absent (passenger trains) or often impossible or outright dangerous due to the sheer danger caused by a lack of proper infrastructure for pedestrians/cyclists, public education/general behavior (road rage, drivers' education, ...) or even impossible to cover by bike due to the distances caused by urban sprawl/a lack of density due to zoning laws.
    - xkcd1963 3y ago
      Man wanted to travel larger distances in shorter time to any place he deemed worthy at any time. And after a while another man came and said "you shall not, its unhealthy. Take a train, which will bring you to a limited amount of places at certain times during the day. Ah and don't forget to pay your bike ticket because a bike is obviously a person as well"
  - muti 3y ago
    Most trips are over a short distance (less than three miles!) and are easily covered by bike or other non-car method [1] I don't have stats but would wager that an even larger proportion of trips are not carrying more cargo than could fit in a backpack either. 1. https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1230-march-21-2022-more-half-all-daily-trips-were-less-three-miles-2021 https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1230-marc...
    - nemo44x 3y ago
      Sure, we'll just throw the toddler, child and his hockey gear, backpacks, the dog and the wife on a bike and drive the 3 miles to drop off the child at hockey camp, then another 2 in another direction to go to the playground (it has to be this particular playground because the one by the house is boring now) and walk the dog in the park while pushing the toddler in the stroller that we somehow transported on our bikes. And then when we stop at Home Depot to pick up a bulky and heavy items, we'll just tie that onto the bike before picking up the kid from hockey. No, a bike is rarely a suitable solution to this problem. People want cars because they solve a lot of problems like freedom of movement at any time to any place with anyone and anything. If this was any way to live then people would actually be doing it. There's a reason MANY people move out the city when the kids start coming because subways and bikes are not very nice to manage these things. This site is full of single dudes who live in urban areas and that's their world view. People with families do not fit into that lifestyle.
nielsole 3y ago
Bicycles have much lower mass _and_ lower speed and thus likely far lower emission. To put it into the words of the WHO: > More than 15 years have passed since the publication of Global update 2005. In that time there has been a marked increase in evidence on the adverse health effects of air pollution, built on advances in air pollution measurement and exposure assessment and an expanded global database of air pollution measurements (discussed in Chapter 1. New epidemiological studies have documented the adverse health effects of exposure to high levels of air pollution in low- and middle-income countries, and studies in high-income countries with relatively clean air have reported adverse effects at much lower levels than had previously been studied. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240034228 https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240034228
lostlogin 3y ago
[flagged]
- DonHopkins 3y ago
  [flagged]
- bluescrn 3y ago
  Yes. I'm against both fringes. Climate denialism is a problem, but so is the idea that you can just turn off the oil pumps/transport networks and not expect millions/billions to die, or at best face a life of extreme impoverishment.
  - lukebitts 3y ago
    Who is advocating for immediate turning off of oil pumps and transport networks?
moooo99 3y ago
> nobody ever mentioned brake/tyre dust until the switch to EVs had begun, Remember asbestos brake pads?

bboygravity 3y ago

Intercity trains in Netherlands are EVs.

technocratius 3y ago

I believe that EVs on average are associated with higher particulate matter "emissions". Noowadays the majority of PM comes from the friction/erosion of tires on the road (as combustion soot gets filtered out due to regulations). Since EVs are typically much heavier due to their batteries, their tires give of more PM per km driven.

VBprogrammer 3y ago
Much heavier is stretching things. An VW ID3 is about 200kg heavier than the identical sized petrol Golf. A lot of EVs will be lighter than plenty of bigger petrol or diesel SUVs.
- sspiff 3y ago
  Most EVs will still be SUVs or crossovers, sadly. Even moreso than with current ICE vehicles.
  - Robotbeat 3y ago
    In the US, I’d blame the IRA’s tax incentive structure which incentivizes the vehicles that GM (and Ford) find most profitable.
    - sspiff 3y ago
      Regardless of regulation, the same market shift has occurred in Europe. As someone who prefers low and light vehicles I can lament this, but we can only blame ourselves. Wagon and sedan sales have plumetted. Even the king of affordable cars, the hatchback is suffering, with mainstays such as the Fiesta and Focus being discontinued.
- tokamak-teapot 3y ago
  Could you point to the specs you’re using please? I’m seeing 1800 for the ID.3 and around 1160 for the most recent petrol Golf.
3y ago

Symbiote 3y ago

Many trains, including diesel trains, use the motors as generators for braking. Electric trains might return the power to the grid, diesel ones can dump it into a large bank of resistors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_braking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_braking

SoftTalker 3y ago
To be clear, even diesel locomotives use electric motors to drive the wheels. The diesel engines drive an on-board generator to make electricity. This avoids the need for a transmission, which would have trouble delivering the torque needed to start the train from a standstill.

ilyt 3y ago

Is that net negative ? They are heavier so I'd imagine more tyre dust