6 ms·

EVs Are Sending Toxic Tire Particles into the Water, Soil, and Air

15 points by chewz 3y ago

EA-3167 3y ago
... As are ICE vehicles. Tire rubber is one of the major sources of microplastics after all, or did people think it just vanished? > New EV models tend to be heavier and quicker—generating more particulates and deepening the danger. Compared to what? I'm pretty sure a Nissan Leaf has nothing on an ICE escalade.
- MBCook 3y ago
  The heavier the vehicle, the more particles. Yeah. EVs are much worse, until we find some magical battery breakthrough or realize not everyone needs 350 mile range. That said I’ll take worse tire emissions over better tire emissions plus CO2 + CO + NO2 + whatever else + all the emissions creating/moving gas. You want lower EV tire emissions? Cut down own the need to drive.
  - lockhouse 3y ago
    The problem is that the range of your new EV will only decrease with time. A car with 350 mile range will become much lower after 5 years. > According to Geotab, a transportation connectivity services company, an average EV loses 2.3% of its battery capacity each year that it's in service. An EV that has a 300-mile-range would have a 293-mile-range after a year. After five years on the road, you could expect a range of 266 miles on a single charge. https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/advice/how-long-do-ev-batteries-last https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/advice/how-long-do-ev-ba...
    - undersuit 3y ago
      Why does that matter if I only need 50 miles of range for my day to day?
      - lockhouse 3y ago
        It might not matter for you. It does matter for the people making a trip across the country. Some people need cars for more than just a 50 mile daily commute.
        EA-3167 3y ago
        What percentage of overall miles driven are accounted for by cross-country (or lets just say multi-day trips) out of the total number of miles driven? The stat I can find states that for single-trip journeys 98% are under 50 miles, with those over 70 miles being 1%. Obviously "single-trip" is doing plenty of work there, but you can go surprisingly far in a day of driving and those are still pretty small numbers. Maybe at the end of the day the car is just not the best way to go across a country as large as the US.
        lockhouse 3y ago
        It doesn’t matter what percent of trips that represents, a lot of Americans won’t buy EVs that aren’t capable of making these trips when they want to make them. Nobody wants to take a Greyhound bus to see their parents that live 4 hours away in the next state over.
        EA-3167 3y ago
        The thing is we know already that single-trips like that are less than 1% of all miles driven, and 4 hours is definitely a single-trip. I'd add that even with an EV and needing to stop for a charge, that's still very much a single trip affair. I'm sure that some people won't buy a car on that basis, but I suspect the vast majority will. The more people buy them, the more the infrastructure caters to it, the more the technology is funded and advances, and the remaining holdouts will eventually be sufficiently incentivized.
        lockhouse 3y ago
        I’m not arguing against EVs at all, just making the case that 350 miles of range isn’t excessive by any means, especially once you account for battery degradation over time. Personally the absolute minimum range I would consider for an EV is 250 miles with 300 or more being ideal.
  - clouddrover 3y ago
    > until we find some magical battery breakthrough It doesn't have to be magical. It can just be steady improvement in battery chemistry. Nio's cars have swappable battery packs. The current battery sizes they use are 75 kWh, 100 kWh, and their new battery option is 150 kWh: https://cnevpost.com/2023/07/07/nio-user-manuals-include-150-kwh-battery/ https://cnevpost.com/2023/07/07/nio-user-manuals-include-150... From 75 to 150 kWh that's a doubling of energy content in the same physical pack dimensions, and the 150 kWh pack has only a 20 kg weight increase versus the 100 kWh pack. A 75 or 100 kWh pack with the same WeLion chemistry would weigh less than Nio's existing 75 and 100 kWh packs. Once production scales up Nio may well switch all the packs to the WeLion chemistry if the price is right. That's not achieved through magic. It's achieved through better battery chemistry.
throwaway5959 3y ago
[flagged]
yongjik 3y ago
I'm on the fence whether I should just flag this and move on. On one hand, there's an interesting discussion to be made: EVs are heavier, which means (while they cause less CO2 emission) they may cause more pollution in other areas. I think in the grand scheme of things EVs are clearly better than ICEs, but that doesn't mean we can just say "Oh we have EVs now, problem solved!" and go back to "business as usual." On the other hand ...... I have a hunch why this was posted to HN, and it's probably not to have a balanced discussion about different ways vehicles pollute the earth and what we should do about it.
- chewz 3y ago
  Cute admission... You seem to be torn between open discussion (do EV's have negative effects?) and ideological purity (EV's must be only prestented as positive regardless of facts). You know what you should be thinking (adhere to the Party line) and you are afraid that taking part in free discussion might lead you to conclusions that are at odds.... So you would rather self-censor your thoughts and avoid any discussion. Welcome to 1984...
  - ysleepy 3y ago
    Cute armchair psychology.... But relax and think about why tire emissions of heavy cars are brought up with EVs in particular, when the same point can be made with SUVs vs. smaller cars. Going further, who stands to gain, multi national oil conglomerates who are known for manipulating public discourse in favor of cars vs. public transport and right of way and on the other side, the bad bad people trying to act on a very inconvenient and annoying scientific consensus that we need to alter our behaviour. 1984 indeed, but who is the powerful oppressor here, especially when you are a child, witnessing the destruction of what your parents were still able to enjoy.
    - chewz 3y ago
      All right. A conspiracy of big, bad business... That surely makes for rational conversation. Yes comrade, Enemy never sleeps, we must be always cautious and of highest ideological purity...
gogusrl 3y ago
While they are heavier than the ICE counterparts, EV's are usually delivered on skinnier tires with low rolling resistance so that should help a bit. In the end like others have said, it's extra tire particles vs all the nasty crap from ICE.
prennert 3y ago
Comments below discuss, 1. batteries contribute a lot to EV weight, which in turn contributes to tire dust, 2. people overbuy on range for 1% of long-range trips, and 3. batteries degrade by some percent every year So why not do the following: - allow battery packs to be swappable including - having battery bays for a range up to something like 300miles, but composed of smaller batteries with 100miles range each? Then you could: - add batteries when you need them (longer range, higher wear), and - remove batteries when you don't need them (lower range, lower wear), and as added benefit: - because batteries are swappable, they can be replaced easily, and range extensions could even be rented for the two weeks of holidays (range as a service) This could follow a similar model to how winter and summer tires are swapped regularly in many countries. If batteries were standardized, then they could even be shared between different vehicle types to account for seasonal need (farming, holidays, other machinery).

15 points by chewz 3y ago

... As are ICE vehicles. Tire rubber is one of the major sources of microplastics after all, or did people think it just vanished? > New EV models tend to be heavier and quicker—generating more particulates and deepening the danger. Compared to what? I'm pretty sure a Nissan Leaf has nothing on an ICE escalade.

MBCook 3y ago
The heavier the vehicle, the more particles. Yeah. EVs are much worse, until we find some magical battery breakthrough or realize not everyone needs 350 mile range. That said I’ll take worse tire emissions over better tire emissions plus CO2 + CO + NO2 + whatever else + all the emissions creating/moving gas. You want lower EV tire emissions? Cut down own the need to drive.
- lockhouse 3y ago
  The problem is that the range of your new EV will only decrease with time. A car with 350 mile range will become much lower after 5 years. > According to Geotab, a transportation connectivity services company, an average EV loses 2.3% of its battery capacity each year that it's in service. An EV that has a 300-mile-range would have a 293-mile-range after a year. After five years on the road, you could expect a range of 266 miles on a single charge. https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/advice/how-long-do-ev-batteries-last https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/advice/how-long-do-ev-ba...
  - undersuit 3y ago
    Why does that matter if I only need 50 miles of range for my day to day?
    - lockhouse 3y ago
      It might not matter for you. It does matter for the people making a trip across the country. Some people need cars for more than just a 50 mile daily commute.
      - EA-3167 3y ago
        What percentage of overall miles driven are accounted for by cross-country (or lets just say multi-day trips) out of the total number of miles driven? The stat I can find states that for single-trip journeys 98% are under 50 miles, with those over 70 miles being 1%. Obviously "single-trip" is doing plenty of work there, but you can go surprisingly far in a day of driving and those are still pretty small numbers. Maybe at the end of the day the car is just not the best way to go across a country as large as the US.
        lockhouse 3y ago
        It doesn’t matter what percent of trips that represents, a lot of Americans won’t buy EVs that aren’t capable of making these trips when they want to make them. Nobody wants to take a Greyhound bus to see their parents that live 4 hours away in the next state over.
        EA-3167 3y ago
        The thing is we know already that single-trips like that are less than 1% of all miles driven, and 4 hours is definitely a single-trip. I'd add that even with an EV and needing to stop for a charge, that's still very much a single trip affair. I'm sure that some people won't buy a car on that basis, but I suspect the vast majority will. The more people buy them, the more the infrastructure caters to it, the more the technology is funded and advances, and the remaining holdouts will eventually be sufficiently incentivized.
        lockhouse 3y ago
        I’m not arguing against EVs at all, just making the case that 350 miles of range isn’t excessive by any means, especially once you account for battery degradation over time. Personally the absolute minimum range I would consider for an EV is 250 miles with 300 or more being ideal.
- clouddrover 3y ago
  > until we find some magical battery breakthrough It doesn't have to be magical. It can just be steady improvement in battery chemistry. Nio's cars have swappable battery packs. The current battery sizes they use are 75 kWh, 100 kWh, and their new battery option is 150 kWh: https://cnevpost.com/2023/07/07/nio-user-manuals-include-150-kwh-battery/ https://cnevpost.com/2023/07/07/nio-user-manuals-include-150... From 75 to 150 kWh that's a doubling of energy content in the same physical pack dimensions, and the 150 kWh pack has only a 20 kg weight increase versus the 100 kWh pack. A 75 or 100 kWh pack with the same WeLion chemistry would weigh less than Nio's existing 75 and 100 kWh packs. Once production scales up Nio may well switch all the packs to the WeLion chemistry if the price is right. That's not achieved through magic. It's achieved through better battery chemistry.

throwaway5959 3y ago

[flagged]

yongjik 3y ago

I'm on the fence whether I should just flag this and move on. On one hand, there's an interesting discussion to be made: EVs are heavier, which means (while they cause less CO2 emission) they may cause more pollution in other areas. I think in the grand scheme of things EVs are clearly better than ICEs, but that doesn't mean we can just say "Oh we have EVs now, problem solved!" and go back to "business as usual." On the other hand ...... I have a hunch why this was posted to HN, and it's probably not to have a balanced discussion about different ways vehicles pollute the earth and what we should do about it.

chewz 3y ago
Cute admission... You seem to be torn between open discussion (do EV's have negative effects?) and ideological purity (EV's must be only prestented as positive regardless of facts). You know what you should be thinking (adhere to the Party line) and you are afraid that taking part in free discussion might lead you to conclusions that are at odds.... So you would rather self-censor your thoughts and avoid any discussion. Welcome to 1984...
- ysleepy 3y ago
  Cute armchair psychology.... But relax and think about why tire emissions of heavy cars are brought up with EVs in particular, when the same point can be made with SUVs vs. smaller cars. Going further, who stands to gain, multi national oil conglomerates who are known for manipulating public discourse in favor of cars vs. public transport and right of way and on the other side, the bad bad people trying to act on a very inconvenient and annoying scientific consensus that we need to alter our behaviour. 1984 indeed, but who is the powerful oppressor here, especially when you are a child, witnessing the destruction of what your parents were still able to enjoy.
  - chewz 3y ago
    All right. A conspiracy of big, bad business... That surely makes for rational conversation. Yes comrade, Enemy never sleeps, we must be always cautious and of highest ideological purity...

gogusrl 3y ago

While they are heavier than the ICE counterparts, EV's are usually delivered on skinnier tires with low rolling resistance so that should help a bit. In the end like others have said, it's extra tire particles vs all the nasty crap from ICE.

prennert 3y ago

Comments below discuss, 1. batteries contribute a lot to EV weight, which in turn contributes to tire dust, 2. people overbuy on range for 1% of long-range trips, and 3. batteries degrade by some percent every year So why not do the following: - allow battery packs to be swappable including - having battery bays for a range up to something like 300miles, but composed of smaller batteries with 100miles range each? Then you could: - add batteries when you need them (longer range, higher wear), and - remove batteries when you don't need them (lower range, lower wear), and as added benefit: - because batteries are swappable, they can be replaced easily, and range extensions could even be rented for the two weeks of holidays (range as a service) This could follow a similar model to how winter and summer tires are swapped regularly in many countries. If batteries were standardized, then they could even be shared between different vehicle types to account for seasonal need (farming, holidays, other machinery).