9 ms·

Conspiracy theory: Electric cars make more air pollution than gas cars

20 points by severine 3y ago

Cypher 3y ago
I mean that energy has to come from somewhere...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
robocat 3y ago
Completely ignore regenerative braking - bias? : > A car’s exhaust can put at most 1.9 mg of particulate matter into the air for each kilometer driven down. EU rules are slightly looser at 4.5 mg/km. Could brakes come close to that? Well, depending on the vehicle, disc brake pads have 100 to 400g of friction material. Perhaps 80% of that material is worn away before replacement, which happens after something like 65,000 km. Assuming 200 g of friction material, that suggests an average of 4 brakes × 200 (g/brake) × 0.8 / (65000 km) = 9.8 mg/km of material lost from brakes.
- ComputerGuru 3y ago
  > Completely ignore regenerative braking - bias? The second half of the article is all about regenerative braking!
BaseballPhysics 3y ago
Headline is borderline clickbait. The article is about fine particulate pollution from tire and break wear, which is not the kind of "air pollution" most people are concerned about when we use the term. From a microplastics perspective is it something we should be trying to deal with? Unquestionably. But the conversations around electrification are all about greenhouse gas emissions, and frankly, that's the more immediate problem we should be concerning ourselves with.
- outside1234 3y ago
  The particulate thing is a frequent Fox News talking point and probably pushed by the oil and gas crowd behind Fox News.
mustache_kimono 3y ago
I used to work in energy policy and you won't be surprised to know that the national labs have already modeled this: https://greet.es.anl.gov https://greet.es.anl.gov When last I looked/remember electric vehicle emissions were much lower, but it's not hard to imagine why one might think otherwise, given things like transmission losses, etc.
- ComputerGuru 3y ago
  > given things like transmission losses, etc I was completely confused for several moments there because I was thinking of automotive transmissions (which cause efficiency losses in regular cars but aren't used in (the vast majority of) EVs), then I realized you meant electric/infrastructural transmission losses. Right.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - sliken 3y ago
    EVs, except in rare cases have differentials. Some even have different gears, but not Teslas. Typically EVs have 1 or 2 differentials. Granted that's less than my subaru (with 3), but still an issue.
    - brucethemoose2 3y ago
      Hub motors seem so logical until the unsprung weight realization hits you. Maybe we can go back to them when EVs get lighter... Or maybe when we get superconducting motors.
      - ComputerGuru 3y ago
        I posted this elsewhere, but sharing here too: This link has an absolutely terrific comparison of tradeoffs involved in lowering vehicle weight, compares ICE to EV weight profiles, and puts the current price per kg of weight saved for ICE vehicles at $5/kg while forecasting that EVs will reach price parity on that metric by 2030. https://www.lightmetalage.com/news/industry-news/automotive/electric-vehicle-material-selection-for-chassis-and-suspension-components/ https://www.lightmetalage.com/news/industry-news/automotive/...
ComputerGuru 3y ago
The article misses the biggest reason why batteries (and EVs) are so heavy: it's because the cars themselves are heavy [0]. The article notes "Passenger vehicles already got around 35% heavier between 1980 to 2022" but doesn't note that this is despite the material we make cars out of getting lighter and thinner. Cars have gotten enormous and enormous cars take enormous (and therefore heavy) batteries to get equivalent range out of. [0]: https://qz.com/2154558/big-electric-trucks-and-suvs-are-the-new-gas-guzzlers https://qz.com/2154558/big-electric-trucks-and-suvs-are-the-...
- jacquesm 3y ago
  This seems a bit similar to the rocket equation.
- elmerfud 3y ago
  So cars from today are not meaningfully bigger than 1980 and prior. I think people have forgotten how big cars were back then. There may be more SUVs and crossovers but these have fulfilled the role of station wagons and full sized vans. The reason cars have gotten heavier is mandatory safety features. You can simply compare subcompact cars from the different eras and see the change. A subcompact of today is roughly 600lbs heavier than a pinto. Also cars today have more aluminum parts and composite materials. So if they were made the same they would be much much heavier. Safety is good but it's not free in dollars or weight.
  - ComputerGuru 3y ago
    I was under the impression the bigger weight gains were not so much thanks to safety as they were due to amenities that have become essentials. Things like air conditioning, awd (if you consider it to not be strictly a safety feature), automatic transmissions, larger wheels (though many are now aluminum) and the tires for them, power steering, infotainment systems and their wiring harnesses, sun/moon roofs, bigger/more comfortable seats, etc. But emissions-related things also come to mind, such as catalytic converters, dpf/gpf, improved exhaust systems, longer exhaust piping and larger chambers, def, etc. (I did note that cars are made of lighter materials, such as fiberglass, composites, and aluminum.) Edit: I do think that while the range of vehicle sizes may not have changed too drastically, the probability distribution curve has. Station wagons were never “in” the way SUVs are, sedans are basically on their way out (though the newest “CUVs” are really just sedans with weird profiles and jacked high up), and pickups were not a suburban mainstay.
fsociety999 3y ago
Okay, so it is a clickbait title that “disproves” the claim. The bigger issue, in my opinion, is what about all the energy needed to recharge the batteries? Last I checked, most of that still comes from fossil fuels. In addition, what about the environmental impact of mining lithium and other minerals to produce the cars? This article goes into that a bit: https://therevelator.org/ev-batteries-seabed-mining/ https://therevelator.org/ev-batteries-seabed-mining/ I think there is a non-zero chance that when all is said and done, electric vehicles actually are worse for the environment than fuel powered vehicles. There is also so much we don’t know. I feel like in one way or another, human efforts to “solve” climate change will ultimately be what leads to our extinction. Whether that is trying to send things into space to block out the sun, or mining oceans for rare metals to use to make batteries. Fun fact, the oceans actually suck up a huge amount of carbon dioxide. It would be pretty fitting if human mining efforts at the bottom of the ocean throw that balance entirely out of whack. This is one of the problems with government mandates related to electric vehicles. All of the metrics they use to measure success are based on emissions while driving, but that is only one small part of the picture.
- BaseballPhysics 3y ago
  > what about all the energy needed to recharge the batteries? Last I checked, most of that still comes from fossil fuels. In my part of Canada a full 1/3rd of our electricity comes from renewables. In other places the number is even higher. Hell, Texas, of all places, produces over a quarter of it's electricity with renewables and another 6% with nuclear: https://www.eia.gov/state/data.php?sid=TX https://www.eia.gov/state/data.php?sid=TX Renewables are huge and growing every single year as solar and wind become cheaper and cheaper. And that's ignoring the shift from coal to nat gas in traditional power plants (in fact, where I am, there are no more coal fired plants in operation) which is significantly less carbon intensive, especially when compared to an individual internal combustion engine burning gas or diesel. Bluntly, you are out of date. > All of the metrics they use to measure success are based on emissions while driving, but that is only one small part of the picture. Oh yes, I'm sure you're the only person who's thought of this. Certainly no academics or policy experts have considered your concerns...
- sliken 3y ago
elmerfud 3y ago
Asbestos in brakes is bad but it's a not really a concern even from. Chinese pads anymore, but there are still lots of harmful things they give off even still. Asbestos is just well known.
jacquesm 3y ago
Regarding transmission losses for electricity used to power electric cars: keep in mind that the fuel you use for your petrol or diesel vehicle also needs to be transported and hauling that stuff halfway around the world, refining it and then hauling it halfway across the country is a fair amount of expense which is reflected in the price of the fuel. This energy is lost too (it goes out of the stacks on the oil tankers and the trucks). A round-trip Saudi Arabia to Rotterdam for a VLCC tanker carrying 250,000 tons would consume 40 days worth (20 there, 20 back...) of fuel burning 75 tonnes per day, so 3000 tonnes or about 1% give or take of the amount of crude that it transports. Crude yields more volume (but slightly less weight) after the refinery has done its job. Then you need to do the hauling from the refinery to the fuel stations which, depending on the distance from the refinery can easily consume another 2% or so (between 2 and 3 liters per km on flat terrain, so say on average 150 km x 2 for a round trip and a 25 ton net load is going to use about 600 to 900 liters of fuel). This is ~1/40th of the volume the truck carries in payload.

20 points by severine 3y ago

Cypher 3y ago

I mean that energy has to come from somewhere...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

robocat 3y ago

Completely ignore regenerative braking - bias? : > A car’s exhaust can put at most 1.9 mg of particulate matter into the air for each kilometer driven down. EU rules are slightly looser at 4.5 mg/km. Could brakes come close to that? Well, depending on the vehicle, disc brake pads have 100 to 400g of friction material. Perhaps 80% of that material is worn away before replacement, which happens after something like 65,000 km. Assuming 200 g of friction material, that suggests an average of 4 brakes × 200 (g/brake) × 0.8 / (65000 km) = 9.8 mg/km of material lost from brakes.

ComputerGuru 3y ago
> Completely ignore regenerative braking - bias? The second half of the article is all about regenerative braking!

BaseballPhysics 3y ago

Headline is borderline clickbait. The article is about fine particulate pollution from tire and break wear, which is not the kind of "air pollution" most people are concerned about when we use the term. From a microplastics perspective is it something we should be trying to deal with? Unquestionably. But the conversations around electrification are all about greenhouse gas emissions, and frankly, that's the more immediate problem we should be concerning ourselves with.

outside1234 3y ago
The particulate thing is a frequent Fox News talking point and probably pushed by the oil and gas crowd behind Fox News.

mustache_kimono 3y ago

I used to work in energy policy and you won't be surprised to know that the national labs have already modeled this: https://greet.es.anl.gov https://greet.es.anl.gov When last I looked/remember electric vehicle emissions were much lower, but it's not hard to imagine why one might think otherwise, given things like transmission losses, etc.

ComputerGuru 3y ago
> given things like transmission losses, etc I was completely confused for several moments there because I was thinking of automotive transmissions (which cause efficiency losses in regular cars but aren't used in (the vast majority of) EVs), then I realized you meant electric/infrastructural transmission losses. Right.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- sliken 3y ago
  EVs, except in rare cases have differentials. Some even have different gears, but not Teslas. Typically EVs have 1 or 2 differentials. Granted that's less than my subaru (with 3), but still an issue.
  - brucethemoose2 3y ago
    Hub motors seem so logical until the unsprung weight realization hits you. Maybe we can go back to them when EVs get lighter... Or maybe when we get superconducting motors.
    - ComputerGuru 3y ago
      I posted this elsewhere, but sharing here too: This link has an absolutely terrific comparison of tradeoffs involved in lowering vehicle weight, compares ICE to EV weight profiles, and puts the current price per kg of weight saved for ICE vehicles at $5/kg while forecasting that EVs will reach price parity on that metric by 2030. https://www.lightmetalage.com/news/industry-news/automotive/electric-vehicle-material-selection-for-chassis-and-suspension-components/ https://www.lightmetalage.com/news/industry-news/automotive/...

ComputerGuru 3y ago

The article misses the biggest reason why batteries (and EVs) are so heavy: it's because the cars themselves are heavy [0]. The article notes "Passenger vehicles already got around 35% heavier between 1980 to 2022" but doesn't note that this is despite the material we make cars out of getting lighter and thinner. Cars have gotten enormous and enormous cars take enormous (and therefore heavy) batteries to get equivalent range out of. [0]: https://qz.com/2154558/big-electric-trucks-and-suvs-are-the-new-gas-guzzlers https://qz.com/2154558/big-electric-trucks-and-suvs-are-the-...

jacquesm 3y ago
This seems a bit similar to the rocket equation.
elmerfud 3y ago
So cars from today are not meaningfully bigger than 1980 and prior. I think people have forgotten how big cars were back then. There may be more SUVs and crossovers but these have fulfilled the role of station wagons and full sized vans. The reason cars have gotten heavier is mandatory safety features. You can simply compare subcompact cars from the different eras and see the change. A subcompact of today is roughly 600lbs heavier than a pinto. Also cars today have more aluminum parts and composite materials. So if they were made the same they would be much much heavier. Safety is good but it's not free in dollars or weight.
- ComputerGuru 3y ago
  I was under the impression the bigger weight gains were not so much thanks to safety as they were due to amenities that have become essentials. Things like air conditioning, awd (if you consider it to not be strictly a safety feature), automatic transmissions, larger wheels (though many are now aluminum) and the tires for them, power steering, infotainment systems and their wiring harnesses, sun/moon roofs, bigger/more comfortable seats, etc. But emissions-related things also come to mind, such as catalytic converters, dpf/gpf, improved exhaust systems, longer exhaust piping and larger chambers, def, etc. (I did note that cars are made of lighter materials, such as fiberglass, composites, and aluminum.) Edit: I do think that while the range of vehicle sizes may not have changed too drastically, the probability distribution curve has. Station wagons were never “in” the way SUVs are, sedans are basically on their way out (though the newest “CUVs” are really just sedans with weird profiles and jacked high up), and pickups were not a suburban mainstay.

fsociety999 3y ago

Okay, so it is a clickbait title that “disproves” the claim. The bigger issue, in my opinion, is what about all the energy needed to recharge the batteries? Last I checked, most of that still comes from fossil fuels. In addition, what about the environmental impact of mining lithium and other minerals to produce the cars? This article goes into that a bit: https://therevelator.org/ev-batteries-seabed-mining/ https://therevelator.org/ev-batteries-seabed-mining/ I think there is a non-zero chance that when all is said and done, electric vehicles actually are worse for the environment than fuel powered vehicles. There is also so much we don’t know. I feel like in one way or another, human efforts to “solve” climate change will ultimately be what leads to our extinction. Whether that is trying to send things into space to block out the sun, or mining oceans for rare metals to use to make batteries. Fun fact, the oceans actually suck up a huge amount of carbon dioxide. It would be pretty fitting if human mining efforts at the bottom of the ocean throw that balance entirely out of whack. This is one of the problems with government mandates related to electric vehicles. All of the metrics they use to measure success are based on emissions while driving, but that is only one small part of the picture.

BaseballPhysics 3y ago
> what about all the energy needed to recharge the batteries? Last I checked, most of that still comes from fossil fuels. In my part of Canada a full 1/3rd of our electricity comes from renewables. In other places the number is even higher. Hell, Texas, of all places, produces over a quarter of it's electricity with renewables and another 6% with nuclear: https://www.eia.gov/state/data.php?sid=TX https://www.eia.gov/state/data.php?sid=TX Renewables are huge and growing every single year as solar and wind become cheaper and cheaper. And that's ignoring the shift from coal to nat gas in traditional power plants (in fact, where I am, there are no more coal fired plants in operation) which is significantly less carbon intensive, especially when compared to an individual internal combustion engine burning gas or diesel. Bluntly, you are out of date. > All of the metrics they use to measure success are based on emissions while driving, but that is only one small part of the picture. Oh yes, I'm sure you're the only person who's thought of this. Certainly no academics or policy experts have considered your concerns...
sliken 3y ago

elmerfud 3y ago

Asbestos in brakes is bad but it's a not really a concern even from. Chinese pads anymore, but there are still lots of harmful things they give off even still. Asbestos is just well known.

jacquesm 3y ago

Regarding transmission losses for electricity used to power electric cars: keep in mind that the fuel you use for your petrol or diesel vehicle also needs to be transported and hauling that stuff halfway around the world, refining it and then hauling it halfway across the country is a fair amount of expense which is reflected in the price of the fuel. This energy is lost too (it goes out of the stacks on the oil tankers and the trucks). A round-trip Saudi Arabia to Rotterdam for a VLCC tanker carrying 250,000 tons would consume 40 days worth (20 there, 20 back...) of fuel burning 75 tonnes per day, so 3000 tonnes or about 1% give or take of the amount of crude that it transports. Crude yields more volume (but slightly less weight) after the refinery has done its job. Then you need to do the hauling from the refinery to the fuel stations which, depending on the distance from the refinery can easily consume another 2% or so (between 2 and 3 liters per km on flat terrain, so say on average 150 km x 2 for a round trip and a 25 ton net load is going to use about 600 to 900 liters of fuel). This is ~1/40th of the volume the truck carries in payload.