EV Tires Causing Increased Pollution

[Blue highway]

Yes, it is just one more way to try to discredit what is for all intents and purposes the only real choice for our grandchildren's future. I would suspect there is more microplastic in toothpaste released into the environment than EV tires (relative to ICE tires), but the oil companies are doing a very good job at funding "environmental" research. Suddenly there's an interest in dead whales struck by ships in the midatlantic, as if the only ships cruising the coast are building wind turbine platforms. Yet no one cares how often they're entangled in trawler nets.

aaaaand lets not forget about brake dust, which is apparently panic inducing for many.

Brakes last much longer on an EV than an equivalent weight and power ICE with no regen braking.

Sponsored

 

[DevSecOps]

aaaaand lets not forget about brake dust, which is apparently panic inducing for many.

Brakes last much longer on an EV than an equivalent weight and power ICE with no regen braking.

You brought up an interesting point so I googled it and found that some people actually think brake dust is worse with EVs.

https://thecharge.ca/news/study-evs-emit-more-damaging-brake-dust-than-ice-cars/

I would agree that this article is likely incorrect. At first I assumed I was just wrong, but digging deeper into the report the author is obviously mistaken. Kinda strange coming from an EV fanboy website.

 

[superdave80]

When I was a kid I specifically remember them passing out florescent bulbs for free (even at Costco) because using electricity was "bad" for the environment and we should conserve it. Well ... 20 years later and we want to switch everything to electricity? Make it make sense!

The CFL example you site isn't a good one, because you are comparing a situation to allow LESS use of a resource (switch from incandescent to CFLs to use less electricity), to a situation where we are switching from a high polluting source (gas) to a low polluting source (electricity) by changing from ICE to EV.

Using electricity is bad for the environment, so they wanted you to use LESS of it. They didn't hand out CFL bulbs to get you to switch from electricity to gas to power your lights.

Sense made!

 

[DevSecOps]

The CFL example you site isn't a good one, because you are comparing a situation to allow LESS use of a resource (switch from incandescent to CFLs to use less electricity), to a situation where we are switching from a high polluting source (gas) to a low polluting source (electricity) by changing from ICE to EV.

Using electricity is bad for the environment, so they wanted you to use LESS of it. They didn't hand out CFL bulbs to get you to switch from electricity to gas to power your lights.

Sense made!

I understand all of that. My point, which I should have made more clear, is that I don't understand the governments push for electrification across the board (the sentence just prior that you didn't quote). There's a lot of technologies out there that can move us from carbon based fuel to something less carbon intense more efficient than electricity but the government doesn't push for it. The example of 20 years ago vs now was highlighting, at least in my mind, the hypocrisy in government. There's got a be a reason they want electrification so bad now. Also, electricity is known to cause enormous amounts of CO2 emissions via faulty transmission lines causing wildfires. In 2021 half a gigaton of carbon was released from wildfires. There's a lot of things that are excluded from the numbers that are direct results of electricity. I just wish we could get honest numbers and honest facts without all the politicization and hypocrisy of electricity. If there's better alternatives why don't we look at that?

 

[MG101]

You brought up an interesting point so I googled it and found that they actually think brake dust is worse with EVs. I would have assumed it's just the opposite. But that's what I get for assuming.

https://thecharge.ca/news/study-evs-emit-more-damaging-brake-dust-than-ice-cars/

Interesting but maybe a flawed study? In my unsientific observations I've seen the brake pads on models with hybrid drivetrains(with regen braking) easily last double the mileage of their non hybrid equivelents.

since we have 2B more people in the world over the last 20 years

Thanos did nothing wrong.

 

[superdave80]

You brought up an interesting point so I googled it and found that they actually think brake dust is worse with EVs. I would have assumed it's just the opposite. But that's what I get for assuming.

https://thecharge.ca/news/study-evs-emit-more-damaging-brake-dust-than-ice-cars/

The summary actually clearly states that brake dust is NOT a concern:

"Regenerative braking systems can reduce brake wear, but tyre wear, road wear, and road dust resuspension remain significant sources of non-exhaust emissions from electric vehicles. "

There is even an entire section on regenerative braking, and all of the mentioned studies show REDUCED brake wear. And they even state clearly:

"It is therefore safe to assume, that fully electric vehicles have extremely low brake emissions "

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites...GO=oecd&itemContentType=book#section-d1e13670

Whoever wrote the summary/article you linked clearly didn't read past the title.

 

[DevSecOps]

Whoever wrote the summary/article you linked clearly didn't read past the title.

So google deceived me?

But relevant to this topic, This study also shows much higher tire wear.

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites...IGO=oecd&itemContentType=book#figure-d1e18876

 

[Blue highway]

You brought up an interesting point so I googled it and found that they actually think brake dust is worse with EVs. I would have assumed it's just the opposite. But that's what I get for assuming.

https://thecharge.ca/news/study-evs-emit-more-damaging-brake-dust-than-ice-cars/

"EVs emit more brake dust than gas-powered vehicles, due to the substantial weight of their battery packs"

Not to be too direct but the authors of that story are morons. They have never heard of regen braking? Lots of EVs use their brakes so little the rotors rust... regardless of their weight... sheesh.

 

[DevSecOps]

"EVs emit more brake dust than gas-powered vehicles, due to the substantial weight of their battery packs"

Not to be too direct but the authors of that story are morons. They have never heard of regen braking? Lots of EVs use their brakes so little the rotors rust... regardless of their weight... sheesh.

It's hard to find honesty in journalism anymore.

 

[superdave80]

I understand all of that.

Well, your post seemed to indicate otherwise (Make it make sense)

I've also said many times on this forum that it's very strange how government isn't pushing other zero emissions technologies.

There's a lot of technologies out there that can move us from carbon based fuel to something more efficient than electricity

Electricity is more of a transport medium than a fuel source, so you are comparing apples to oranges. What other 'technologies' are you referring to that would replace electricity?

 

[GreaseMonkey]

aaaaand lets not forget about brake dust, which is apparently panic inducing for many.

Brakes last much longer on an EV than an equivalent weight and power ICE with no regen braking.

And killing more bugs and birds, thus harming the environment ?

Btw, I killed at least three birds with my Prius, so maybe hybrids are bad too.

 

[DevSecOps]

Well, your post seemed to indicate otherwise (Make it make sense)


Electricity is more of a transport medium than a fuel source, so you are comparing apples to oranges. What other 'technologies' are you referring to that would replace electricity?

"Make it make sense" is more of a meme and you took it in a more literal way.

I never said anything about replacing electricity. I'm wondering why our government doesn't try to promote other technologies other than EVs:

Transient Plasma Ignition
eFuel
Omega 1
Hydrogen

I'm sure there's a lot more out there. My gut, no evidence of this, is that there has to be a better way to keep current engines, gas stations etc and just replace the current gas with something sustainable. I don't think there's a desire to because of the money involved in oil and I think government is just as involved in keeping oil alive. My point is that I don't think our government really cares about it, I think they only care about lining their pockets, that of their families and the agendas they serve.

 

[Mach1E]

What? First time I've heard that moving out of a big city improves on pollution ?. A well-designed big city allows you to walk/bike to places rather than driving a several thousand pound grocery getter. Also, guess where most of the jobs are? Longer commutes (in terms of time) in an EV, btw, most probably won't generate more pollution since idling engines and slower speeds aren't the enemies of EV efficiency.

Obviously we are talking about people driving their cars to work.

Yes, a well designed city ca

But take a city like Atlanta where the “average driving commute” is almost an hour and it’s waaaaaay worse.

The point was more that there are other factors that can matter much more for the environment than the car you drive. I commute 1 mile to work. My last car only had 19k miles after 6 years……. And averaged 13 mpg. Probably way less environmental impact than a Prius driver commuting to work in a big city.

 

[kltye]

Obviously we are talking about people driving their cars to work.

If you constantly drive to work when you live in a big city and doing it with shitty traffic in the city, you and/or your city are doing it wrong (apart from commute times and gas prices - who wants to pay crazy parking prices?). No one is saying changing cars will immediately save the planet; it's merely a step within a larger framework.

 

[Mach1E]

This statement is absolutely anti-BEV, and is not attributed to anyone - that's poor journalism. How do I know it's not made up? Tell me, which automakers are not "on-board" when billions of dollars are being invested by Ford, GM, Stelantis, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen, not to mention the new players. Who did I leave out? Toyota - look up recent news stories and tell me if they are "on-board" with the BEV transition...

Yet, not all automakers are onboard with the electric vehicle push. Last week, leading automakers criticized President Joe Biden's plan, which aims for two-thirds of new vehicle sales to be electric by 2032, calling it "overly optimistic." The criticism focused on the inadequate charging infrastructure and the high cost of EVs to consumers.

This next statement is well-worn, well-known, and being addressed with new battery chemistries. But she adds it to the anti-BEV tone of the article anyway. That's also poor journalism - she fails to point out that lots of smart people are working on solving this issue with LFP etc. She's cherry-picked her facts by not mentioning that not all batteries are LiOn:

Tire emissions are not the only environmental concern tied to electric vehicles. Critics also point to the eco-impact of lithium-ion batteries, which require rare metals and significant energy to manufacture.

THIS is the thrust of the article - is the last thought she leaves us with, so clearly that's the point she is trying to make. This is not exactly supportive of BEVs:
Hybrids have great potential

Despite these challenges, Molden remains optimistic about the potential of hybrid vehicles, which he describes as a "no-brainer" in addressing environmental problems.

"Hybrids are hardly heavier than normal vehicles and they deliver a significant reduction in CO2 emissions. If we genuinely want to address the environmental problem, the intuitive way of doing it is to make smaller, lighter vehicles, rather than bigger and heavier ones."

There are studies out there disputing just how much hybrids reduce CO2 emissions in the real-world: https://theicct.org/publication/rea...nsumption-electric-driving-and-co2-emissions/. Not everyone agrees that they "significantly" reduce CO2 emissions.

You don't need false statements to write an article with an anti-BEV tone, and a distinctly pro-hybrid slant. Don't buy a BEV, buy a hybrid, it's a "no brainer".

It still said that the Tesla had the lowest impact.

But again, what’s wrong with their conclusions from an environmentalist perspective?

I’m not shocked at all that they think a “smaller and lighter” PHEV is better for the environment.

You are seeming to live in a world of absolutes. Just because it’s “pro PHEV” doesn’t make it “anti-BEV.”

Sponsored