Not-so-green electric cars

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Nothing new here.

Studies done 10 years ago showed that old pick up trucks doing 10 mpg had far less impact on the environment than a Prius when considered in total; mining impact, production impact, etc.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I found new there...I was not aware of the non-exhaust pollution.

Right but in the same paragraph it defeats the point by explaining that internal combustion is so fabulous because of 1,000's of engineers working on it for 100 years. Let electric start to have to stand on it's own feet and advancement will follow, real advancement.
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member

Incredibly flawed study that any layman can debunk.

First, they make an assertion about ICE cars (that particulate emissions from tires and brakes are worse than exhaust), and then extrapolated a reasonable assumption, that all other things being equal a heavier car will produce more tire and brake particulate emissions than a lighter car, to an unreasonable dataset (cars that brake differently and have different acceleration profiles).

Yes, batteries are heavier and in the same class vehicle an electric version will be heavier than an ICE version. However, the electric car will rely on regenerative braking where the ICE will not. It is not uncommon for a EV (or even a hybrid) to keep a single set of brake pads for the entire lifetime of the vehicle (much more than 100k miles). And the majority of EVs (the Tesla's aside) use low rolling resistance tires and are designed to be driven in a economy minded fashion. Meaning even though they may have a very torque-y motor, they often require you to apply significant force to the peddle to take off quickly. This means they are less likely to leave rubber on the road.

I have seen you post a few items relating to vehicles and their maintenance, so I assume I you have enough knowledge that you might come to a similar conclusion after thinking it through.
 
I don't have much problem believing that electric cars on average produce meaningfully the same amount of particulate matter pollution as comparable internal combustion engine powered cars do, in large part due to greater total vehicle weight and especially when it comes to larger particulate matter. That seems common sensical to me. With modern emissions standards the PM pollution from conventional car engines has been greatly reduced. So the other vehicle related sources probably do account for the majority of the PM pollution that comes from driving cars, at least when it comes to those with gasoline engines and even newer diesel engines.

But reducing PM pollution isn't what I typically see touted as the main (environmental) advantage to electric cars. That more so has to do with CO2 emissions, which aren't being accounted for in this comparison.

Also, based on the abstract of this study some of what is said in that American Thinker blog post (as well as the piece it links to) isn't accurate. The study abstract indicates that electric cars create the same amount of PM pollution or only slightly less than internal combustion engine powered cars do, not more. I would suspect, and the study abstract suggests, that it depends on the size of the particulate matter that you're looking at. But, again, this isn't talking about carbon emissions.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
that electricity has to be generated somewhere ....




my thing is, how much Heavy Metal Environmental Pollution is there in China to dig up the base materials for the batteries
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
That more so has to do with CO2 emissions, which aren't being accounted for in this comparison.

There are other studies that looked at the CO2 "foot print" comparison...and considering the amount of electricity produced by burning coal and natural gas, that doesn't come out looking terribly good either. If you are concerned about CO2 emissions, that is, and I am certainly not.
 
There are other studies that looked at the CO2 "foot print" comparison...and considering the amount of electricity produced by burning coal and natural gas, that doesn't come out looking terribly good either. If you are concerned about CO2 emissions, that is, and I am certainly not.

I'm aware of them. My best guess, considering all the factors involved, is that there's some net CO2 emissions benefit to the newest generation of electric and hybrid vehicles, but it isn't as large a benefit as some probably think.

And I think that CO2 emissions in general is something that we should be concerned about, not necessarily because we know all of the answers but in large part because we don't. I think we know the answers to some of the questions that matter, but there are some others that I don't think we for sure know the answers to yet. I think the propriety of our general handling of the issue is just as harmfully impacted by those that deny there's anything to be concerned about as it is by those that claim that we know for certain what the effects of human carbon chemistry manipulation are and will be.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
...is that there's some net CO2 emissions benefit to the newest generation of electric and hybrid vehicles...

The problem is that that statement takes the position that less CO2 is a net good for us. That is not established and there is, at the very least, as much argument that increased CO2 levels are GOOD for the planet. And that is also to accept that we have any control over it in the first place. Further, science does not support that CO2 accumulation is linear which is to say that even if we are adding to it, it doesn't accumulate, that the planet absorbs it, disperses it. The whole greenhouse analogy may well be the worst one, ever.
 
that electricity has to be generated somewhere ....




my thing is, how much Heavy Metal Environmental Pollution is there in China to dig up the base materials for the batteries

Yup... the batteries are my sticking point. Having only dug on the surface for data before dismissing any possibility of wanting to own an electric vehicle... I've come to the following conclusion:

We all know rechargeable batteries have an "end of life" and get to a point where they will no longer hold a charge. A quick search shows the best life is if you can get 5 years out of it, but that high-end number doesn't hold true for batteries that have to perform in "adverse" temps... too hot or too cold. Since a large number of days in Maryland are 80s plus or 40s and below to me that would mean we are an "adverse" state and would have to replace batteries more often. A several thousand dollars a battery "out of pocket" maintenance expense every few years just doesn't seem like a wise investment.

Add to that the harvesting and processing of materials needed to make rechargeable batteries and the power pull to charge those batteries...
I wonder why folks consider it "environmentally friendly"...:confused:
 
The problem is that that statement takes the position that less CO2 is a net good for us. That is not established and there is, at the very least, as much argument that increased CO2 levels are GOOD for the planet. And that is also to accept that we have any control over it in the first place. Further, science does not support that CO2 accumulation is linear which is to say that even if we are adding to it, it doesn't accumulate, that the planet absorbs it, disperses it. The whole greenhouse analogy may well be the worst one, ever.

As I suggested, there are some questions that I don't think we can be sure we have the (correct) answers to yet - you get at at least one of them.

And I'd say that what's good for the planet is not what's of concern. What's of concern is what's good for humans on the planet. Earth has gone through various states when it comes to lots of different aspects, when it comes to various environmental conditions. It does that naturally and would of course do that whether humans were here or not. The issue is, are certain conditions better for human life. And generally speaking the conditions that we evolved in are those that are best for us, except to the extent that we have enough time to evolve to be well suited for changing conditions. There are also issues related to how we've chosen to organize societies.

So it isn't just that conditions change. The issue is how fast they change and whether we as a species (and as societies) can evolve quickly enough such that the changing planet remains hospitable for us. The (perhaps somewhat cartoonish) story of the dinosaurs isn't that they dominated life on earth for a long time and then conditions on earth changed so they all disappeared. It is more so that they dominated life on earth for a long time (even, surely, through some changes) and then at some point conditions changed so quickly that they didn't have time to evolve to be able to prosper (or even survive) in them. To the extent any of them survived it was because they were the ones that were able to evolve quickly enough.

If a particular change would normally happen over the course of a hundred thousand years, but some event (or, e.g., some human activity) causes it to happen over the course of five hundred years, that matters. Those aren't, from the perspective of various forms of life on earth, the same things. From the earth's perspective, she will be fine. Even if certain conditions are for some reason better or worse for her, she has processes whereby she can regulate them within ranges. For instance, if carbon levels in the atmosphere get higher than she wants (assuming it matters to her), then she has ways of converting atmospheric carbon to subterranean carbon. And she has ways of converting active energy into stored energy. To the extent we reverse those processes and she isn't happy with that (again, assuming that for some reason she wouldn't be - which I don't necessarily do), she has ways of putting things back as she would want them to be. The issue is, does it harm human life as it currently exists - as it has evolved to exist based on different (and typically more slowly changing) conditions?

The planet has survived (and will continue to) through far more extreme conditions (assuming whatever baselines we might) than we could cause - even assuming we do have much such impact. But what conditions - as differing from those we've evolved to this point under - will humans be able to adapt to and thrive in? As we currently exist, we would surely not prosper under some of the conditions that have existed on this planet in the past.

Your point about the linear accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere is an important one though. I wouldn't phrase it the way you did, but we're thinking about the same basic question. It's one we don't really know the answer to yet, and it may be the most important one left.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
And I'd say that what's good for the planet is not what's of concern. What's of concern is what's good for humans on the planet. Earth has gone through various states when it comes to lots of different aspects, when it comes to various environmental conditions. It does that naturally and would of course do that whether humans were here or not. The issue is, are certain conditions better for human life. And generally speaking the conditions that we evolved in are those that are best for us, except to the extent that we have enough time to evolve to be well suited for changing conditions. There are also issues related to how we've chosen to organize societies. Agreed and I meant that. I, poorly, chose to play along with the silly narrative that 'what's good for mother earth is good for us'

So it isn't just that conditions change. The issue is how fast they change and whether we as a species (and as societies) can evolve quickly enough such that the changing planet remains hospitable for us. The (perhaps somewhat cartoonish) story of the dinosaurs isn't that they dominated life on earth for a long time and then conditions on earth changed so they all disappeared. It is more so that they dominated life on earth for a long time (even, surely, through some changes) and then at some point conditions changed so quickly that they didn't have time to evolve to be able to prosper (or even survive) in them. To the extent any of them survived it was because they were the ones that were able to evolve quickly enough.

If a particular change would normally happen over the course of a hundred thousand years, but some event (or, e.g., some human activity) causes it to happen over the course of five hundred years, that matters. Those aren't, from the perspective of various forms of life on earth, the same things. From the earth's perspective, she will be fine. Even if certain conditions are for some reason better or worse for her, she has processes whereby she can regulate them within ranges. For instance, if carbon levels in the atmosphere get higher than she wants (assuming it matters to her), then she has ways of converting atmospheric carbon to subterranean carbon. And she has ways of converting active energy into stored energy. To the extent we reverse those processes and she isn't happy with that (again, assuming that for some reason she wouldn't be - which I don't necessarily do), she has ways of putting things back as she would want them to be. The issue is, does it harm human life as it currently exists - as it has evolved to exist based on different (and typically more slowly changing) conditions?

The planet has survived (and will continue to) through far more extreme conditions (assuming whatever baselines we might) than we could cause - even assuming we do have much such impact. But what conditions - as differing from those we've evolved to this point under - will humans be able to adapt to and thrive in? As we currently exist, we would surely not prosper under some of the conditions that have existed on this planet in the past.

Your point about the linear accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere is an important one though. I wouldn't phrase it the way you did, but we're thinking about the same basic question. It's one we don't really know the answer to yet, and it may be the most important one left.

That pace of change comment is why it is so critically important to be right on the science of what is 'good' CO2 level and what isn't. The Chicken Little approach demands that urgency trump science. That is the path to disaster.
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member
that electricity has to be generated somewhere ....
my thing is, how much Heavy Metal Environmental Pollution is there in China to dig up the base materials for the batteries

Today I learned the source of the electricity that powers a vehicle somehow affects the amount of particulated generated from it's brakes and tires.

Or possibly that you didn't actually read the article at all.

And for what it's worth, I don't care in the slightest which pollutes more as they both pollute minimally when compared to diesel trucks, which are dwarfed by aircraft, which are insignificant compared to trains, which pail in comparison to boats.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
You don't have a problem with a study that draws a conclusion based 100% on theory, without measurement? A study that says vehicle A produces more brake dust then vehicle B, based on a study of vehicle B (and when its easily verifiable that vehicle A in fact goes through less brake pads than B. Full stop.)

As far as it goes, no I don't.
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member
Based on what criteria?

Hot air out of my ass? I guess it depends on what you consider pollution (some think CO2 is, others don't). In terms of sulfur, the 15 largest ships produce more than all of the cars in the world due to the type of fuel they burn.

Like I said before, I don't really care too much about vehicle pollution, I personally believe it's negligible. But I also take issue with this BS article/study that is just looking to cash in with a controversial headline.

I do have some interest in electric cars, but mostly because I like to tinker with stuff and I think it would be fun. I also build my own solar panels from broken wafers and refurbish batteries for fun.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Hot air out of my ass? I guess it depends on what you consider pollution (some think CO2 is, others don't). In terms of sulfur, the 15 largest ships produce more than all of the cars in the world due to the type of fuel they burn.
I do have some interest in electric cars, but mostly because I like to tinker with stuff and I think it would be fun. I also build my own solar panels from broken wafers and refurbish batteries for fun.

And, again, before a new sea monster rears it's head, sulfur is necessary for plant life, too. So, what's the criteria?
 
Top