The biggest stumbling block for EV uptake

oppenheimer1 · 23-08-2017 06:12PM

Sabre Man wrote: »

Perhaps in ideal lab tests, but during real world driving? I wouldn't bet on it.

I believe there was a study recently that found that EVs would have about 50% of the local PM emissions as an ICE.

It's interesting since it found that EVs aren't the silver bullet for local pollution that some here think they are

BloodBath · 23-08-2017 06:18PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I believe there was a study recently that found that EVs would have about 50% of the local PM emissions as an ICE.

It's interesting since it found that EVs aren't the silver bullet for local pollution that some here think they are

What study? I find this hard to believe. So you're saying tyres make up 50% of the particulate matter from a car?

Maybe in Formula 1 or doughnut pulling boy racers but I seriously doubt it for the average user.

Where is this particulate matter coming from an EV?

EV's are the answer to city pollution globally. Your argument is strawman.

oppenheimer1 · 23-08-2017 06:23PM

BloodBath wrote: »

What study? I find this hard to believe. So you're saying tyres make up 50% of the particulate matter from a car?

Maybe in Formula 1 or doughnut pulling boy racers but I seriously doubt it for the average user.

Where is this particulate matter coming from an EV?
.
EV's are the answer to city pollution globally. Your argument is strawman.

Tyres, brake dust and the dust/spray kicked up from the road

aliveandkicking · 23-08-2017 06:26PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I believe there was a study recently that found that EVs would have about 50% of the local PM emissions as an ICE.

It's interesting since it found that EVs aren't the silver bullet for local pollution that some here think they are

Any chance of a link to that study please?

liamog · 23-08-2017 06:27PM

The authors regret that as Victor Timmers did not carry out the research under the auspices of the University of Edinburgh, nor in collaboration or consultation with any personnel at the University of Edinburgh, the affiliation of “University of Edinburgh” has now been removed from this work at the request of the Institution. In addition, subsequent to the publication of the Paper, Victor Timmers has disclosed a potential Conflict of Interest with regard to the work, namely: “non-financial support from Innas B.V, during the conduct of the study”.

It was pretty much rebuked.

His main reason for the increased particle, was the re suspension of particle matter from diesel engines, and that heavier cars generate more brake dust. EV's are heavier, therefore EVs generate more brake dust.

Let's just say it wasn't up to normal scientific standards.

knipex · 23-08-2017 06:32PM

BloodBath wrote: »

What study? I find this hard to believe. So you're saying tyres make up 50% of the particulate matter from a car?

Maybe in Formula 1 or doughnut pulling boy racers but I seriously doubt it for the average user.

Where is this particulate matter coming from an EV?

EV's are the answer to city pollution globally. Your argument is strawman.

Seriously ??

Most electricity in Ireland is from the combustion of fossil fuels. Gas mainly but Coal and oil are also present.

Your batteries, motors etc also don't magically appear. You need to look a the full lifecycle impact from design to manufacture to disposal..

As for EV begin the answer to city pollution ? It wasn't actually too bad until the huge push to diesel on environmental grounds. Petrol engines are actually quite clean.. As are CNG..

unkel · 23-08-2017 06:33PM

Except EVs don't create brake dust most of the time they are braking

Orebro · 23-08-2017 06:48PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I believe there was a study recently that found that EVs would have about 50% of the local PM emissions as an ICE.

It's interesting since it found that EVs aren't the silver bullet for local pollution that some here think they are

Would love a link to this peer reviewed, published research. What journal did it appear in?

BloodBath · 23-08-2017 06:58PM

knipex wrote: »

Seriously ??

Most electricity in Ireland is from the combustion of fossil fuels. Gas mainly but Coal and oil are also present.

Your batteries, motors etc also don't magically appear. You need to look a the full lifecycle impact from design to manufacture to disposal..

As for EV begin the answer to city pollution ? It wasn't actually too bad until the huge push to diesel on environmental grounds. Petrol engines are actually quite clean.. As are CNG..

Sigh. The same old straw-man arguments.

You might have a point if all of these things were mined, manufactured etc in cities or beside the path ways you walk or the road you drive. They aren't.

You don't have to breath the pollution they produce for the most part and they are still far cleaner than combustion engine vehicles.

The way we get electricity is a different topic and something we also need to improve on but even the dirtiest energy production is still far cleaner than combustion engine vehicles.

oppenheimer1 · 23-08-2017 06:59PM

Orebro wrote: »

Would love a link to this peer reviewed, published research. What journal did it appear in?

Atmospheric Environment I believe.

knipex · 23-08-2017 07:04PM

BloodBath wrote: »

Sigh. The same old straw-man arguments.

You might have a point if all of these things were mined, manufactured etc in cities or beside the path ways you walk or the road you drive. They aren't.

You don't have to breath the pollution they produce for the most part and they are still far cleaner than combustion engine vehicles.

Ah...

The its the well established "somewhere else" environmental school of thought..

Sigh...

BloodBath wrote: »

and they are still far cleaner than combustion engine vehicles

Sigh

Did I ever claim otherwise ?

Sigh

You were the one that said the only environmental impact (particulate wise) was from tyre wear.

Sigh

Orebro · 23-08-2017 07:04PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Atmospheric Environment I believe.

Link?

goz83 · 23-08-2017 07:13PM

It's a bit nuts really, because the suggestion seems to be that around half of PM from ICEs comes from the tyres and brakes :pac:

Interesting to see that the researcher was (no financially :rolleyes: ) helped by a vested interest.

oppenheimer1 · 23-08-2017 07:16PM

Orebro wrote: »

Link?

http://www.soliftec.com/NonExhaust%20PMs.pdf

There are other studies as well.

I've produced research paid for by industry, it doesn't make it less valid. There was a professor from one of the British red bricks on TV recently and effectively agreed with the premise. He was arguing (like myself) that the car should be banished from cities and no exception should be made for the EV.

BloodBath · 23-08-2017 07:16PM

knipex wrote: »

Ah...

The its the well established "somewhere else" environmental school of thought..

Sigh...

Sigh

Did I ever claim otherwise ?

Sigh

You were the one that said the only environmental impact (particulate wise) was from tyre wear.

Sigh

Sorry for the sigh but I'm sick of seeing the same old tired arguements against EV's.

Do your research. Somewhere else yes. Away from areas that contain over 90% of the population. That doesn't make sense to you? No?

I didn't state that either. I'm talking about localised pollution. The one that has a major impact on the health of millions of people around the world.

-Edit-

Tesla is a prime example of how it should be done. Massive 100% solar powered factory in the middle of the desert. Are you really going to argue that this method is just as dirty as having hundreds of millions of combustion engine vehicles on the road. The materials to make these combustion engine vehicles are not that different outside of the battery tech. Massive fuel cargo ships are also 1 of the biggest polluters in the world. Getting it out of the ground and refining it isn't exactly clean either.

Add to that a network of clean electricity and you're looking at massive reductions in global emissions.

oppenheimer1 · 23-08-2017 07:37PM

BloodBath wrote: »

Sorry for the sigh but I'm sick of seeing the same old tired arguements against EV's.

Do your research. Somewhere else yes. Away from areas that contain over 90% of the population. That doesn't make sense to you? No?

I didn't state that either. I'm talking about localised pollution. The one that has a major impact on the health of millions of people around the world.

-Edit-

Tesla is a prime example of how it should be done. Massive 100% solar powered factory in the middle of the desert. Are you really going to argue that this method is just as dirty as having hundreds of millions of combustion engine vehicles on the road. The materials to make these combustion engine vehicles are not that different outside of the battery tech.

Add to that a network of clean electricity and you're looking at massive reductions in global emissions.

Given that a car is stationary 95% of the time - if you average it out there is only 50m vehicles on the road at any one time - globally.

For Irelands case there are only 125k cars on the road on average even though there are 2.5m vehicles. Its for this reason that vehicle emissions are much smaller than people realise.

And in terms of local pollution - because EVs are substantially heavier they have far higher non-exhaust PM emissions than ICE. There may not be any benefit in PM terms in switching to EVs.

Sleeper12 · 23-08-2017 07:45PM

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this before but there are tons of houses in Dublin that don't have parking front or rear. They don't have dedicated parking spaces. This would be a huge barrier in getting an electric car imo.

BloodBath · 23-08-2017 07:50PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Given that a car is stationary 95% of the time - if you average it out there is only 50m vehicles on the road at any one time - globally.

For Irelands case there are only 125k cars on the road on average even though there are 2.5m vehicles. Its for this reason that vehicle emissions are much smaller than people realise.

And in terms of local pollution - because EVs are substantially heavier they have far higher non-exhaust PM emissions than ICE. There may not be any benefit in PM terms in switching to EVs.

Total crap. I find it amazing how people can side against a technology that will massively improve the quality of life and health of millions of people and other life around the world.

Combustion engine vehicles are primitive. We've moved on.

Your arguments are straw-man pseudo science nonsense perpetrated by the oil industry.

Sleeper12 · 23-08-2017 07:53PM

oppenheimer1 wrote:

And in terms of local pollution - because EVs are substantially heavier they have far higher non-exhaust PM emissions than ICE. There may not be any benefit in PM terms in switching to EVs.

I agree with you here. I depends how they generate the electricity. If it's wave power or wind we'll be fine but there's not much difference in burning fossil fuel in your petrol car or in the ESB generator to charge your car.

BloodBath · 23-08-2017 07:56PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I agree with you here. I depends how they generate the electricity. If it's wave power or wind we'll be fine but there's not much difference in burning fossil fuel in your petrol car or in the ESB generator to charge your car.

Yes there is. Do your homework.

oppenheimer1 · 23-08-2017 07:58PM

BloodBath wrote: »

Total crap. I find it amazing how people can side against a technology that will massively improve the quality of life and health of millions of people and other life around the world.

Combustion engine vehicles are primitive. We've moved on.

Your arguments are straw-man pseudo science nonsense perpetrated by the oil industry.

Do you even know what a straw man is?

If its pseudo science, feel free to take it apart and enlighten us all, but I'm the one that has posted the paper from a peer reviewed journal - not you.

Sleeper12 · 23-08-2017 08:09PM

BloodBath wrote:

Yes there is. Do your homework.

I'm not against electric vehicles. They are the way to go. They are our future. I don't own one yet as I drive 400 to 500 miles per week in a small van. I need air conditioning during the summer & heating in the winter. There's not an ev that suits my needs yet but I look forward to the day I can get one.
I'm just agreeing with another poster when they say that ev aren't as clean as some people think. There's pollution at manifacture, generating power & again in disposal.

BloodBath · 23-08-2017 08:15PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Do you even know what a straw man is?

If its pseudo science, feel free to take it apart and enlighten us all, but I'm the one that has posted the paper from a peer reviewed journal - not you.

Yes I do. Your arguments are a prime example.

Do you expect me to read the paper and review it for you?

Even if it was accurate it only focuses on a small factor rather than the whole picture which is classic straw man.

To really compare them we would need accurate calculations of all pollution caused by drilling for and refining oil vs mining lithium and other battery components. Transporting and storing fuel or electricity. The material costs and environmental factors of all of the other materials used. The methods of producing the electricity for EV etc

Not to mention the environmental factors involved with oil disasters both in transport and in drilling.

It's obvious which technology is magnitudes more damaging than the other without having to review papers on the subject.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm not against electric vehicles. They are the way to go. They are our future. I don't own one yet as I drive 400 to 500 miles per week in a small van. I need air conditioning during the summer & heating in the winter. There's not an ev that suits my needs yet but I look forward to the day I can get one.
I'm just agreeing with another poster when they say that ev aren't as clean as some people think. There's pollution at manifacture, generating power & again in disposal.

Fair enough. It doesn't make sense for you yet. Hopefully the tech and infrastructure improves enough in the next 20 years to cover most use cases. I am confident it will.

Sleeper12 · 23-08-2017 08:27PM

BloodBath wrote:

Fair enough. It doesn't make sense for you yet. Hopefully the tech and infrastructure improves enough in the next 20 years to cover most use cases. I am confident it will.

I'm confident that it will be a lot sooner than 20 years. I believe that things will change very quickly now that the UK & Germany have laid down their plans as far as the petrol engine is concerned. It's out there now, car companies have a deadline and they will step up to the mark.
It looks like Europe will be driving electric vehicles and Trump will have Americans driving coal powered cars.

oppenheimer1 · 23-08-2017 08:29PM

BloodBath wrote: »

Yes I do. Your arguments are a prime example.

Do you expect me to read the paper and review it for you?

Even if it was accurate it only focuses on a small factor rather than the whole picture which is classic straw man.

....

Fair enough, you can't refute the point I made.

Orebro · 23-08-2017 08:31PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

http://www.soliftec.com/NonExhaust%20PMs.pdf

There are other studies as well.

I've produced research paid for by industry, it doesn't make it less valid. There was a professor from one of the British red bricks on TV recently and effectively agreed with the premise. He was arguing (like myself) that the car should be banished from cities and no exception should be made for the EV.

A study aided by a vested interest - carry on selling your snake oil man.

oppenheimer1 · 23-08-2017 08:32PM

Orebro wrote: »

A study aided by a vested interest - carry on selling your snake oil man.

Is there anything in it that you can refute? No, oh...

Nothing wrong with pointing out that EVs are heavy and dirty.

Orebro · 23-08-2017 08:38PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Is there anything in it that you can refute? No, oh...

Nothing wrong with pointing out that EVs are heavy and dirty.

Gotta go. Busy finishing a paper linking vaccines to autism.

Sabre Man · 23-08-2017 08:40PM

Please let's get back on topic guys.

Orebro · 23-08-2017 08:53PM

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/05/20160502-nonehaust.html

Among their main conclusions were:

EVs were the best alternative to diesel and gasoline vehicles across all categories. EVs have no exhaust emissions and reduced non-exhaust pollutants as well as low electricity generation associated emissions. Hooftman et al.concluded that EVs tend to emit up to eight times less non-exhaust PM than diesel vehicles and at least two times less than gasoline powertrains—findings at opposition with some of the earlier studies on the topic. (Including the earlier quoted paper by oppenheimer)

The biggest stumbling block for EV uptake

Comments