[HN Gopher] Road dust and its effect on human health: a literatu...
___________________________________________________________________
Road dust and its effect on human health: a literature review
(2018)
Author : WebbWeaver
Score : 123 points
Date : 2022-07-25 13:19 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
| photochemsyn wrote:
| Looks like the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are the
| worst component in the particulates by several measures:
|
| > "Yu et al. [14] found that PAH-contaminated road dust in urban
| areas was associated with an elevated risk of cancer. They
| determined that the source of PAHs was a combination of biofuel
| and coal combustion and traffic engine emissions. Soltani et al.
| [12] reported high PAH concentrations in road dust near high-
| traffic roads. They concluded that both adults and children are
| vulnerable to the potential carcinogenic risk of road dust. In a
| meta-analysis, evidence was found of an association between PAHs
| and lung cancer [55]. Ramesh et al. [56] found PAHs to be related
| to colon cancer and breast cancer in humans, and to show high
| mutagenicity in laboratory animals."
|
| By far the largest source of PAHs is diesel fuel combustion,
| meaning the trucking industry (which should be the primary target
| for replacement by EVs). See:
|
| "Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Flames, in Diesel Fuels, and
| in Diesel Emissions" (2005), NIST, @ sci-hub.se
|
| > "Diesel fuels are composed of thousands of hydrocarbon species
| mainly including straight-chain paraffins, naphthenes, monocyclic
| and polycyclic aromatic species, most with carbon numbers from 10
| to 22, and some sulfur-bearing compounds. The actual distribution
| of species among these classes depends strongly on the refining
| process that is controlled in part by regional environmental
| regulations. The PAH species in diesel fuels represent about 1 to
| 3% by mass of the total hydrocarbon content. Of the numerous
| compounds present in diesel fuels only the PAH species are
| considered herein because of their direct participation in
| particle formation and their widely documented adverse health
| effects."
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| I cannot wait for a ten-year study on cancer rates once we get
| widespread EVs in the transportation sector. I predict a huge
| drop. And then there's other air pollution death costs that
| aren't cancer that affect breathing ability for the elderly and
| health compromised.
| m463 wrote:
| I suspect not only removing exhaust emissions, but also
| reducing brake dust due to regenerative braking.
| elric wrote:
| Wouldn't count on it. EVs tend to be heavier, so we can
| expect more dust from tire wear and brake wear. Not to
| mention road wear. Roads, by the way, are frequently
| asphalted with the ash leftover after incinerating waste,
| which I suspect will contain a carcinogen or two of its own.
| manmal wrote:
| Tire particulates tend to be bigger and heavier than those
| from fuel, settling on the ground rather quickly. Brakes
| are only seldomly activated in EVs, so much so that rust is
| an issue.
| asdff wrote:
| Honestly the big air pollution wins for cars happened already
| with the clean air act, unleaded gas, and catalytic
| converters. The big sources of pollution that your average
| ice car emits now are from the tires and to a lesser extent
| the brakes. Both of these are still worn down in heavier EVs.
| At the end of the day the pattern of everyone taking a 5000lb
| vehicle that you replace every couple years to go anywhere at
| all is the thing that isn't sustainable, not as much the
| particular energy source for that vehicle.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Presumably most EVs have regenerative brakes. I almost
| never use brakes on my Tesla (only for urgent stops).
|
| > The big sources of pollution that your average ice car
| emits now are from the tires and to a lesser extent the
| brakes.
|
| I'm not sure in what sense these are the "big" sources, but
| it's not by mass. An ICE car emits like 30kg of carbon per
| 100 miles while an entire car tire weighs only 12kg.
|
| > At the end of the day the pattern of everyone taking a
| 5000lb vehicle that you replace every couple years to go
| anywhere at all is the thing that isn't sustainable, not as
| much the particular energy source for that vehicle.
|
| Of course, most people don't replace their vehicle every
| couple of years, which suggests that we can decouple the
| "replace every couple of years" from the "vehicle" bit. In
| other words, driving (even when citing the weight of the
| vehicle, as though it has any bearing on the
| sustainability) is plenty sustainable, but what _isn 't_
| sustainable is the same thing that plagues every aspect of
| American (and to a lesser degree, "western") life:
| consumerism, throw-away culture, importing cheap plastic
| garbage from China/etc, etc. Nothing special about driving
| in this regard.
| jeromegv wrote:
| Parent is not referring to the actual weight of the tire,
| but to the particles emitted by the tires as you drive
| your electric car. Electric cars are heavier than ICE
| cars (due to the battery) so they tend to apply more
| weight on those tires as well, which increases those
| particles
|
| https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1135856_bigger-
| batterie...
|
| Not trying to make a case against electric cars, but just
| wanted to explain that it's not just the 12kg of your
| tires that are the issue.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| The parent was pretty explicitly arguing that the
| pollution from tires and brakes are a greater source of
| pollution than exhaust. Here's his quote again, for your
| convenience:
|
| > The big sources of pollution that your average ice car
| emits now are from the tires and to a lesser extent the
| brakes.
|
| I find it totally plausible that EVs emit more tire
| particles than ICE (although less for brakes, since most
| EVs have regenerative brakes to my knowledge, and I
| wouldn't expect those to emit much).
| kube-system wrote:
| > I'm not sure in what sense these are the "big" sources,
| but it's not by mass. An ICE car emits like 30kg of
| carbon per 100 miles while an entire car tire weighs only
| 12kg.
|
| Big in impact. Carbon in the form of carbon dioxide is
| naturally occurring within human's lungs and is well
| tolerated in relatively large amounts. You emit a
| kilogram of your own carbon dioxide through your lungs
| this way every day. A kilogram of tire material in your
| lungs would be a much larger impact on your health.
|
| Carbon dioxide is likewise, _by weight_ , not a very bad
| pollutant compared to some of the other gasses that were
| released by cars before catalysts. CO2 is not great to
| emit, for sure, but it's quite mild compared to NOx, CO,
| raw hydrocarbons, etc.
| zip1234 wrote:
| Don't forget about the heavy metals in tire dust.
| klipt wrote:
| Isn't it just _wonderful_ how many children 's playgrounds
| are carpeted with recycled tire rubber?
| tristor wrote:
| Actually, yes. This is a viable and relatively safe way to
| recycle tires, which otherwise would be a horrifying
| ecological disaster (most non-recycled tires end up going
| into caches that end up catching fire, tire fires are some
| of the worst things for the environment).
|
| During the processing of tire rubber to be used as
| playground mulch, it's cleaned, and most of the worst
| contaminates are removed. The worst thing in the recycled
| tires isn't heavy metals it's carbon black, and in both
| cases it shouldn't matter unless your children are eating
| the tire mulch.
| alfor wrote:
| The chemical smell from those things baking in the sun is
| horrific.
|
| Calling it a toxic disaster and concentrating it in a
| area of play is plain insane.
|
| In a few years we will find out why it made no sense and
| then they will have to tear them out.
| YeBanKo wrote:
| > unless your children are eating the tire mulch.
|
| Have you been to children playgrounds? This is exactly
| what they are going to do, at least once, at least try.
| On top of constantly touching it with they hands and then
| touch with everything else, falling on the ground, etc.
| No1 wrote:
| No, it's not a good idea to dispose of toxic waste on
| playgrounds. The stuff flakes apart over time and
| degrades in sunlight, and generally ends up everywhere in
| the vicinity of the TDP padding. Soccer goalies are just
| the canary in the coalmine.
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/health/artificial-turf-
| cancer...
| asdff wrote:
| Every turf field I've stood upon has had a strong
| offgassing smell too. That can't be great spending hours
| inhaling plastic fumes playing sports either.
| cjameskeller wrote:
| As someone who lives in a region with gravel/"dirt" roads, I
| often wonder how they compare to paved roads in terms of overall
| effect (possibly more fuel usage, but not, itself, made from
| hydrocarbons; fuel usage associated with maintenance, etc.) and
| what the relative health effect of the rock-dust is compared with
| the tar-dust/gases...
| istjohn wrote:
| Silicosis is no joke, and I imagine tires wear much faster,
| leaving toxic dust behind, so my bet would be on gravel roads
| being worse.
| elmomle wrote:
| Though presumably gravel roads limit development, keeping car
| traffic minimal.
| HPsquared wrote:
| I wonder how much this could be reduced by cleaning the road
| surface such that there is less dust to kick up? Say, pressure
| washing / brushing / vacuuming the surface. There are already
| automated street sweepers, could these reduce the amount of dust
| kicked up by cars?
| matsemann wrote:
| In Trondheim, Norway, this have been a big problem. The main
| road, Elgeseter Gate, is cleaned almost every night by a big
| "vacuum" that washes and sucks up the dust.
|
| Edit, found an article (Norwegian):
| https://www.nrk.no/trondelag/slik-loste-trondheim-problemene...
|
| Basically they solved the issue with: washing the streets,
| reduce amount cars with spiked tires during winter, reduce
| speed of the road, switch to a more durable asphalt type, avoid
| using sand during winter.
| asdff wrote:
| You'd have to clean everything within 1000 yards of the
| highway. It is kicked airborne and is blown all over the place.
| In California the effect is pronounced where it doesn't rain.
| You can wipe road dust off your window exteriors with a cloth
| and it will be black in one pass. Stucco buildings look dirty
| and brown before long due to the road dust accumulating in
| their rough surface.
| WebbWeaver wrote:
| Just dont spray it with dixoin like they did in Times Beach,
| Missouri 1972-82.
|
| https://www.epa.gov/mo/town-flood-and-superfund-looking-back...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Beach,_Missouri#Crisis_a...
| flybrand wrote:
| Good idea. Another consideration is that you may remove the
| problem from roads and move it elsewhere. The fine particles
| could be problematic in water, collection could kick up more
| Dist, etc.
| MengerSponge wrote:
| The Idle [1] featured on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, and I've used
| it ever since to absolutely horrify toxicologists.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Idle
| zionic wrote:
| Can I get a QRD?
| tangjurine wrote:
| https://www.indystar.com/story/entertainment/arts/2021/08/17.
| ..
|
| >The Idle was completed in 2018, after Battista worked for
| years to convince city, state and national officials to OK
| the project. Even before it opened, it became a punchline on
| NPR's "Wait, Wait ... Don't Tell Me" when a segment asked a
| caller to guess whether The Idle, a Karen Pence towel charm
| museum or a women's prisoner talent show were real. The
| caller didn't choose "The Idle."
| olyjohn wrote:
| Okay... but what's the joke about it? The Wikipedia article
| just says it's a small park that overlooks a highway. The
| article you linked says it was vandalized, and was once
| used as a joke on the radio show.
|
| Is a park in a city overlooking a freeway really that
| weird?
| rtkwe wrote:
| A park that happens to overlook a freeway isn't the
| weird. One built specifically to overlook a freeway is.
|
| The joke on the Wait Wait... segment is which of these 3
| ridiculous sounds things is actually real.
| ge96 wrote:
| Cody's Lab: it's free palladium
| justinator wrote:
| Next week on Cody's Lab: what happens when I drink palladium?
| kube-system wrote:
| ChickenHole happens.
| ge96 wrote:
| It is pretty neat how those plants can grow inside of those
| white containers. I wouldn't have thought the sun could get
| through it.
| Panther34543 wrote:
| I moved to NYC earlier this year, and particulate matter from
| roads and cars was a serious concern.
|
| I did significant research into relative pollutants and health
| outcomes in NYC, and found almost zero correlation. Lung cancer
| was a particular concern, but it seems occurrences aren't higher
| in the city by any statistically significant amount. I found that
| to be strange; cars are everywhere in the city and most
| individuals live within a dozen meters of a heavily trafficked
| road.
|
| If anyone has competing evidence, I'd love to read it.
| nikkwong wrote:
| I've looked into this as well; and from my understanding the
| amount of physical activity New Yorkers undergo by walking
| everywhere may offset the detrimental effects of the city's
| pollution; leaving New Yorkers with an average life expectancy
| that mirrors (or may be a bit higher) than the rest of the
| nation. It goes to show you how important regular, several
| times per day, low intensity exercise may be for human health.
|
| Maybe also, the relative windiness of the city leads to less
| accumulation of road dust than you'd have in other areas?
| (Totally just conjecture).
| rtkwe wrote:
| I bet part of it is also that most of the traffic is actually
| moving quite slowly so you don't get nearly as much tire or
| brake wear dust in the pollutants.
| zahma wrote:
| Which health concerns, though? It's not exactly easy to isolate
| cause and effect. I do not have comparable research into New
| York and pollution, but you won't convince me that it is safe
| to inhale elevated levels of PM2.5. That stuff goes straight
| into your blood and can transition the blood-brain barrier.[1]
|
| Moreover, our bodies did not evolve to eliminate combustion
| products and micron-sized scraps of rubber and asphalt. In this
| case where evidence is absent, it is more than prudent to
| assume the worst case: no amount of pollution is good for us.
| In the same vein, we know that poly-aromatic hydrocarbons
| (PAHs) are carcinogenic, but does that mean we do not eat
| charbroiled steak? Of course not, but par for the course would
| be smoking a cigarette and introducing a shitload more
| carcinogens directly into our blood.
|
| All of that is to say that we can probably tolerate and
| eliminate a low-level of exogenous pollutants entering our
| body, but sustained intake of pollution surely spells disaster.
| Then again, something's going to kill you, so pick your poison
| -- literally.
|
| (Not exactly the damning evidence you're looking for, but the
| study below asserts causality between exogenous particulate
| matter infiltrating the CNS and neurological and behavioral
| disorders, including Alzheimer's-like symptoms and cognitive
| dysfunction in adults and children alike.)
|
| 1-https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2117083119
| foobarian wrote:
| I used to enjoy visiting Manhattan because when I did, I would
| always have these giant juicy boogers to pick out at the end of
| the day. Didn't dwell too much on the health effects...
| hinkley wrote:
| For any gardeners reading:
|
| The most recent wisdom on lead and other urban contaminants is
| that white vinegar removes as much and in some cases more surface
| contamination than so-called vegetable soap. Particularly in the
| case of lead which is soluble in acids. Additionally most lead in
| leafy greens are surface contamination, not bioaccumulation as
| widely reported.
|
| White vinegar is excessively cheap, even in food grade forms, and
| is good for laundry as well (especially hard water, or in the PNW
| where mildew on clothes is a struggle). You can find half gallons
| for under $4.
| gruez wrote:
| >Particularly in the case of lead which is soluble in acids.
| Additionally most lead in leafy greens are surface
| contamination, not bioaccumulation as widely reported.
|
| where's all this lead coming from, given that leaded gas was
| banned decades ago? I know it's still used in GA, but outside
| of airports I'd expect those emissions to low.
| deepdriver wrote:
| Lots of US cities such as Milwaukee still have lead water
| service lines. Depending on many factors, this lead can get
| into the water you drink and use to water plants. The
| chemical techniques to prevent pipe corrosion aren't super
| appetizing either.
|
| https://city.milwaukee.gov/water/WaterQuality/LeadandWater
| hinkley wrote:
| Ask yourself where has all of that lead gone? Lead is not
| cyanide, it can't break down. It's just lead.
|
| My property tested high for lead. It's not just paint, all
| that car exhaust is still in the dirt next to the road in
| high traffic areas, and in some cases might have picked up a
| little more from gas powered landscaping equipment.
| Arrath wrote:
| > (especially hard water, or in the PNW where mildew on clothes
| is a struggle)
|
| Born & raised in the PNW and I can't say I ever found this to
| be an issue. Mildew and moss growing on my car, sure. Can you
| expand on that any? I'm curious.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| I'm assuming it's for people who do not own a dryer or are
| slow to move clothing from washer to dryer.
| hinkley wrote:
| Bingo. Get distracted between wash-dry cycles and vinegar
| is your best friend.
|
| I actually learned that trick in college, while
| commiserating about having to rewash clothes 2x to get the
| funk out.
| olyjohn wrote:
| What are you doing with the vinegar exactly? Running the
| wash cycle again with vinegar instead of the soap? Or
| does the vinegar let you run just a quick rinse cycle
| instead of a full wash?
|
| I usually just wash them again with the same soap and
| they come out fine. Also front loaders are like 100x
| worse for mildew. My front loader, which was a super
| modern, brand new machine, everything would stink if you
| forget your clothes for a few hours. My 30 year old top
| loader... I gotta leave the clothes in there for about 2
| days before it stinks. Forgetting them for a day is never
| a problem. At least not to my nose...
| hinkley wrote:
| I just pour a little vinegar into the tub, wash as usual.
| I haven't had any particular issues with vinegar smells
| pouring it onto clothing, but I still try to miss. If for
| instance someone pulled the clothes out and piled them
| up, put the vinegar in before the clothes. I've heard
| advice to put it into the bleach dispenser, but bleach
| and vinegar have a similar problem to bleach and ammonia.
| Mixing them produces chlorine gas. If you have shared
| equipment (say, roommates), you're living dangerously if
| you do that.
|
| One theory is that the acid just cancels out hard water
| and makes the detergent more effective, but I don't buy
| that. Seattle water is so soft that home brewers have to
| add minerals to the water or the yeast won't multiply
| properly. In fact most of us are using way too much
| detergent in our laundry and our dishwashers because of
| it. I've also run out of vinegar enough times and have
| known this trick for enough years that I know for certain
| that washing 1x with vinegar always gets the mildew smell
| out, but 1x without it only works less than half the
| time.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| As long as you're not putting bleach and vinegar in the
| dispenser together, I'd think it should be OK. The
| dispenser will be rinsed pretty thoroughly during the
| cycle of the machine running a load of laundry.
| Arrath wrote:
| Gotcha. Thanks!
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| And how do you get the vinegar smell out?
| Phrenzy wrote:
| A little bit of mold will take care of it.
| ska wrote:
| There isn't any, typically.
| akiselev wrote:
| Add an extra rinse cycle.
| hinkley wrote:
| It doesn't take that much. Quarter cup will often
| suffice. It comes out in the normal rinse cycle.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| > white vinegar removes as much and in some cases more surface
| contamination
|
| I don't understand. Should I wash my vegetables in white
| vinegar before eating?
| bjourne wrote:
| It's apparent that almost no one commenting bothered to read the
| article because it found no evidence linking road dust to long-
| term adverse health affects.
| ChrisLomont wrote:
| >because it found no evidence linking road dust to long-term
| adverse health affects
|
| From the abstract:
|
| "Road dust was found to have harmful effects on the human body,
| especially on the respiratory system."
|
| The entire conclusion:
|
| "This literature review found studies that reported the
| components of road dust particles to be associated with
| multiple health effects, in particular on the respiratory and
| cardiovascular system. The review also found a need for a
| complete risk assessment of the effects of road dust on human
| health. We recommend a thorough meta-analysis as well as a
| 4-step risk assessment process, including a multi-source
| epidemiological study on road dust particles to identify
| chronic health effects, with a particular focus on PM2.5 and
| the inclusion of sources in both urban and rural locations."
|
| Which of those led you to claim "it found no evidence linking
| road dust to long-term adverse health affects"?
| bjourne wrote:
| I wrote _long-term_ for a reason. Maybe I 'm misreading the
| review but none of the claims I found in it are about long-
| term adverse health effects.
| ChrisLomont wrote:
| "They reported that insoluble lead compounds were
| associated with respiratory tract inflammation, which could
| lead to respiratory tract cancer"
|
| " lead and chromium compounds in road dust were present in
| human body fluids, indicating that exposure to road dust
| carries certain risks. Lead is known to be responsible for
| deficits in neurobehavioral and cognitive development in
| childhood"
|
| "Franklin et al. established an association between PM2.5
| and cardiovascular mortality."
|
| "Bell et al. [25] found that elements of PM2.5 road dust
| particles such as aluminum and silicon were associated with
| low birth weight (LBW)"
|
| "Long-term exposure to aluminum was found to be associated
| with Alzheimer disease . Aluminum was found to be
| associated with respiratory allergies such as asthma in
| aluminum industry workers. The accumulation of aluminum can
| cause cardiac hypertrophy leading to cardiac failure."
|
| "the health risks of road dust and found that a higher risk
| was associated with the presence of lead, chromium, ...
| Chromium is known to be carcinogenic. In human subjects,
| chromium has been found to cause allergic reactions and
| respiratory distress after short-term exposure. Long-term
| exposure to chromium has been proven to be associated with
| lung cancer. "
|
| Increased incidence of: cancer, cognitive development
| deficits, increased cardiovascular mortality, low birth
| weight, Alzheimer's, caridac failure, lung cancer - these
| are not long term enough for you? These are not adverse
| health effects?
|
| There are so many more statements like this that I don't
| even care to list them all. Yet you claim others didn't
| read the article, then summarize it as having no "long-
| term" health risks.
|
| What in the paper supports your claim of no long term
| adverse health effects, compare to the (partial) list of
| items I quoted? Have a quote?
| Decabytes wrote:
| From what I've learned about masks and air quality these past
| couple years, I feel like we should always be wearing a mask for
| a lot more things than are common. Like yard work and when any
| sort of dust is involved
| jerlam wrote:
| It boggles the mind when I see gardeners with leaf blowers not
| wearing any kind of respiratory protection.
| TylerE wrote:
| Absolutely.
| edtechdev wrote:
| Chemicals from tires are killing off fish, too:
| https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/presspacs/2022/...
| this15testing wrote:
| what a surprise, cars continue to sacrifice everything for
| individual convenience
| ParksNet wrote:
| Fortunately all of this is eliminated with EVs: much less brake
| dust (regenerative braking), no combustion, no catalytic
| converters, no oil leaks.
|
| All that's left is tire wear, potentially a little higher due to
| increased typical weight of EVs and faster acceleration.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Tire dust is half of it, though. It can be reduced by shipping
| cars with high-efficiency tires instead of high-performance
| tires.
| jtbayly wrote:
| What are the upsides and downsides of high-efficiency tires,
| compared to high-performance tires? I'm not familiar with the
| terms, in spite of having bought tires several times.
| __alexs wrote:
| high-efficiency tyres have less rolling resistance and as a
| result are usually made of a harder rubber. as a result
| they also have less grip but this is fine if you adjust
| your speeds to match the conditions appropriately. some of
| them have additives in the rubber to try and get some of
| the lost grip back.
| redtexture wrote:
| Distiction: Winter tires are made of a softer rubber
| compound, to be more flexible in winter termperatures.
| These softer winter tires wear very rapidly in summer
| temperatures, and experience a drive may have if they
| fail to change out their winter tires to the summer
| seasonal tires.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Half by what metric?
| jeffbee wrote:
| Mass pm2.5 and pm10 emissions per vehicle-km.
| arijun wrote:
| That's a good point, but it might not be the whole story.
| It's possible that tailpipe emissions are worse for your
| health than small rubber particles from tires
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| That doesn't seem particularly relevant when some of the
| other things are highly poisonous?
|
| Why would you focus on that when the review is talking
| about studies showing health impacts and only mentions
| tires once, explaining that general environmental dust
| becomes "road dust" when kicked up by tires?
| OliverM wrote:
| Isn't dust from tyre wear a major point of concern? E.g.
| https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/25/tyre-dus...
| Robotbeat wrote:
| No. That study didn't even measure EV tire dust, they
| extrapolated it from weight.
|
| Ignores that the rest of the car tends to be light weighted,
| etc
|
| Also ignores that EVs universally use low rolling resistance
| tires, which dissipate less energy in rolling friction and
| thus less energy to produce tire particulates. (Rubber is
| also not nearly as bad as these PAHs.)
| zip1234 wrote:
| True, tire dust may not be hugely different with EVs, but
| tire dust is definitely a problem.
| https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/25/tyre-
| dus...
| corrral wrote:
| Can they _not_ use other kinds of tires, and /or are those
| a cheap kind of tire? Because otherwise I expect that most
| that are on the road longer than a tire change, won't be
| using that kind, and that'll get more true the more
| accessible they get--there are a _not small_ number of
| people who buy _used_ tires because they can 't afford new
| ones, not even shitty new ones, and worn tread is better
| than the totally-bald tires they're replacing.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Because the car's usefulness is much less if they get
| conventional car tires. Lower range is super annoying, so
| people just pay for the slightly more expensive low
| rolling resistance tires. They're also the standard
| replacement tires.
| mikestew wrote:
| Low-rolling resistance tires suck in the wintery drizzle
| of the PNW, so our Nissan Leaf sports rubber that is a
| bit more sticky. If there's a difference in range, it's
| small enough that our measurements don't see it.
| bitexploder wrote:
| It really isn't that big of a deal to use more
| traditional tires either. The reduction in range only
| matters for edge case folks that really need the last
| 10%. It has also been harder during the supply chain
| crunch to get specific tires. We went to a more
| traditional winter tire on my wife's Tesla and it lost
| like 0.1 mi/kWh (it was averaging like 2.9-3.3 mi/kWh).
| jacobolus wrote:
| What's the relationship between car speed vs. tire wear? What
| about weight?
|
| How much difference can be made by changing the road surface?
| Do the quieter types of road surface also reduce the amount
| of tire dust?
| mantas wrote:
| Different car suspension setups as well as suspension wear
| & tear have impact on tire wear too.
|
| Tire pressure makes quite a bit of difference too.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Wear is inversely related to speed because the wear comes
| from acceleration, not from rolling at a steady speed.
| Starting and stopping and turning in urban driving wears
| tires more than cruising down a motorway.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Rolling also incurs wear. Going at a constant speed still
| requires shear stress on the tires like acceleration does
| (to counter air resistance, etc). So reduction in air
| resistance can also help reduce tire wear.
|
| EV drivers typically brake a little more gradually to
| maximize regeneration compared to conventional braking.
| Having each wheel be driven by electric motors with
| careful traction control can minimize tire wear as well.
|
| If tire wear is the problem we're trying to address, it
| might be a good idea to include a specific fee to address
| it. Related to tire composition and regular annual
| inspection of tires. That way wear can be minimized in an
| effective way. Or we develop tire tread whose wear
| particulates are not a major problem.
|
| Which brings up a point: we have little to no evidence
| that tire particulates DO pose an actual problem, unlike
| PAHs, which we do have evidence for. Rubber is somewhat
| biodegradable already. And the wear particles may be of a
| size distribution that isn't so problematic. Detection or
| extrapolation of existence is not evidence for a problem.
|
| We are multiple levels removed from EVs theoretically
| having higher weight to actual known health problems
| here, and likely due to better control and lower rolling
| resistance, it's likely EVs are superior.
| hedora wrote:
| Why would you require annual inspection of tires instead
| of just adding an environmental tax to new tires?
|
| If you're worried about people dodging the tax by over-
| wearing the tires (I doubt this would be a significant
| thing), you could arrange for taxes that lead to
| refunding less money when people recycle tires that have
| less tread left.
| wongarsu wrote:
| To humans, the exhaust of an internal combustion engine is a
| much bigger concern, car tire particles are comparatively
| heavy, so they stay lower and settle out quicker.
|
| Of course then they get washed away and end up in rivers and
| oceans, and we should do something about that. Probably there
| are a lot of low hanging fruit for that left, simply because
| historically nobody cared about it, apart from the
| inconvenience of needing to buy new tires.
| yabones wrote:
| EVs aren't going to save the world, but they will save the auto
| industry for a few years.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Basically no lefties/urbanites would've made that argument
| before Tesla made EVs viable and attractive to normies. Back
| in the "Who Killed the Electric Car" days, it would've been
| extremely odd for people with environmental concerns to be
| like that.
|
| EVs are a massive, massive improvement, and while I like
| improving stuff (or using alternatives) to reduce further
| downsides, I don't think we should look a gift horse in the
| mouth, here.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| As a city-dweller whose main practical problems with cars
| are around pedestrian and cyclist safety, noise pollution,
| and the hostility of car-centric infrastructure to human
| life in general, this sounds a lot like "you'll take what
| we give you and be happy about it."
| dahfizz wrote:
| Imagine wanting to live in the same square mile as
| millions of other people and then getting upset that you
| have to deal with millions of other people trying to live
| their life.
|
| If you require everyone around you to to have the same
| priorities as you, then you may be happier in a smaller
| town.
| 1270018080 wrote:
| Are you suggesting car drivers move to smaller towns
| where it's actually economically efficient to use them?
| You wouldn't want car drivers imposing their noise,
| pollution, financial cost, infrastructure cost, and
| displacement on the millions of other people trying to
| live their life. It's very insightful of you to imply
| that cities should be designed for people, and not cars,
| so those millions can actually use the density to their
| advantage.
| hedora wrote:
| How about this? Let's move the population of Dallas Fort
| Worth to San Francisco, and vice versa, and see how
| quickly people's opinions about vehicle ownership change.
|
| The main issue with having cars (or not) is that
| infrastructure that costs many orders of magnitude more
| than the cars has to be rebuilt if you want to switch
| between car-dependent and walk/bike-everywhere.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| Yes absolutely, the only way for many people to live in
| one place is for them all to drive cars for all trips
| within that place. There are no other possible
| configurations.
| wongarsu wrote:
| As a city-dweller, I'll be glad when the decline of ICE
| cars removes the loud sound of accelerating engines, and
| the reduction of PM2.5 particulates improves my health.
|
| Sure, it's not a cure-all, and more pedestrian areas,
| better bicycle infrastructure, more medium-density
| housing with walkable neighborhoods, and heat-pumps
| instead of burning oil or gas are still important issues.
| But just switching from ICE to electric engines is a
| cheap win that I'm glad to get as well.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| It's better than nothing but I don't intend to be happy
| about it alone. I don't even think it'll be cheap in the
| end. Road maintenance is already expensive and neglected
| in cities. Making cars heavier is not going to help at
| all, it's just shifting the pain around.
| asdff wrote:
| As a city dweller I won't be so sure. Most of the noise I
| hear on the cement road is from the tires, and those big
| fugly tesla suv-sedan things are loud when they roll up
| with their 5000lb of weight. Most of the PM2.5 we are
| left with today is from tires anyhow thanks to the
| catalytic converter and unleaded fuel. That part isn't
| going away. To be honest I wish the climate crisis would
| promote people into lighter vehicles and mass transit
| versus just more of the same unsustainable patterns, but
| here we are. The green thing to do now is to replace your
| working car that is already built and delivered to your
| door with one 2000lbs heavier. Seems like green washing
| more than actual action to me. You would think bike lanes
| everywhere would be an easy win given how cheap they are,
| but its like no one really cares about doing anything but
| taking the car everywhere.
| hedora wrote:
| A 2022 Model 3 weighs about 3700 pounds. A 2022 ICE Ford
| Mustang (the coupe, not the SUV) weighs 3850 lbs.
|
| A 2022 Model Y (SUV) weighs 4400 pounds. A 2022 ICE Ford
| Explorer weighs 6100 pounds.
|
| Maybe this is because Ford sucks at making reasonable-
| weight vehicles, right?
|
| Well, a 2022 Ford Mustang Mach-E weighs 4700 pounds,
| which is a bit overweight vs. the Model Y, but still way
| lighter than their old flagship SUV.
|
| I'm not sure how, but in the US, EVs are somehow lighter
| than comparable gas vehicles.
| [deleted]
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I'm not sure how, but in the US, EVs are somehow
| lighter than comparable gas vehicles.
|
| You are just using the wrong comparators. A Tesla Model Y
| is more comparable (for instance, it's a lot closer in
| dimensions) to the 3,700 lb Ford Escape SUV than the
| 4,400 Ford Explorer.
| 11235813213455 wrote:
| _light_ EVs are massive improvement
| https://www.polytechnique-
| insights.com/en/columns/planet/are...
| hedora wrote:
| The emissions graph only considers particulates, so it's
| massively undercounting air pollution improvements from
| EVs.
| 11235813213455 wrote:
| Do you have figures for this? it says: "non-exhaust
| particles represent 59% of PM10 and 45% of PM2.5
| emissions", so about half of fine particles are non-
| exhaust (brake, tires, road dust). If you also count the
| fabrication process, the batteries, the new
| infrastructures and electricity footprint, the additional
| weight (for the same size), it's possibly a small gain
| over thermic engines, but nothing super obvious
| Robotbeat wrote:
| /comparable/ EVs are a massive improvement.
| 11235813213455 wrote:
| if more than half PMs come from tires and dust, I'm not
| sure
| culi wrote:
| > EVs are a massive, massive improvement
|
| To be honest even this is a bit of an overstatement. An MIT
| study found that a huge chunk of the lifetime emissions of
| a vehicle is in the production alone. EVs, mostly due to
| their batteries, have much much higher production
| emissions.
|
| And given how dirty our current energy production is (and
| the added costs and inefficiencies of storing and
| transporting electricity) we won't feel the benefits of EVs
| offsetting the initial added costs for many many years
|
| Also given how notoriously unreliable certain brands like
| Tesla have been (27th of 28 in Consumer Reports reliability
| index) it's possible that the added maintenance costs will
| push this break even point even further down the road
|
| But as of right now all we've really managed to do is push
| these emissions from the first world (combustion emissions)
| to the third world (production emissions)
|
| EDIT: link to MIT study:
| https://energy.mit.edu/research/mobilityofthefuture/
|
| Around 40% of an EVs lifetime emissions are from production
| alone. Tesla's tend to be even higher because of the larger
| batteries and less efficient production
| hedora wrote:
| > * An MIT study found that a huge chunk of the lifetime
| emissions of a vehicle is in the production alone. EVs,
| mostly due to their batteries, have much much higher
| production emissions.*
|
| At this point, that's only true if you're living in the
| dirtiest power grid in the US, are a low milage driver,
| and you junk your EV within two years of purchasing it
| new.
|
| Also, the ICE car in this comparison has to be over a
| decade old (< 10% of the original embodied CO2 averaged
| out over the years), has to have top-tier fuel efficiency
| and also be much smaller than the EV.
|
| The union of concerned scientists has a calculator for
| this based on zip code, and the exact model of EV.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| > Tesla's tend to be even higher because of the larger
| batteries and less efficient production
|
| This is false and actually the opposite is true. They
| actually used Model S sedan figures (3mi/kWh) for
| efficiency to compare to Camry sized vehicle. The more
| appropriate comparison is to a Model 3, which gets
| 4mi/kWh.
|
| People underestimate how efficient Tesla's powertrains
| are compared to most competitors. Tesla tends to do much
| BETTER at efficiency than their peers, not worse.
| hedora wrote:
| I assumed Teslas had poor fuel efficiency due to their
| size, but then I found this:
|
| https://evtool.ucsusa.org
|
| The Model 3's (mid range 2020) MPGe-CO2 is a bit better
| than a BMW i3 (2018). The i3 is a little euro city car
| thing.
|
| They carefully optimized the BMW for weight, and also
| have some funky custom ultra efficient tires. For
| example, the frame is made of (hemp - supposedly lighter)
| fiberglass and carbon fiber, and they didn't offer power
| seats. It has a tiny trunk / no front trunk. It only gets
| EPA 135 miles per charge.
|
| The BMW and Tesla are both much better than a 2022 BMW
| i4, Nissan Leaf, or Polestar 2. They're a bit better than
| the most recent Fiat 500e, which is closer to the i3's
| size.
|
| Tesla's energy efficiency vs. size is really impressive.
| nevereveragain wrote:
| > For similar-sized vehicles in the U.S. today, per-mile
| lifecycle (including vehicle and battery production)
| greenhouse gas emissions for battery electric vehicles
| run on the present U.S.-average grid electricity are
| approximately 55% of the emissions from conventional
| internal combustion engine vehicles.
|
| Electric vehicles have almost half the lifetime
| emissions. That's huge, no matter how you spin it.
| culi wrote:
| Sure but with about 167% as many emissions from
| production, I'm just saying there's going to be an
| immediate increase in emissions.
|
| Also one thing missing from this analysis is maintenance.
| The three factors taken into account are initial
| production (much higher for EVs), cost of fuel production
| (also much higher for EVs), and emissions from fuel
| combustion (0 for EVs). However batteries don't last
| forever and it still remains to be seen that EVs can
| reach the maintenance costs of combustion engine vehicles
| (with Tesla being a notable argument against EVs
| potential)
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Fuel production is much cheaper for EVs, what are you
| talking about?
|
| The batteries last longer than the 150,000km these
| studies assume. My 2013 Model S is at 209,000 kilometers
| and going strong with little (10% or less) range
| reduction.
|
| I looked at the study a bit, and they use Model S-sized
| battery size and efficiency assumptions (about 3mi/kWh)
| to compare to a Camry. More appropriate would be Model 3
| assumptions (4mi/kWh). The emissions factors are from a
| white paper 5 years ago, itself using older data. They
| assume 525grams of CO2 per kWh for the reference case
| going down to 345 in 2050, but the US already has
| emissions of about 375gramsCO2/kWh and falling. Just
| terrible assumptions. A bunch of stuff like that in the
| study.
|
| And it compounds! A factor of 1.33 bigger battery
| (3mi/kWh instead of 4mi/kWh) whose manufacturing
| emissions are 1.41 times as high (525grams of CO2 per kWh
| vs 372, if we optimistically assume electricity is the
| main energy input but pessimistically assume the energy
| needed to make a kWh of capacity remains the same) means
| a factor of 1.9 exaggeration in manufacturing emissions.
| Plus the operating emissions per mile are also
| exaggerated by a factor of 1.9...
|
| Finally: Batteries in modern EVs last the life of the
| vehicle. 500,000km or so. Potentially longer with LFP
| cells.
| culi wrote:
| > Fuel production is much cheaper for EVs, what are you
| talking about?
|
| No it's very much not. Please see chapter 4 of the linked
| MIT report: Fuel production emissions are
| also typically higher for BEVs (and FCEVs) because,
| on average, generating and delivering a megajoule
| of electricity or hydrogen to a vehicle battery or
| fuel cell consumes much more energy than producing
| and delivering a megajoule of gasoline to the fuel
| tank of an ICE
| Robotbeat wrote:
| But you said "cheaper," additionally this ignores the
| input fossil energy of the gasoline, and it's per joule
| of thermal energy, not useful mechanical energy. It's a
| weird metric that isn't very enlightening. It's mixing
| low-entropy electrical energy with high-entropy thermal
| "primary energy." It's also not what you actually said.
| The cost of energy (as well as emissions) per mile
| traveled is far, FAR less in electric vehicles.
| jeromegv wrote:
| >Basically no lefties/urbanites would've made that argument
| before Tesla made EVs viable and attractive to normies.
|
| May be you didn't pay attention? They were already protests
| in the 1970s to stop the non sense of building highways in
| the middle or urban centres. Jane Jacob was talking about
| it in the 1960s. It's not so much about environmentalists
| but urban designers have been talking of the negative
| impact of car culture on our society and way of life for
| decades.
|
| Both things can be true. EVs are better than ICE cars. Not
| having your lifestyle and cities designed around cars for
| every single trip is better than EVs. And we can switch to
| EVs gradually while also making our dense communities more
| livable.
|
| Not everything revolves around Elon Musk ideas, as much as
| he would like many to believe.
| CalRobert wrote:
| EV's are an improvement compared to "the same but with
| petrol" but the thing is, but we are squandering an
| opportunity to have cities where people can bike and walk
| places (the reason they can't is the cars) and other issues
| are coming to light, namely the heavier weights and faster
| acceleration making them even more dangerous for people
| using bikes and walking than fossil fuel cars.
| bluecalm wrote:
| Bike, walk or use lightweight electric vehicles (e-bikes,
| 3wheelers, mobility scooters) which need a small fraction
| of the power, fraction of the resources to produce, are
| safer, smaller (thus higher throughout on city roads) and
| quieter.
|
| The problem with electric cars is that they are still
| cars.
| clairity wrote:
| yes please. i have these conversations with people here
| in LA and they look at me like i'm an alien. but LA is
| really the perfect city for dense, multi-modal, mixed-use
| neighborhoods because of the perfect weather (esp. low
| humidity) and relatively flat terrain.
|
| all we need to do is convert street parking into bike
| lanes, and build a few parking structures in the oldest
| neighborhoods that were built before onsite parking was
| common (this mitigates the biggest legitimate objection
| for getting rid of street parking).
| asdff wrote:
| LA has a lot of low hanging fruit with the classic "two
| parking lane four car lanes and a center turning lane"
| arterial that is laid out about every half mile in the
| cardinal directions across the entire county. Just nix
| the turning lane and two car lanes, and turn the existing
| bus lines that run along those arterials into BRT and LA
| would become a model for the western world of how to run
| low cost transit.
|
| It will never happen of course, because the city council
| and most wings of local government are openly corrupt
| with regular FBI indictments.
| clairity wrote:
| yah, that's exactly the kind of change i advocate as
| well. it's low cost and high bang for buck. LA instead
| spends millions of dollars doing studies and community
| outreach and anything else before they actually implement
| these kinds of changes. and when they do, it's small,
| isolated and disconnected, and low utility as a result.
| asdff wrote:
| And forever handicapped. The expo line takes about 15
| minutes to go from Expo park to 7th street metro center
| two miles away. The last good piece of transit LA built
| has been the red line and that was over 25 years ago.
| clairity wrote:
| right, they should have put it underground right before
| USC/expo park.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| If the V for vehicle is taken literally, then they will do
| more good than just big BEV SUVs in cities designed around
| cars. Think delivery moped and ebike trikes, or commuter
| ebikes, trains and buses. Last mile delivery vehicles etc.
|
| But, if the alternative to the BEV SUV is an ICE SUV then
| they'll still help a lot, saving lots of money and many
| lives.
| ehnto wrote:
| I think weight of EVs is a "how long is a piece of string"
| discussion though. Which EV, and heavy compared to the average
| car, or compared to a feature equivalent ICE car? Currently
| large luxury EVs are in favor in the American market, but
| that'll probably change once smaller affordable EVs hit the
| market and fill out demand amongst the more common vehicle
| price points. There's also no shortage of truly behemoth ICE
| vehicles getting about, so I'm not sure it counts as a
| practical con for EV's just yet.
| kube-system wrote:
| EVs are unquestionably heavier than comparable gasoline cars.
| Even the Leaf is 3500-4000 lbs. Nissan sells _three_ SUVs in
| the US lighter than the Leaf with the smallest battery.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| I have been arguing that we should be comparing EVs to their
| highest volume ICE counterparts in their class/tier of
| vehicle since that is going to be the most common upgrade
| path as EVs get more available and affordable. Additionally,
| we should look at TCO rather than MSRP for tiers since
| maintenance costs are so different. If comparing similar
| size/TCO vehicles with high volume, The lightest Model 3
| weighs more than the heaviest Camrys and Accords and the
| lightest Model Y weighs more than the heaviest CR-Vs and
| Rav-4s. On top of that, Tesla is way ahead of most EVs on
| weight with the 3/Y. Similar range vehicles like the polestar
| 2 or the Ioniq 5 are really heavy by comparison.
|
| In the US "capability" (even when we don't actually use it)
| is such a huge sell for many that I don't think were going to
| see a cultural shift to buying a smaller class of vehicle as
| you switch to EV. If anything Americans buy up as the
| operating costs go down.
| dahfizz wrote:
| > In the US "capability" (even when we don't actually use
| it) is such a huge sell for many that I don't think were
| going to see a cultural shift to buying a smaller class of
| vehicle as you switch to EV.
|
| EVs mean more power, more AWD, more cargo room than
| comparable ICE vehicles. More "capability", as you say. At
| the same time, the reduced range discourages going for a
| larger, bloated vehicle you don't need.
|
| I can definitely imagine a lot of the families that have a
| crossover / smaller SUV now deciding to go with a sedan
| like the model 3. It has all the cargo storage they need
| and has the power / AWD they are used to.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| > I can definitely imagine a lot of the families that
| have a crossover / smaller SUV now deciding to go with a
| sedan like the model 3. It has all the cargo storage they
| need and has the power / AWD they are used to.
|
| I think you are right that some people on the margins may
| step down instead of staying flat or going up given
| features like frunk space (although model Y sales are
| beating 3 sales despite the reduced range and increased
| price), but AWD models of the 3 still weigh more than
| many AWD crossovers. Stepping down means a huge hit to
| total cargo volume and cargo height moving to a
| passthrough trunk vs a cargo area, and you also lose
| ground clearance that people think they will need for
| their yearly camping trip.
|
| American car purchases have been trending bigger and
| bigger and I don't think a frunk and fast 0-60s is enough
| to buck that trend.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| > Currently large luxury EVs are in favor in the American
| market, but that'll probably change once smaller affordable
| EVs hit the market and fill out demand amongst the more
| common vehicle price points
|
| Even among those lower price points, the trend seems to be
| towards heavy SUVs/CUVs. Also, it's pretty clear that an
| equivalent car will be heavier as EV compared to it's ICE
| variant - the added weight of the batteries is a lot more
| than the weight saved by the electric engines. This is
| especially true for lighter engines with smaller
| displacement.
|
| Now, of course there are some really small one or two seater
| EVs, but those also existed as ICEs and I don't think
| anything indicates that the majority of people will suddenly
| prefer smaller cars just because they buy an EV.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Environmentally focused people will complain about a goat
| herder living in a yurt in the Himalayas. (The goat will kill
| vegetation, increasing erosion as well as depleting finite
| salt lick supply) There's a con to all things and people
| passionate and communicative about any issue.
|
| You got to try to zoom out and understand the pro/con of
| different options.
|
| Good or bad, we have the society we have. I need to drive my
| kids to school. To do so safely, I need a large car. Would it
| be better to live in NYC and take the subway? Or have denser
| walkable communities? Sure. But in the meantime, the kids
| need to go to school.
| Sporktacular wrote:
| This today on the effect of tyre dust specifically on animals:
| https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/25/tyre-dus...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-25 23:01 UTC)