[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)