OT: Electric cars worse than petrol

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135223101630187X http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3579878/Electric-hybrid-eco-friendly-cars-air-toxins-dirty-diesels-say-scientists.html (Apologies for the second link).
I wonder who'll feel guilty over having one.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 09:01:34 UTC+1, PeterC wrote:

A lot of "mays". Drivel. Electric vehicles use regenerative braking for 95% of the time so the brake pads last a very long time. (= no particles from them)
I haven't noticed my tyres wearing out particularly fast.
No dust from clutch (there isn't one).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/05/2016 09:17, harry wrote:

Missing the point as usual I see...
The particulate matter is produced in the power station providing the recharge power for the car, and in the power stations providing the embedded energy in the manufacture of the car and its batteries etc.
For once, you are off the hook for the first one, if you can recharge it without ever needing grid electricity.
--
Cheers,

John.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 10 May 2016 15:26:23 +0100, John Rumm

I this case I think you have missed the point. The claim is that the emmissions of particles from tyres, brakes and road surface due to wear are significantly more from electric vehicles than IC vehicles because of their extra weight.
The DM article is more informative than the Elsevier abstract.
I'm afraid that I don't believe that the findings are significant; yet another study done to generate publicity and hence income.
Of course with comments like
"We found that non-exhaust emissions, from brakes, tyres and the road, are far larger than exhaust emissions in all modern cars."
and
"After installing particulate air pollution monitors in the southbound Hatfield tunnel on the A1(M), which has 49,000 vehicles a day travelling through it, scientists found that each one produced 34-39 micrograms of particles per kilometre. But only a third came from the engine. Everything else was from small pieces of bitumen whipped up from the road, rubber from tyres and brake dust."
you could come to the conclusion that exhaust emmissions from modern IC cars are so low as to be not worth worrying about.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 15:26:24 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:

The point was that because the car is allegedly heavier, there was more wear on the brakes and tyres. The particles were supposedly coming from these. Which is drivel for the reasons I gave.
And BTW in Summer I charge my car from the PV panels.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 4:04:22 AM UTC-4, harry wrote:

Had you read the actual paper, they actually reduce the brake wear contribution to zero.
The massive majority of the PM comes from 'resuspension' of dirt on the road due, which appears to be roughly linear with mass. The remaining contributions from tire and road wear is much smaller.
Perhaps read the paper instead of a 3rd party summary before making such declarations? Is that really too much to ask?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 10 May 2016 09:01:31 +0100, PeterC

I can't imagine, but I expect the response will contain such erudite phrases as brain dead, shit-fer-brains, bollix and drivel!
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Whoever he is, he'll love this one then.
Solar panels shown to take more energy to make then they generate in their lifetime, and cause massive amounts of pollution from the factories making them.
http://euanmearns.com/the-energy-return-of-solar-pv/
"A PV panel will produce more CO2 than if coal were simply used directly to make electricity. [...] The image shows the true green credentials of solar PV where industrial wastelands have been created in China so that Europeans can make believe they are reducing CO2 emissions"
--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Windows 10: less of an OS, more of a drive-by mugging.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ps. TNP posted a link to the study (Ferroni and Hopkirk) cited in another thread, but that's degenerated into the usual tedious Windows vs Linux war with the fuckwitted D i m showing all and sundry how little he knows.
This is Euan Mearns' take on the same paper; he posted it on his website yesterday and his comments are well worth a read.
--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Windows 10: less of an OS, more of a drive-by mugging.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you're going to compare the total energy used for making solar panels etc, wouldn't you also need to include the energy used to mine and distribute coal - and the energy needed to build the power stations etc too? If using the coal comparison?
--
*It is easier to get older than it is to get wiser.

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 10 May 2016 16:20:31 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"

But wouldn't the energy used to mine and distribute coal - and the energy needed to build the power stations etc. occur on both sides of the "equation", and so in effect cancel out? On the one side you have coal-generated* electricity made directly and on the other side you have the same coal-generated* electricity making solar panels, which don't go on to produce as much electricity as went into making them. IYSWIM
*with the understanding that much of the electricity isn't coal-fired any more (except perhaps in China where most of the panels are made), but you see what I mean.
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/05/16 19:49, Chris Hogg wrote:

That is what EROEI is all about.
How much energy you use to get your energy.
And if you understand that and read the article again, you will understand the point.
You use more energy to get the renewable energy than it ever pays you back. Unlike coal, which gives you many many many times more back.
I think people who don't understand basic accounting, physics or engineering shouldn't have a vote.
--
“But what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!”
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You conveniently missed out the bit that it depends on where such things are sited.
--
*If only you'd use your powers for good instead of evil.

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's moving the goal posts. Either you compare the total energy needed to set up a method of producing electricity against that produced or you don't.
But gawd forbid any one side gave true figures.
--
*If they arrest the Energizer Bunny, would they charge it with battery? *

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That point is addressed in the link I gave, or in the comments below. For my part, I would say yes. Maybe also factor in the human cost - mining, construction, etc.
--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Windows 10: less of an OS, more of a drive-by mugging.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 16:21:49 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

s
e
It's almost impossible to do a like for like comparison. The point is once you have your solar panels, no further fossil fuel is nee ded. And no-one can take your fuel supply away from you. And there is ruced pollution.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/05/2016 09:07, harry wrote:

That is incorrect. There has been more pollution and its the total that matters not the bit you get by using the stuff.
Next you will claim electric cars produce no pollution when in reality all they do is produce the pollution somewhere else.
There is almost no chance that your electric car will produce less pollution over its life than a small petrol engined car. Even if it actually produced less pollution per mile then it has produced a lot more pollution to make it and you would have to do a lot of miles to recover that which electric cars aren't actually suited to doing as they have rather a small range. Also if you are using an energy source like solar then it will never produce less pollution as the solar panels have already produced more pollution than you will get back in savings in their ~30 year life. To actually be green you need to do a lot of miles and charge it with hydroelectric or nukes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 10 May 2016 15:29:37 +0100, Mike Tomlinson

<snip expletive demonstrating a lack of mental agility from the troll / stalker>

What I do know is there is no 'War' between Windows and Linux (OS's care even less about it all than the vast majority of computer users) only the hypocrisy of the pathetic footers seen on every post from the said stalker troll:
" (\_/) (='.'=) Windows 10: less of an OS, more of a drive-by mugging. (")_(") -- "Esme" on el Reg"
Maybe if the stalker / troll got a life outside knocking Windows and advocating Linux (in this 'd-i-y' group) ...
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/05/2016 09:22, Chris Hogg wrote:

I think we could write a harry simulator, it would save him the trouble...
--
Cheers,

John.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/05/2016 15:22, John Rumm wrote:

I thought that ELIZA had replaced the real Harry years ago.
--
Colin Bignell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.