51–60 of 125 posts
They didn't touch upon tire/rubber particulate pollution being worse for EVs.
Road wear is apparently the power of 4 in relation to weight.
And EVs are much heavier, especially for small cars (think everywhere not the US). Small EVs are 30-50% heavier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does the UK call gasoline petroleum? Every context I've ever heard it used in, including technical, petroleum is crude oil, which DEFINITELY doesn't go in your car.
We don't - we call it petrol, because it's similar to petroleum but isn't it. Tbh 'gas' is the weird one, it's a liquid.
'The term is thought to have been influenced by the trademark "Cazeline" or "Gazeline"', then becoming 'gasolene' before ending up as 'gasoline', shortened as 'gas'.
For warm climates in urban areas, I can agree, but here are things never fully covered anywhere: 1. Heat in the winter, this will reduce you range, some just a little, but in places like Minnesota in Feb, a lot. 2. Stuck in traffic. If you are stuck in grid lock, that will cut in range, there have been cases were gridlock could last hours. Granted maybe EV stop power usage in this case. But under very hot or cold wea…
At least the "hot weather" situation could be remedied by adding a solar roof and possibly hood to the vehicle. While it does not really add much in the way of range extension it does provide power to run AC when it is needed. An average car roof is big enough to provide 400W to 600W which goes a long way in offsetting the power consumed by the AC.
They didn't touch upon tire/rubber particulate pollution being worse for EVs.
Is there any evidence that this is an actual issue? My understanding was that the particulates from tires are pretty big and don’t really go airborne
Lets say EV cut co2 emissions by factor of 100x for each km traveled. Lets say number of cars in total follows exponential progression, 5% growth per year. It follows that after 100 years due to growth co2 gets back to original level. (Log100/log1.05=94) EVs are required bandaid, but degrowth will come eventually. (Possibly due to climate change supply will decrease and so will consumption)
Here's the biggest and most important reason (besides the obvious ones like grids, energy, etc.): most people >cannot Idealists should often take their heads out of their asses and understand most people don't have their privilege, ironically the most privileged ones screech about privilege while ignoring their own. Go ahead and tell developing countries to switch to EV-only, setting them back at least 10 years in te…
How about on this one: Gasoline has a higher energy density than lithium ion batteries meaning that you will have less weight to carry around giving you a more nimble vehicle. It also lets you accelerate faster from the same engine torque since you have to accelerate less mass. With electric vehicles you have to carry a battery for you entire range and it is not easy to swap out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any evidence that this is an actual issue? My understanding was that the particulates from tires are pretty big and don’t really go airborne
"There is emerging evidence that tyre wear particles and other particulate matter may contribute to a range of negative health impacts including heart, lung, developmental, reproductive, and cancer outcomes." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230222210553.h...
“ Some are concerned that electric vehicles tend to be heavier, which might increase tyre wear”
That’s a fact-free argument.
I've been going in range-anxiety circles with my dad for over 10 years. He insists he needs a car that can take him hundreds of miles into the wilderness for camping. I ask whether he's ever done that. He says no, but he intends to. He's 84. EV manufacturers should offer the 500-mile-range vehicle, but as an option. Pay $X for a car with 250 miles range, and an extra $20,000 for another 250 miles range. Most people w…
I think this is pretty much what they all do already? Seems like most manufacturers offer a "long range" version? Perhaps not 250 Vs 500, but certainly like 150 to 250 sort of order of magnitude Take a look at http://ev-database.uk
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"There is emerging evidence that tyre wear particles and other particulate matter may contribute to a range of negative health impacts including heart, lung, developmental, reproductive, and cancer outcomes." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230222210553.h...
But EVs being worse is handwaved away in the article without any hard data: “ Some are concerned that electric vehicles tend to be heavier, which might increase tyre wear” That’s a fact-free argument.
Maybe what we need to do is have less cars, and drive those cars less.