21–30 of 465 posts
I wonder if this will spur mandatory regenerative braking in all cars, eventually, as a means of reducing pollutants?
I wonder if this means another advantage for EVs in terms of environmental friendliness.
That's the fly in the ointment, they're not. The increased mass and torque actually produces more tire dust than a ICE car.
> researchers grew human lung cells in a lab and exposed them to dust from car brakes and from diesel tailpipes, finding that brake dust caused greater injury to the cells. I couldn’t tell if the study found that car brakes are more harmful than exhausts, or that car brake chemicals are more harmful than exhaust fumes - but that may not be significant because they are produced in less quantities.
None of these.
The actual linked study found that the presence of specific metal particulates (copper, zinc and iron), which are found in modern brake dust, correlates with increase risk of asthma and allergy in kids.
I'm personally wondering if the article linked the wrong article? Because the article describes the study as "researchers grew human lung cells in a lab and exposed them to dust from car brakes and from diesel tailpipes", but the linked study is a cohort study of correlation, that doesn't involve any experimental manipulation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the key is to make a class of light-weight EVs with smaller, lighter batteries for life around town. Most of us rarely drive more than a few dozen miles a day. But then there are those weekend trips.
Those are called e-bikes
I think this is missing out on the big issue - tyre pollution which contains really nasty chemicals that inevitably get washed into rivers and waterways. Also, car-shaped EVs often use regenerative braking which will reduce the amount of brake dust pollution, but with their increased weight and powerful torque, they produce a lot more tyre pollution than ICE vehicles. https://earth.org/tyre-pollution/
I think the key is to make a class of light-weight EVs with smaller, lighter batteries for life around town. Most of us rarely drive more than a few dozen miles a day. But then there are those weekend trips.
Then, with the reduction in width required for these futuristic two wheeled eco-machines, we could utilize some of the road space freed up for an even more efficient way to move people around a semi densely populated area. If only we could invent a way to allow multiple people traveling on similar routes to share a common vehicle, then we'd be able to split the capital and ongoing usage costs among many different people, reducing costs for everyone.
It's a shame, really. If only we had the technology...
I think this is missing out on the big issue - tyre pollution which contains really nasty chemicals that inevitably get washed into rivers and waterways. Also, car-shaped EVs often use regenerative braking which will reduce the amount of brake dust pollution, but with their increased weight and powerful torque, they produce a lot more tyre pollution than ICE vehicles. https://earth.org/tyre-pollution/
This is fake news. The backing study for this claim did all sorts of wonky unrealistic testing to come to this conclusion. If you own an EV, you viscerally know it's BS given that you're the one paying for the actual tire replacements on your real-world driven vehicle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the key is to make a class of light-weight EVs with smaller, lighter batteries for life around town. Most of us rarely drive more than a few dozen miles a day. But then there are those weekend trips.
That's a great idea. And since it'll be limited to in town use, something narrower might be useful - maybe give it two wheels instead of four? That'd be huge for reducing weight and increasing range. And for suitable geographic areas, it might even be possible to make one light enough that it could be powered by the rider, no external power source required! Then, with the reduction in width required for these futuris…
I think this is missing out on the big issue - tyre pollution which contains really nasty chemicals that inevitably get washed into rivers and waterways. Also, car-shaped EVs often use regenerative braking which will reduce the amount of brake dust pollution, but with their increased weight and powerful torque, they produce a lot more tyre pollution than ICE vehicles. https://earth.org/tyre-pollution/
Meanwhile, here in the UK, one of the more interesting alternatives - personal light EVs (ebikes/scooters) are being utterly demonized, and are never likely to be legal on the roads beyond the very limited 250W/15mph pedelec class of e-bikes. Wouldn't be surprised if even that is banned before long, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This study is looking at the health effects, not particle count per mile of car use. A similar study looking at tire dust would also be interesting.
Yes, the quantity and hazardous nature of different forms of pollution does need to be taken into account. Unfortunately, tyre pollution seems to be more hazardous and produced in greater quantities: https://e360.yale.edu/features/tire-pollution-toxic-chemical... https://www.theengineer.co.uk/media/mgmeqm3b/tyre-wear-parti...
None of your linked studies even come close to supporting this claim.
I don't doubt that tire particulates have negative health impacts on humans, but we don't really know which is worse yet.
I think this is missing out on the big issue - tyre pollution which contains really nasty chemicals that inevitably get washed into rivers and waterways. Also, car-shaped EVs often use regenerative braking which will reduce the amount of brake dust pollution, but with their increased weight and powerful torque, they produce a lot more tyre pollution than ICE vehicles. https://earth.org/tyre-pollution/
This study is looking at the health effects, not particle count per mile of car use. A similar study looking at tire dust would also be interesting.