Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who, exactly, should be funding air quality measurements within the European Union?
[flagged]
[flagged]
Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic
511–520 of 595 posts
Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic
#512Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn’t critical thinking. Your complete inability to even vaguely hint or suggest at someone who might be better equipped to either perform this analysis or fund it makes that clear. “Someone without bias” is a cop out. Everyone has bias, and literally anyone performing or funding air quality measurements is going to have some sort of interest in their outcome. There is no sterile room of blind and deaf eunuchs p…
Sigh, I already addressed this demand that I MUST name an alternative in this thread. It's deflection pure and simple, I'm not going over that again...
If you don’t think the current people doing this work or funding it are appropriate, you should be able to give at least a vague idea of an entity you think is better suited for either.
The only qualification you managed to put out there is that they don’t have bias. This is literally unachievable and you know it, which is why you won’t even attempt to even hint at a better party.
Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic
#513Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they are heavier. Not saying it offsets the effect but it's just not straight forward to assume either way.
If you want to go into the details of this, for all the things people hve mentioned, you have to calculate the road wear done by trucks carrying fuels to stations every day. Electricity does not need the same regular road wear as ICE vehicles do.
Yeah, the refining and transport of petroleum products always gets left out when talking about EV pollution.
It's pretty energy intensive to separate crude oil into it's various parts.
Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic
#514Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Someone without bias” is indeed obvious, and therefore unhelpful. Can you be more specific? Who, precisely, doesn’t have a dog in the climate change fight?
How specific am I supposed to be, do you want names, resumes, potential investors? Not my problem to solve. However, I no longer accept published reports at face value, unless I check who the authors are, and who funds them. They even have a Cruchbase page, it's easy to check for yourself.
> However, I no longer accept published reports at face value, unless I check who the authors are, and who funds them.
No, you use this as a cop out to deny results. In this case you have done this check and you have decided you do not want to believe the outcome so you wave around a vague charge of bias in a lame attempt to discredit it.
Please show me one single scientific report or conclusion you’ve accepted that passed this same “bias test”. Neither the authors nor their funding source may have a particular interest in the outcome. Any such example will do.
Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic
#515Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand this concept. I would expect an ICE and an EV vehicle with the same weight, speed, deceleration, tires, etc to have the same wear on tires. The difference being the energy to stop an ICE being transferred to the brake pads and rotors, rather than recharging the EV’s battery. What am I missing? Why wouldn’t the tires experience the same forces in both scenarios?
You're only considering braking, and for that case you're right. You're not considering acceleration, where EVs supply near maximum torque instantly when you press the accelerator pedal. This causes increased wear in tires, I've seen estimates of 20%.
> EVs supply near maximum torque instantly when you press the accelerator pedal.
You do realize you can drive without just slamming the accelerator pedal straight to the floor every time you start going right?
Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic
#516Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then from what the pollution in the subway come from ?
most subway trains are decades old - newer fleets have regenerative braking[1] But also ... almost a century of brake dust because nobody is going through and vacuuming the tunnels. [1] https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-informa...
Interesting. Looks like it the line isn't able to take the energy (I'm guessing voltage is already too high) they dump the energy into a resistive heater.
Makes sense, it's just going to be heat anyways. I wonder how often that happens vs the energy getting dumped into the line.
Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic
#517Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand this concept. I would expect an ICE and an EV vehicle with the same weight, speed, deceleration, tires, etc to have the same wear on tires. The difference being the energy to stop an ICE being transferred to the brake pads and rotors, rather than recharging the EV’s battery. What am I missing? Why wouldn’t the tires experience the same forces in both scenarios?
It's due to the regenerative braking, which transmits more power via the wheels when decelerating. Most ICE cards don't have regenerative braking; hybrids tend to.
Fundamental misunderstanding of physics. Slowing 2,500lbs from 60-0MPH in 4 seconds (for example) puts just as much wear on a tire if it's with friction brakes or with regenerative braking or engine braking.
Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic
#518Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least in the US people absolutely fucking love their cars. They will lie about how much they hate them but ask them to actually change their behavior and you get nothing but a litany of excuses.
Everyone loves their car, but hates everyone else's cars. Remember, your car is transport, everyone else's cars are traffic. Saying "people love cars" is false. Some people love cars. Those are the ones doing their own work/maintenance/restorations etc and just spending time in the garage with their cars. A few more people love driving , they don't just love cars for their own sake, but they will go and just drive fo…
> You might as well say US people fucking love washing machines or knives and forks.
Yeah, you’re getting it.
Nobody will say they love washing machines but they clearly do. We see it in their actions. Same as with cars. Everything they do tells us that they love cars. They drive comically short distances. They spend money they barely have to buy them.
Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic
#519Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Moreover, high voltage battery packs tend to have switches / contactors on the battery pack that keep the high voltage off until the connection is securely made and enabled, hence why even Telsas require a functioning low voltage battery to start the system. These are little bit different than than what a swappable system would entail, aren't they? > Otherwise you wouldn't be able to safely charge an electric car a…
> These are little bit different than than what a swappable system would entail, aren't they? From an electrical point of view, swapping batteries is fundamentally the same general problem regardless of whether they are large or small: you want to avoid arcing when the connector is plugged in, and you need to avoid exposing the user to stray voltage. Sure, there's added complexity to achieve that in a safe and cost e…
> From an electrical point of view, swapping batteries is fundamentally the same general problem regardless of whether they are large or small: you want to avoid arcing when the connector is plugged in, and you need to avoid exposing the user to stray voltage. Sure, there's added complexity to achieve that in a safe and cost effective manner when high voltages are involved, but it's a solved problem as the charge port does exactly this today.
The arcing is the problem AND generally when handling battery packs/modules requires high voltage safety equipment and precautions.
The charge port uses a low-voltage connection to "handshake" as I understand it before the high voltage is being supplied.
You can't, without a good bit more complexity to the battery module itself do that as the batteries terminals will just have the voltage of the battery itself (depends on their state of charge).
Plus the bus bar the module is connecting to also will have a voltage if there's existing modules connected to it.
You're down to having contactors and BDUs at every individual module.
> Current EVs on the market suffer from decreased maintainability compared to traditional ICE vehicles. The battery swapping skill set needs to be more widely available so that we don't see EV owners being dinged $40k for a battery swap. There are videos on Youtube showing people doing a battery swap themselves, and while it is challenging, it's not all that hard to do safely when the battery is not damaged given that the battery packs don't expose high voltage on the connectors when not enabled. Of course a damaged battery pack means that all bets are off on the safety front depending on the nature of the damage.
I'm not saying it can't be done. I am saying it's harder to make it actually safe for the average normal consumer to do as simply as plugging a battery into a power drill for example. In part because of the higher voltages involved.
> It a solved problem!!! Just put the charge port at the back of the vehicle and then use it for the add-on battery pack like the existing signal light connectors for trailers. You're done. The only added design constraints on the EV are on the location of the port and verification that it works while the vehicle is being driven. The F150 Lightning fails this today since the charge port is just in front of the driver side door, but relocating the charge port is not exactly rocket science.
This is a different concept than adding/swapping individual modules in the vehicle itself.
But regarding the concept of a trailer, I suspect that the high cost for the product for the minimum gain it not justifiable for the average consumer. That is you're trying to solve a problem in an inefficient and not profitable manner. (Who wants a trailer of batteries parked in their garage 99% of the time just to have a slightly lighter car?)
> Many EVs have already taken the step of making the charge port bidirectional so that the expensive battery in an EV can be used to provide power during an outage or to balance the load on the grid, and that is a far, far more complicated problem than accepting power from an external battery pack through the charge port while the vehicle is operating.
I understand that, but either you want a trailer or you want internal swappable/addable modules which both economically in my opinion seem of little benefit over engineering better cars with newer/better battery technology and stronger/lighter material.
Additionally, I didn't even mention the annoyance of engineering integrating the heating & cooling system for the modules themselves.
Better energy density batteries & better materials (or smarter manufacturing) make more sense to me than trying to make individual modules for a car swappable or asking people to drive around with a trailer they would use so infrequently that it would not justify the cost to them (not to mention most people don't know how to drive with one properly anyways).
Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic
#520Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lightest current Tesla Model Y is ~25% heavier than the lightest current Honda CR-V. The heaviest current Model Y is ~12% heavier than the heaviest current CR-V (hybrid). A Jeep Grand Wagoneer is ~280% heavier than a Nissan Versa.
Again, bike-shedding stats on EVs is a waste of time if you care about pollution from tire wear. If we want to reduce particulate pollution, we’d have regulations to govern acceleration on EVs, make tire monitoring more annoying, and have manufacturers certify tires and make compliance required during state emissions inspections, and get aggressive about the motor carrier overweight enforcement. If Tesla or other EVs…
There’s a great deal possible that could reduce pollution that has nothing to do with tires. Outlawing non hybrid gas / diesel cars for example would be a significant step forward. As would favoring rail over big rig trucking etc.
Instead the topic is almost exclusively brought up as an attack without any real world studies supporting the ideas presented. Because actual studies show EV’s improve air quality over ICE engines.