EVs DO NOT EMIT MORE PM

Recently @OECD published a report about particulate matter (PM) from road transport. Newspaper headlines blared that electric vehicles where worse than combustion vehicles. That conclusion was wrong according to the report itself.

Let me show you.

The report (published december 7) can be found here: https://t.co/1HpicKexOt
It's main point is well taken: as cars get cleaner, fine particles emitted by brakes, tires and road surfaces will become more important.
The table comparing electric and combustion engines is on page 92. I took averages of low and high values to get the graph in the first tweet.
I merely took the averages. To get this.
I think it is a terrific report that pulls together a LOT of literature on fine particles that cars spew into the air and that make us sick.

We have ignored this problem for too long, and there's more here than simply exhaust!
I have just two gripes with the article:

1) Electric vehicle weight
It estimates batteries at 10 kg/kWh when in reality it's already below half of that. So it makes electric vehicles much too heavy and doesn't take into account that in 2030 they will be much lighter still.
2) Simply comparing grams
We know that the stuff that comes out of the exhaust pipe is really bad for your health.

How that compares to sand and rubber from the road (gram for gram and particle for particle) is still completely unclear. They state this clearly themselves.
We know that a lot of the stuff in there can be bad for your health (see table).

But how much is how bad and what is the impact of particle size? For the stuff that's not from the exhaust we basically have no idea.
These studies about road dust are the closest the report comes to quantifying this but as you can see it's a mess.
Even how vehicle characteristics influence PM is only very vaguely know.
So for me the summary:

We know particles emitted from the road and the wheels of cars make us sick but that's about it. More research is urgently needed so we can avoid millions of deaths.
And there is a LOT we can do!

By switching to electric vehicles we are probably eliminating some of the most harmful emissions (from tailpipes and brake pads).

We could try to make tires more wear resistant (probably not a top priority of manufacturers).
We can find out what materials in tires are worst and leave them out.

We can construct roads in a way that traps part of the particles or we might even vacuum them up before they are released out into the open.https://t.co/mxA62vhuDG
Most importantly we should use lighter cars. So a monster like this Cybertruck certainly doesn't make your neighborhood safer or healthier.
Bottom line: electric cars are less bad for the climate and air quality than regular cars, but once they eliminate tailpipe and brake pad emissions we should focus on emissions from tires and roads. And that's almost virgin territory. Time to get to work on that!

More from Economy

You May Also Like

@EricTopol @NBA @StephenKissler @yhgrad B.1.1.7 reveals clearly that SARS-CoV-2 is reverting to its original pre-outbreak condition, i.e. adapted to transgenic hACE2 mice (either Baric's BALB/c ones or others used at WIV labs during chimeric bat coronavirus experiments aimed at developing a pan betacoronavirus vaccine)

@NBA @StephenKissler @yhgrad 1. From Day 1, SARS-COV-2 was very well adapted to humans .....and transgenic hACE2 Mice


@NBA @StephenKissler @yhgrad 2. High Probability of serial passaging in Transgenic Mice expressing hACE2 in genesis of SARS-COV-2


@NBA @StephenKissler @yhgrad B.1.1.7 has an unusually large number of genetic changes, ... found to date in mouse-adapted SARS-CoV2 and is also seen in ferret infections.
https://t.co/9Z4oJmkcKj


@NBA @StephenKissler @yhgrad We adapted a clinical isolate of SARS-CoV-2 by serial passaging in the ... Thus, this mouse-adapted strain and associated challenge model should be ... (B) SARS-CoV-2 genomic RNA loads in mouse lung homogenates at P0 to P6.
https://t.co/I90OOCJg7o
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x