Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Study finds fine dust emissions from EVs equal to those of conventional cars

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
It might be asking too much for people to objectively evaluate scientific research, but we should try.

The thing with science is you can't just accept the results you want and dismiss the ones you don't. EVs are not entirely emission-free. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Let's try and avoid the conspiracy ideation.

Are you sure you're focusing the right group here?

Any study that says we have a problem with particulate dust being stirred up from the road and heavier vehicles are worse and then proceeds to focus on EVs instead of semis is deeply suspect in my book.
 
  • Like
  • Helpful
Reactions: GSP and SW2Fiddler
It might be asking too much for people to objectively evaluate scientific research, but we should try.

The thing with science is you can't just accept the results you want and dismiss the ones you don't. EVs are not entirely emission-free. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Let's try and avoid the conspiracy ideation.

Having looked into the billions of dollars that are being spent to confuse the public about threats to health and well-being such as those caused by smoking and GHG emissions, it is reasonable to be very skeptical about studies which appear to be, at best, a distraction from the real issues, and at worst a manipulation of the data and the public to confuse them about whether fossil fuel powered cars cause harmful emissions. Please note that the Koch brothers appear to be extending their climate denial and political manipulations efforts to specifically target electric cars. See: The Kochs Are Plotting A Multimillion-Dollar Assault On Electric Vehicles

This report does not merit the attention it is receiving.
 
  • Helpful
  • Like
Reactions: GSP and abasile
Are you sure you're focusing the right group here?

Any study that says we have a problem with particulate dust being stirred up from the road and heavier vehicles are worse and then proceeds to focus on EVs instead of semis is deeply suspect in my book.
That's a reasonable concern, but I see heavy trucks as beyond the scope of this study. Public policy is currently focused on electrification of the passenger fleet.

I think it's appropriate to consider which pollutants are reduced by electrification and by how much.
 
That's a reasonable concern, but I see heavy trucks as beyond the scope of this study. Public policy is currently focused on electrification of the passenger fleet.

I think it's appropriate to consider which pollutants are reduced by electrification and by how much.

To my mind, this study is the same creative half thinking as the ones saying EVs are terrible because they are powered by coal, without suggesting that your house air conditioning comes from the same coal.

Focus on little parts of the picture can lead to a distorted view of the whole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GSP
A little research reading the citations from this article reveals the pertinent tunnel study to determine PM10 levels...

Nonexhaust causes 16.7-19.3 mg/vkm

Exhaust causes 11.1-12.8 mg/vkm

This more than negates the 25% estimated not measured increase due to weight. It also does not account for the rising particulate measurements ( not estimates) in Europe. (Likely due to rising diesel use, not EVs).
 
  • Informative
Reactions: GSP
PM10 emissions are a local pollution concern only for health. This why VW dieselgate will only kill an estimated 100 people in the USA per a recent study. No studies have been released in Europe where the problem is VASTLY worse...

CO2 emissions are a global pollution concern for human health and welfare.

I don't think the risks from wind turbines to birds is near the scale of AGW. Several birds kill themselves flying into windows on my house every year.
 
Some additional interesting information on PM10 related to road transport:

PM10 emission factors of abrasion particles from road traffic (ASTRA2005/007)

Brake wear was characterised by a characteristic pattern of Fe, Cu, Zn, Mo, Zr, Sn, Sb and Ba, which is similar to real-world fleet emissions for brake wear reported in other studies.

So the metals is mostly about brake dust, which EV obviously have a lot less since we have regenerative braking.

At Zürich-Weststrasse, the heavily disturbed traffic flow resulted in brake wear emissions that made up 20% (15 mg/km/vehicle) of the total PM10 emissions from traffic. In contrast, brake wear emissions contributed less along the freeway in Reiden (3%, 3 mg/km/vehicle), due to the freeflowing traffic regime. For both locations the brake wear emissions from heavy duty vehicles were approximately 10 times higher than from light duty vehicles.

As for dust:

Traffic induced resuspension of road dust: Generally, road dust resuspension is strongly influenced by available road dust and thus by the pollution of the road surface. In the street canyon at Zürich-Weststrasse, up to 40% of the traffic related PM10 emissions were assigned to resuspended road dust during the period of measurements in February and March 2007.

So, the issue then is how much dust is on the road the begin with, and how much would be kicked up by wind anyways?

Simply I think this particular study doesn't go far enough to have much scientific merit. It's a bit lightweight with what it tried to accomplish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GSP
So, the issue then is how much dust is on the road the begin with, and how much would be kicked up by wind anyways?

Simply I think this particular study doesn't go far enough to have much scientific merit. It's a bit lightweight with what it tried to accomplish.

Seems as if road dust going to consist of:

1. Brake material
2. Tire tread wear
3. General dust from the surrounding area
5. Petroleum droppings
4. Road particles from stud usage


The only difference EVs could possibly make is reducing brake dust and petroleum droppings. Also because EVs typically have a flat bottom, the air flow is smoother and will kick up less dust. Everything else is a function of either environment or tire choices.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: SW2Fiddler
Ya, can you imagine how much more those oxen drawn carts will be kicking up? The sky is falling.....

My father was born in 1920 and he still remembers the talk when he was a kid about how cars were "pollution free". What they meant was cars don't produce manure.

As cities grew in the late 1800s and early 1900s they became faced with an ever increasing manure problem. In 1900 New York City was having to deal with 1200 metric tons of manure a day as well as all the flies that bred. London had the Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894 where there were predictions that in 50 years the streets of London were going to be buried under 9 feet of manure.

Not only was manure a problem, but horses used for city transport were often mistreated and dying on the job was not uncommon. Owners would then abandon the carcass and the city would have to deal with it. New York City removed 15,000 dead horses a year from city streets.

As soon as the price of cars began to get within the reach of the middle class, horses quickly disappeared from city streets. Cars were not only touted as "pollution free" but they were cheaper to keep and quickly evolved to be able to move more weight than any horse ever could.

People will gravitate towards a new idea once they are convinced it's better than the old one. Tesla is just short of that tipping point now with EVs. When the Model 3 gets out there in large numbers and people of more modest means than those who can afford a Model S or X start getting them, people will get a chance to see and drive the cars and learn about them from the new owners. It will spread like wildfire at that point.

Right now some people are convinced EVs are the future, but the general public are still thinking ICEs are it for now.

In any case, I think this may have just been one of those click bait articles that don't say anything of value, but have a catchy headline to draw in viewers.
 
I think our "friend" Robert Gehl has picked up on this story and has his own slant.

Indeed. Instead of citing 'more toxic tire and brake dust' as a major problem, he could have easily gone back four years to write his slant on this:

"The editorial revealed a surprising ignorance of the policies driving these new vehicles to market. Reducing emissions, protecting public health and ending oil dependence are the primary reasons the state and national governments are spurring market introduction of cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars including plug-in electric vehicles. We subsidize relatively cheap gasoline with higher health care costs, environmental degradation and military spending."

Source: Ignore the naysayers on electric cars

Then again, most of us know this already.