Hacker News Reader

Comment by gambiting | Hacker News Reader

"I tried to explain once that the "zero emission" label on the Nissan Leaf is misleading because building a car makes emissions."

I don't know why anyone would ever think the "zero emissions" label applies to the manufacture of the car. *obviously" it only means the car doesn't emit anything when moving, that's what it's about.

View on HN

That's your opinion but anyway a Leaf will still emit when it's moving. Indirectly with the production of the energy, which can be very low in countries such as France or Norway, and directly with brakes dust even though the electric regen reduces that a lot, and particles from the tires.

Tire particles are emissions? When I walk are my shoe particles emissions? My skin shedding?

Electricity. In some places, electricity is still largely produced in thermal power plants, which do pollute a lot. In France and Norway, I guess most of their electricity is from nuclear and water?

Yes, those are particulate emissions. Your skin biodegrades quite readily so it's not much of an issue. Leather-soled shoes could be a tradeoff that I'm unprepared to compute... but yes even your shoes pollute, if to a lesser degree than a motor vehicle.

When it snows, do you notice that slush turns black? Much of that is shredded tires; that ends up polluting our waterways or (hopefully) burdening water purification plants.

What does this have to do with comparing a Leaf to non-BEVs? Is there some reason why the tires would be significantly more or less polluting?

It has everything to do with the "zero emissions" claim, and nothing to do with a comparison.

If nothing has zero emissions, then the phrase "zero emissions" would have no use whatsoever, so applying a context where nothing has zero emissions is internally inconsistent. It can't be a null phrase and not a null phrase at the same time.

If something has zero emissions, but it's not a BEV, then maybe you should say what and why the correct definition excludes BEVs.

The "zero emission" label is on the back on the car, maybe they should use something else for their marketing.

If you don't like "zero emissions vehicles", what do you think of:

- partial zero emissions vehicles

- transitional zero emissions vehicles (plug-in hybrids)

- advanced technology partial zero emissions vehicles

All of these have tailpipes!

To the extent that "zero emissions" does mean "no tailpipe" it's pretty straightforward and reasonable.

> If nothing has zero emissions, then the phrase "zero emissions" would have no use whatsoever

Yes, that's the ideal: don't claim that you've achieved the impossible. I don't want to see folks marketing "perpetual motion" machines for the same reason.

For a detailed comparison:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297889793_Non-exhau...

Seems fair to call these vehicles "zero exhaust." Electric rail vehicles have extremely low emissions -- if the rails and wheels are carbon steel without added heavy metals, then the direct emissions are relatively benign. Maglev vehicles are even better -- but even so, there's friction with air, moving parts such as doors and lynch pins. Still not zero.

Perhaps you should explain further the distinction you are making between emissions and exhaust, and why it is correct, and why everyone else should adhere to it.

But I stand by my previous comment - you can't treat a phrase or term as meaningless just because you refuse to acknowledge the context.

The EPA[1] defines particulates produced by tires and brakes as emissions, and lists exhaust as one kind of emission. Exhaust[2] is a term used to describe the gas byproduct of a combustion engine. The "context" is a category error mistaking a part for the whole.

[1] https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents...

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas

I'm not an expert in environmental regulations, but designations like ULEV and ZEV seem to come from California and not the Feds.

So in my opinion, this is where the context is being misapplied - you want the CARB terminology to match the EPA. Neither one was handed down on stone tablets though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com