ICE emissions will be irrelevant in 10 years when they're all but banned anyway, and rubber tyres will still be the only way to drive on the road. In fact it'll be way worse with the average EV being heavier and emitting more due to more tyre wear.
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/p...
So vehicle exhaust is 5% of fine particulate matter in the Bay Area, whereas road dust, tire, and brake emissions are 20%. (Where’s the breakdown between brake dust and tire dust? EVs and even hybrids can substantially reduce brake dust. Heck, an eddy current brake could too, if anyone cared to build one. Might be bad for unsprung weight.)
And commercial cooking is 8%, it I suspect this massively understates the problem, since commercial cooking can easily concentrate its emissions right where large numbers of people are walking around.
But here’s the hilarious commercial cooking regulation:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/dotgov/files/rules/reg-6-rule...
Read the second paragraph: it applies only to charbroilers and only in restaurants that buy 500 or 1000 lbs of beef per week. That fancy Greek restaurant that smokes up three square blocks of a fancy downtown, but it’s all lamb and fish? No emission controls. That little neighborhood place making tasty bento boxes with pork, and probably less than 500lbs anyway? No emission controls. That portable smoked turkey place at lots of county fairs? (Those are IMO horrible to be around.). No regulation.
And let’s not even mention the single biggest source: residential wood combustion at 12%. It’s politically hard to address, but residential wood combustion serves almost no economic purpose and could come very close to stopping without harming people or the economy. Almost everyone already has a perfectly fine non-wood-fired heater, and a narrow exception would be fine.
And yet BAAQMD is willing to ban the sales of gas fired water heaters in a few years, never mind all the existing buildings with tankless heaters in a place where a heat pump retrofit is impractical. And also never mind that we already have gas fired water heaters with quite low NOx emissions and essentially zero particulate emissions.
On an unrelated note, how did they come up with these numbers for percentage contribution? It seems quite difficult to attribute cause outside of a controlled laboratory setting.
It’s a lot cheaper than the alternatives. And a lot more resilient in areas with unreliable power.
Really? The efficiency is very low heating a house with wood unless you use it to warm water which is distributing the heat to radiators (and for heating warm water to the showers). Almost no-one who burns wood has this, people just have a chimney in the living room.
And how do you feed the wood into the burner? Waste 10 minutes every hour, 24/7?
You might not be aware but ones that burn the wood twice (even three times) are now common and in fact are law in many places. So they're MUCH more efficient, and drastically reduce the particulates coming out the stove pipe. Another benefit is they only need to be fed once every 24-48 hours (depending on what heat you set the thermostat, what size stove you have, how well insulated your house is and what temperature it is outside.)
Wood stoves are a necessity.
Nothing good will come of trying to heat your house with a wood-burning fireplace. They’re pretty, they’re fun, they crackle nicely, they combust wood very poorly, and they send almost all the heat right out the chimney. And, if they work correctly, lots of air comes out the chimney for the ride (keeping the combustion products out of the house), so a lot of makeup air comes in from outside, cooling your house.
If you want to heat your house by burning something, you want to capture as much of the heat of combustion as practical (preferably the higher heating value, which condensing boilers and furnaces can do, but the lower heating value is a good start), and you want to minimize the degree to which operating the heater forces you to replace conditioned air in the house with unconditioned outside air. A fireplace fails at this.
And the real issue isnt even the rubber but all the random chemical additives in that rubber. Some basic study and perhaps modification could also reduce impacts.
Dream on. Germany and EU had to pull back from the ICE ban of 2035. Banning ICE by then is unrealistic considering the way things work right now. The frog needs to be boiled slowly.
For examples, studded snow tires can tear up the road surface quite significantly, tend to kick up a lot of sharp fine dust. It's such a big problem they're often banned parts of the year in some regions where they're typically used.
Here's some science: https://www.ivl.se/download/18.1ee76657178f8586dfc89b/161951...
It seems to largely suggest that GP is correct (see the figure in 5.3.8 for example), with the caveat that this is mainly a problem in colder regions of the world.
Lastly, as pointed out above, EVs weigh a lot more, so the damage they cause will go up a lot, thanks to that 4th power scaling.
The press on the subject also annoyingly sidesteps a direct comparison. For example, you can read that tires product 2000x the particle emissions as tailpipes, and lots of ultrafines. Notice that statement does not tell you anything about the relative difference in ultrafine production.
Maybe the people who are not affected shouldn't try to guess, when many of as as we are getting older feel the difference and it affects our life.
Alternately, is the issue about road wear particulate as a result of tire contact? That seems more plausible to me.
But, I'm all for taxing cars for their externalities so I welcome these ridiculous anti-EV talking points. We might end up with clean EVs that are taxed by weight which is a double win.
Some are saying: yes it's a massive issue, and some are saying nah it's not, I can't seem to find a consistent view on this issue.
http://jaar2014.middendelfland.net/middendelfland/metdetreks...
or even better!
https://nl.pinterest.com/pin/pin-op-history-color--119486196...