Conspiracy theory: Electric cars make more air pollution than gas cars
dynomight.net
dynomight.net
A round-trip Saudi Arabia to Rotterdam for a VLCC tanker carrying 250,000 tons would consume 40 days worth (20 there, 20 back...) of fuel burning 75 tonnes per day, so 3000 tonnes or about 1% give or take of the amount of crude that it transports. Crude yields more volume (but slightly less weight) after the refinery has done its job. Then you need to do the hauling from the refinery to the fuel stations which, depending on the distance from the refinery can easily consume another 2% or so (between 2 and 3 liters per km on flat terrain, so say on average 150 km x 2 for a round trip and a 25 ton net load is going to use about 600 to 900 liters of fuel). This is ~1/40th of the volume the truck carries in payload.
When last I looked/remember electric vehicle emissions were much lower, but it's not hard to imagine why one might think otherwise, given things like transmission losses, etc.
I was completely confused for several moments there because I was thinking of automotive transmissions (which cause efficiency losses in regular cars but aren't used in (the vast majority of) EVs), then I realized you meant electric/infrastructural transmission losses. Right.
Maybe we can go back to them when EVs get lighter... Or maybe when we get superconducting motors.
This link has an absolutely terrific comparison of tradeoffs involved in lowering vehicle weight, compares ICE to EV weight profiles, and puts the current price per kg of weight saved for ICE vehicles at $5/kg while forecasting that EVs will reach price parity on that metric by 2030.
https://www.lightmetalage.com/news/industry-news/automotive/...
But I didn’t say EVs don’t have diffs, it’s just that automatic transmission losses are on top of differential losses (and were pretty bad before the modern era of much better ZF and similar/knockoff designs?).
Edit: this link answered my questions on drivetrain power losses: https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/modp-1005-drivetrain-power...
This is somewhat reasonable until you think about all the work and energy losses involved in gasoline production and logistics.
From a microplastics perspective is it something we should be trying to deal with?
Unquestionably.
But the conversations around electrification are all about greenhouse gas emissions, and frankly, that's the more immediate problem we should be concerning ourselves with.
The article notes "Passenger vehicles already got around 35% heavier between 1980 to 2022" but doesn't note that this is despite the material we make cars out of getting lighter and thinner. Cars have gotten enormous and enormous cars take enormous (and therefore heavy) batteries to get equivalent range out of.
[0]: https://qz.com/2154558/big-electric-trucks-and-suvs-are-the-...
The reason cars have gotten heavier is mandatory safety features. You can simply compare subcompact cars from the different eras and see the change. A subcompact of today is roughly 600lbs heavier than a pinto. Also cars today have more aluminum parts and composite materials. So if they were made the same they would be much much heavier. Safety is good but it's not free in dollars or weight.
(I did note that cars are made of lighter materials, such as fiberglass, composites, and aluminum.)
Edit: I do think that while the range of vehicle sizes may not have changed too drastically, the probability distribution curve has. Station wagons were never “in” the way SUVs are, sedans are basically on their way out (though the newest “CUVs” are really just sedans with weird profiles and jacked high up), and pickups were not a suburban mainstay.
Easy to forget how bare cars were in the 1960s, how people tolerated terrible brakes, terrible tires, flexible bodies, crude attempts to minimize the flex problems with canted tires, etc. I've heard that 50 year old cars are often accelerate faster than new, even with 2/3rds the power because of the age, just by using current tires.
Incidentally, you might be surprised to learn how localized some of these amenities are. In some other countries I lived in or visited, I know of “brand name” dealerships (ok, I’ll call them out, it was Chevrolet) selling cars (the same models available in the states and in Europe!) without ABS as standard – let alone traction control, automatic transmission, or (on other models?) power windows.
Edit: this link has an absolutely terrific comparison of tradeoffs involved in lowering vehicle weight, compares ICE to EV weight profiles, and puts the current price per kg of weight saved for ICE vehicles at $5/kg while forecasting that EVs will reach price parity on that metric by 2030. Definitely recommend reading!
https://www.lightmetalage.com/news/industry-news/automotive/...
For top safety ratings you need a heavy body, reinforced in weird ways, so that even an offset collision results in quite the dance of sacrificial bending, redirecting, and even rotating the engine under the car so it doesn't penetrate the cabin. It also requires quite a few sensors, each of which are on a wiring harness that reaches all over the car including accelerators in the front bumper, explosives in the airbags, explosives in the seat belt retractor, wheel torque, acceleration, and speed sensors. The wiring harness has secondary effects as well, as a critical system it must be protected, numerous mounts, and changes to design for it's routing, protection, and of course access for a human or robot to install the harness.
I noticed that in Teslas the a pillars are HUGE compared to what I'm used to in a subaru forester. Numerous suspension pieces are designed to fail in a safe way so a collision doesn't redirect the wheels or engine into the cabin. I do wonder if it's worth it, if all vehicles weighed 25% less, would there be more or less deaths? At least for bikes and pedestrians larger/heavier vehicles have cost lives.
Even things like electronic fuel injection systems were common on American built cars by the early '80s. They have become refined over time, but those refinements have allowed them to become a more efficient and lighter in weight yet overall cars have increased massively. And this weight increase is despite lighter weight composite materials and the use of aluminum in many components that were not before. In the mid '80s old engines were essentially cast iron, now it's difficult to find an engine that is not aluminum. Even in heavy duty trucks the block may be cast iron still for durability but the heads are aluminum. You mentioned exhaust systems previously exhaust was exclusively steel, now it's common that it's a titanium based alloy that is very much lighter than the steel counterparts.
I think we very much underestimate the weight of components such as airbags and abs systems have in cars.
> A car’s exhaust can put at most 1.9 mg of particulate matter into the air for each kilometer driven down. EU rules are slightly looser at 4.5 mg/km.
Could brakes come close to that? Well, depending on the vehicle, disc brake pads have 100 to 400g of friction material. Perhaps 80% of that material is worn away before replacement, which happens after something like 65,000 km. Assuming 200 g of friction material, that suggests an average of
4 brakes × 200 (g/brake) × 0.8 / (65000 km) = 9.8 mg/km
of material lost from brakes.The second half of the article is all about regenerative braking!
The bigger issue, in my opinion, is what about all the energy needed to recharge the batteries? Last I checked, most of that still comes from fossil fuels.
In addition, what about the environmental impact of mining lithium and other minerals to produce the cars? This article goes into that a bit:
https://therevelator.org/ev-batteries-seabed-mining/
I think there is a non-zero chance that when all is said and done, electric vehicles actually are worse for the environment than fuel powered vehicles.
There is also so much we don’t know. I feel like in one way or another, human efforts to “solve” climate change will ultimately be what leads to our extinction. Whether that is trying to send things into space to block out the sun, or mining oceans for rare metals to use to make batteries. Fun fact, the oceans actually suck up a huge amount of carbon dioxide. It would be pretty fitting if human mining efforts at the bottom of the ocean throw that balance entirely out of whack.
This is one of the problems with government mandates related to electric vehicles. All of the metrics they use to measure success are based on emissions while driving, but that is only one small part of the picture.
In my part of Canada a full 1/3rd of our electricity comes from renewables. In other places the number is even higher.
Hell, Texas, of all places, produces over a quarter of it's electricity with renewables and another 6% with nuclear:
https://www.eia.gov/state/data.php?sid=TX
Renewables are huge and growing every single year as solar and wind become cheaper and cheaper.
And that's ignoring the shift from coal to nat gas in traditional power plants (in fact, where I am, there are no more coal fired plants in operation) which is significantly less carbon intensive, especially when compared to an individual internal combustion engine burning gas or diesel.
Bluntly, you are out of date.
> All of the metrics they use to measure success are based on emissions while driving, but that is only one small part of the picture.
Oh yes, I'm sure you're the only person who's thought of this. Certainly no academics or policy experts have considered your concerns...
So EVs are more efficient in the worst case (100% fossil fuels) and get better from there.
The US grid is 20% coal, 40% natural gas, 20% nuclear, and 20% renewables.
Natural gas plants are about twice as efficient (~50%) as a typical gasoline engine (~25%) and burn much more cleanly, producing fewer pollutants across the spectrum for the same amount of energy.
So right off the bat, you know that 80% of the energy going into the typical EV battery in the USA was produced far more efficiently and more cleanly than would burning enough gasoline to produce an equivalent amount of work.
You could also of course simply google "ICE vs BEV emissions" and read a study summary or two. They all generally agree that BEV emissions are much lower than ICE emissions on a lifecycle basis.
Serious question: why did you not do that in the first place?
I think this is an overly simplified view. That is the main problem I have with all this stuff. It is too easy to repeat the established “scientific consensus” which is all based around everything operating perfectly in a vacuum. In the real world, systems are complex and it is often not nearly as simple. See, for example, this article:
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/environmental-impacts-natur...
It states
> The drilling and extraction of gas from wells and its transportation in pipelines results in the leakage of methane, the primary component of natural gas. Methane is 34 times stronger than CO2 at trapping heat over a 100-year period and 86 times stronger over 20 years
And
> Whether gas has lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal and oil depends on the leakage rate, the time frame employed for evaluating global warming potential, the energy conversion efficiency, and other factors. One study found that methane losses must be kept below 3.2 percent for natural gas power plants to have lower life cycle emissions than new coal plants over short time frames of 20 years or fewer
As far as I’m concerned even if natural gas is “not a fossil fuel” on paper, if it leaks methane in order to extract it, it is no better, and perhaps worse than coal. Let’s say natural gas is only 25% better than coal when all is said and done. That puts us at approximately 50/50 in terms of emissions for the US grid (20 + 0.75 * 40) = 50. At that point, my claim that “most” of the energy still comes from fossil fuels is essentially true when you look at it just in terms of emissions.
Of course, it doesn’t take into account that the energy use in the grid has been shifting towards more renewable sources over time, but the idea that there is some net positive just from switching to electric vehicles, I think is far from a foregone conclusion.
Also, it seems everyone in the replies has latched on to my claim about the energy in the grid, but no one touched on the environmental impact of mining lithium and other metals to produce the batteries which will almost surely be a net negative for the environment.
I am not trying to trash on electric cars here, merely trying to point out that these issues are far more complex than the way they are talked about in the mainstream media, the scientific community, and hacker news.
There are complexities to consider, yes. And surprise! They have been considered. All of your concerns have been analyzed ad nauseum and converted into neat little chunks of peer-reviewed literature that's just waiting for your perusal.
Please stop bloviating about contrived nuances emanating from the right wing propaganda machine.
Google and read.