Hacker News Reader

Comment by tokai | Hacker News Reader

Particle pollution from car tires are much worse from heavy vehicles. Apparently recent research suggest that emissions tires are much larger and more dangerous than exhaust emissions.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/tire-pollution-toxic-chemical...

View on HN

From the article:

>Tires release 100 times the amount of volatile organic compounds as a modern tailpipe, says an analyst.

If that's the case, the policy is still strange by giving electric cars a significantly higher weight limit, even though the difference in emissions is negligible.

Yes, that's a serious problem. And it also is interesting given the EV drivers who believe that they are improving the planet. The best way to do that is to not drive at all, or to ride a bike, not an EV which at scale is not all that much better than an ICE with the exception of tailpipe emissions (which is a big deal).

ICE additional pollution isn’t only coming from the tailpipes. The fuel doesn’t spontaneously generate itself in the tank, unfortunately.

I've visited some .ca fracking sites, and yes, you are 100% right.

The difference in emissions isn’t negligible: a new EV is a net positive to carbon emissions over an existing ICE in only 2 years, even assuming a dirty electric source.

Volatile organic compounds are a very specific type of pollutant (not CO2), and much less important than CO2 and a more localized problem in the grand scheme of things.

It's the lesser of evils. EVs must be heavier by fact of volumetric/mass energy density alone (all else being equivalent).

This seems to be pretty wildly left out of the gas->electric push then?

I’m not saying it makes electrification less valuable, but rather the push for electric has very much been sold as “solving” emissions (with some minor debate about the emissions of manufacturing & supply chain)

I guess electrification is phase 1, tire compound science is going to have to be phase 2?

It solves emitting CO2, who h hurts the planet.

wepple, it’s called greenwashing. It’s left out deliberately. Think how many new cars can be sold while telling people they are saviours too!

No EVs are to reduce CO2 emissions. Not particle emissions. Particles are tires (and to some extent diesels).

This is really useful context, but doesn’t entirely invalidate my point, right?

We should reduce one type (possibly the most urgent), and then move on to solving the next?

Yes, if this tradeff wasn't made then EVs wouldn't be subsidized as they are across the world. But in some places the local problems are larger so they let people pay for negative externalities. I can't see a problem with that. There is surely also a progressive element to this: people who drive large cars are assumed to be wealthier so able to carry more of the city/regions revenue from taxes and fees.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com