The Answer To Our Problems, EV's

You should look under the Key Findings tab.

The geographical distribution of cities with the worst ozone problems confirms a pattern seen over the past seven reports: nearly all are western cities and only a few lie in the East. Although cleanup of ozone precursor pollutants has been working to reduce ozone concentrations, the impact of climate change in the West has meant higher temperatures, dry, sunny skies and more frequent stagnation events that are contributing to the number of unhealthy ozone days being higher than it would otherwise be. Simply, climate change is undercutting the progress we would have made.

 

So what? What are the concentrations and what is the lower tolerance levels?

 

So

First, your comment was that California doesn't have some of the most polluted cities. I sent the linked data. Then you questioned ozone. I referenced the specific area in the link for you.

So now that you are corrected, and know that my statement was true, you say "So What". Obviously you have your agenda, and are not going to let any facts get in the way. Why should I search ozone thresholds for you? It will just be more health-related facts that you will dismiss.

 

Why is it always "misinformation"? Just once I'd like it correctly attributed to "reality".

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/norway-nears-major-victory-over-102059549.html

 

The EPA standard for ozone is 0.07 ppm. What are the concentrations in those cities? If the levels are below the human tolerance levels those cities aren't polluted by ozone.

 

From the ALA site:

"State of the Air" is the American Lung Association's annual national air quality "report card." It uses the most recent air pollution data, compiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for the two most widespread types of pollution—ozone (smog) and particle pollution (PM2.5, also known as soot). The report grades counties and ranks cities and counties based on their scores for ozone, year-round particle pollution and short-term particle pollution levels. Since 2000, the American Lung Association has analyzed data from official air quality monitors to compile the "State of the Air" report.

 

It seems that EV's pollute more than ICE vehicles. Because they are heavier, their tires degrade faster, producing more particulate matter (soot) than ICE vehicles, whose tailpipe emissions are sharply reduced by catalytic converters. The data tell the tale.
Electric Cars Emit More Particulate Pollution

WSJ
https://www.wsj.com › Opinion › Commentary

Mar 3, 2024 — Electric cars weigh far more than gasoline-powered ones, so their tires degrade faster, as electric car buyers are learning. The same analytics ...

 

It's an editorial. Fact is, there's not much difference in weight ----
Example Lexus RX 350 weighs about 4200 pounds. A tank of gas weighs about 110 pounds. 4310 pounds total.
Tesla Model Y Short range weighs 4320 pounds, and long range weighs 44 pounds more.

Like so many features of EVs, soon lightness will be an advantage of EVs as most new battery technologies are looking at half the weight of today's batteries.

 

That means nothing without quantification

 

It's a fact based editorial which cites the following analyses.

https://www.rubbernews.com/automoti...text=EV owners—upon,ultimately, brand loyalty.

https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/do-no-harm#:~:text=Turning to the,particle mass emissions.

 

It's fact-based, if indeed the electric car is heavier. I have shown that, at best, this is nominal. Torque has nothing to do with it, unless somebody is going around burning rubber. My experience is that the gas guzzler owners burn rubber more often, because they like the sound of the revving gas engine. EVs give incredible torque without the engine noise.

And as mentioned, EV batteries are going to be about half as heavy soon. Will you switch your allegiance to EVs, based on this criteria, at that time?

 

The data which you continuously ignore doesn't lie. Torque is absolutely a factor as is weight. Those two factors are manifested in tire life. Why are special expensive tires sold on EV's? At ~ $450 per tire for ~ 13,000 miles how many owners will continue to buy the expensive tires and buy everyday tires which will wear even faster?

 

It's an editorial based on a research finding, a point you omitted. As an owner of a Lexus RX350 I'm amused that you would think a comparison with the much less capable Model Y Short range was somehow apt.

 

Yes, torque is a huge factor in tire wear. Race teams and farmers have to manage it daily.

Virtually all tires “slip” whether it can be perceived visually or not. Most cars at normal acceleration have between 1-3% slippage just due to tire distortion without the wheels/tires actually “spinning” out. The higher the torque, the more distortion, the more slip, the more wear.

Race tires are built to be “safe” and manage great torque. But they sacrifice wear to achieve this. EV tires must do the same. With our current understanding of physics and material properties it’s impossible to have a tire that manages torque safely and still has good wear qualities.

Tractor tires are very similar to race tires. We are looking for a balance of fuel efficiency, ground speed, torque management (traction) and tire wear as well as compaction management. We monitor percentage of tire/wheel slip, fuel usage, ground speed, and torque in real time to meet certain goals. There are always trade offs. If you want to get a field completed faster you can decrease slippage to increase ground speed. But tire wear will increase as well as compaction of soil.

Race teams do the same things. Sometimes limiting tire wear is more critical to avoid a pit than ground speed. Applied torque is one way that is managed.

Wheel spin on EVs is often avoided with good traction control, but the torque effect on slippage still exists and has a huge impact on tire wear.

 

From Michelin:

https://www.thedrive.com/guides-and-gear/michelin-knows-exactly-when-your-tires-will-wear-out

 

Desparate attempts to justify everyday burning of fossil fuels and all the hazardous wastes.

 

We’ve been living on fossil fuels our whole lives. As did our parents and for the most part our grandparents. If we want to change the paradigm we have to base the new paradigm on facts and evidence. EVs have definite advantages. And disadvantages. There’s no need to attempt to claim the disadvantages don’t exist.

If we truly want a better environment we have to sell the idea on its merits, not with fear and denial of science. We have to acknowledge a certain (small unfortunately) percentage of the population isn’t swayed by emotional appeals. If we are going to claim the mantle of “science” then we have to actually follow the science—even when it conflicts with our preconceived biases (or the biases of authorities we are programmed to appeal to). ​

 

The great advance in the rate of improvement of the global standard of living is the result of inexpensive energy available 24/7 from fossil fuels.

 

Yes. Also the public works like clean water, sewer service, etc. that are responsible for most of the increase in human lifespan were made possible by leveraging fossil fuels.

 

Yes - the more wealth created the more awareness of the need and the more investment in a clean environment can be made.

 

I wonder if these folks spent a few weeks breathing cooking fire smoke in a hovel and getting drinking water out of a river that doubles as a sewer they would appreciate their current fossil fuel polluted environment more?

 

Some have it too easy and clearly don't appreciate what life was like literally 150 years ago at the time of the Civil War. Another interesting factoid is that the discovery, mass collection & transport, and refining technology for petroleum saved the whales.

 

Read and learn.
The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels: Epstein, Alex

Amazon.com
https://www.amazon.com › Moral-Case-Fossil-Fuels

Epstein portrays a powerful and emotional message with great clarity and logic. Fossil fuels do not make a naturally safe, clean environment and make it unsafe ...

 

Thanks. I also have read and recommend. Also read Alex Epstein’s more recent book Fossil Future 2022.

 

I remember my mom saying "We've been living with a dial telephone our whole lives. We're not going to switch now." You can still use a dial telephone today. You have that freedom.