EVs DO NOT EMIT MORE PM

Recently @OECD published a report about particulate matter (PM) from road transport. Newspaper headlines blared that electric vehicles where worse than combustion vehicles. That conclusion was wrong according to the report itself.

Let me show you.
The report (published december 7) can be found here: oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/no…
It's main point is well taken: as cars get cleaner, fine particles emitted by brakes, tires and road surfaces will become more important.
The table comparing electric and combustion engines is on page 92. I took averages of low and high values to get the graph in the first tweet.
I merely took the averages. To get this.
I think it is a terrific report that pulls together a LOT of literature on fine particles that cars spew into the air and that make us sick.

We have ignored this problem for too long, and there's more here than simply exhaust!
I have just two gripes with the article:

1) Electric vehicle weight
It estimates batteries at 10 kg/kWh when in reality it's already below half of that. So it makes electric vehicles much too heavy and doesn't take into account that in 2030 they will be much lighter still.
2) Simply comparing grams
We know that the stuff that comes out of the exhaust pipe is really bad for your health.

How that compares to sand and rubber from the road (gram for gram and particle for particle) is still completely unclear. They state this clearly themselves.
We know that a lot of the stuff in there can be bad for your health (see table).

But how much is how bad and what is the impact of particle size? For the stuff that's not from the exhaust we basically have no idea.
These studies about road dust are the closest the report comes to quantifying this but as you can see it's a mess.
Even how vehicle characteristics influence PM is only very vaguely know.
So for me the summary:

We know particles emitted from the road and the wheels of cars make us sick but that's about it. More research is urgently needed so we can avoid millions of deaths.
And there is a LOT we can do!

By switching to electric vehicles we are probably eliminating some of the most harmful emissions (from tailpipes and brake pads).

We could try to make tires more wear resistant (probably not a top priority of manufacturers).
We can find out what materials in tires are worst and leave them out.

We can construct roads in a way that traps part of the particles or we might even vacuum them up before they are released out into the open.imperial.ac.uk/news/204514/ta…
Most importantly we should use lighter cars. So a monster like this Cybertruck certainly doesn't make your neighborhood safer or healthier.
Bottom line: electric cars are less bad for the climate and air quality than regular cars, but once they eliminate tailpipe and brake pad emissions we should focus on emissions from tires and roads. And that's almost virgin territory. Time to get to work on that!

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with AukeHoekstra

AukeHoekstra Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AukeHoekstra

23 Dec
Some people want us to believe there's not enough solar energy available to cover our worldwide energy needs

They often use EROI (Energy Return On Investment) as their metric

This is a rant against these EROI people misinforming the debate, based on a rebuttal of a 2020 paper Image
In essence the approach of the paper is straightforward:

1) Discard water and 96% of land because it's supposedly unavailable

2) Assume solar cells on just 1/5th of the remaining 4%

3) Complain that production of solar panels takes a lot of energy
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
About 1) (available land)

Discarding 96% of land seems pretty extreme:
30% of the world's land is barren
40% of the world's land is used for meat

I think we could find more than 4% if we tried
(but we don't have to: we need less than 1%)
ourworldindata.org/land-use Image
Read 10 tweets
21 Dec
We have another winner coming up with what he thinks is a novel idea: "Additional electricity requires coal plants to produce more energy hence electric vehicles run on coal."

Let me point out why that is wrong.
elektroauto-news.net/2020/meinung-d…
First: the German mix gets cleaner as time goes one which means electric vehicles get cleaner as time goes on and coal is phased out before the electric vehicle is scrapped. Leaving that out makes this whole thought experiment a bit nonsensical anyway.
Second: electric vehicles will probably use 'smart charging' (to time the moment of charging) within a couple of years because it saves money for driver, energy producer and grid operator.
elaad.nl/research/smart…

That means that electric vehicles will charge relatively green.
Read 12 tweets
9 Dec
Electrofuels or eFuels are all the rage now.
The reason: lovers of combustion engines that wake up to realise their engine is really on the way out.

But eFuels into combustion engines is NOT a realistic solution for cars. Let me explain -again- why.
autocar.co.uk/opinion/indust…
eFuels are not a new idea. So I've made these calculations 15 years ago and many times since. That some people have just woken up doesn't change fundamentals that made them a bad option for cars then and make them a bad option for cars in the future.
The most basic problem is in the basic process:
electricity -> hydrogen
hydrogen -> eFuel
eFuel -> electricity

That means that you have to produce ~5x (!) more low carbon electricity. Think about the costs, space and raw materials required!
Read 8 tweets
8 Dec
Oil producer Saudi @Aramco is so scared of electric vehicles that they are now promoting the nonsensical idea of capturing the CO2 emission of cars and trucks with combustion engines.

Allow me to explain why this is nonsense and why it;s probably a cynical ploy.
(short thread)
Burning 1 kg of diesel produces ~2.5 kg of CO2.
At room temp. that's ~1000 liter!
umsl.edu/~biofuels/Ener…

So 1 liter diesel => ~700 liter of CO2.
You could compress it but that would cost extra energy and at the least you need a gas tank much larger than you diesel tank.
Will all gas stations also have a gargantuan CO2 tank to store the CO2? I mean, cars do deliver ~700 liter CO2 for every liter of diesel they bought!

Will we have multiple tank trucks to ferry away the CO2 (to where?) that's caused by the diesel that one truck provided?
Read 7 tweets
5 Dec
What's the point of cultured meat when we can eat vegetables?

What's the point of renewables when we can use less energy?

Or of electric bikes when we can walk?

Well maybe decrease global warming, animal suffering, and zoonotic disease?
amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
I get so sick and tired of people postulating "If everybody changed their behavior we wouldn't need sustainable innovation."

Well, unless you have a magic wand to change everybody's behavior, you are not helping. And even if you had you would lack respect for others.
Author @jennykleeman is now saying 'I didn't write the headline'. But the headline captures her article perfectly. She mentions none of the aforementioned problems and concentrates on yuck and how cultured meat can't be trusted by implying Singapore is an inferior country. Uhg.
Read 6 tweets
5 Dec
Love this! @JoeriRogelj asked me for a debunk of Golf vs e-Golf and @ThomasGibon provided it immediately!

He shows the result using realistic diesel consumption and production. Thx Thomas!

But the article is about the ID.3.
And the ID.3 rocks! (thread)
First the problems: in an article that touts the carbon neutral production of the ID.3, @volkswagen puts a comparison chart with an eGolf that has extremely high carbon production emissions. Not smart. I would replace it with an ID.3 based chart asap.
volkswagenag.com/en/news/storie…
And while you are at it I would also cut/improve second 8 to 14 of the accompanying video because why bother telling lies about how much CO2 is emitted by the petrol and diesel Golf when you have such a strong story about the electric vehicle?
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!