Electric vehicles may release more pollution than petrol-powered vehicles, according to a report that has recently resurfaced. The Mail has more.
The study, which was published in 2022 but has begun circulating again after being cited in a WSJ op-ed, found that brakes and tyres release 1,850 times more particulate matter compared to modern exhaust pipes which have filters that reduce emissions.
It found that EVs are 30% heavier on average than petrol-powered vehicles, which causes the brakes and tyre treads to wear out faster than standard cars and releases tiny, often toxic particles into the atmosphere.
Hesham Rakha, a professor at Virginia Tech told Dailymail.com that the study is only “partially correct” because even though EVs are heavier, their tyres will emit more microplastics into the air, but this could also be true for sedans versus SUVs.
Rakha said it is very challenging to determine the difference between the amount of microplastics emitted from EV tyre treads and petrol-powered vehicles because you have to separate the microplastics that are already in the air from other sources with what’s coming off the tyres.
Rakha and his team at Virginia Tech are in the process of conducting field tests to determine how much microplastics are emitting from EV and petrol cars by using traffic simulators that will mimic an urban setting.
He added that he doesn’t expect there to be a major difference between the EV and petrol-powered vehicles, saying that they haven’t measured it yet, but expect the difference to be about 20%.
This doesn’t mean that people should gravitate away from electric cars because they “are more efficient depending zero emission”, Rakha said, but added the caveat that “it also generates a lot of CO2 when charging your vehicle”.
EV batteries weigh about 453kg, and can result in tire emissions that are nearly 400 times more than exhaust pipe emissions.
Particle pollution can increase health problems including heart disease, asthma, lung disease and in extreme cases, can lead to hospitalisation, cancer and premature death.
New petrol-powered cars are created to be ‘cleaner’, by updating the trims of their internal combustion engines to include particulate filters that reduce emissions.
The EVs increased weight due to their lithium-ion batteries cause the tyre treads to wear faster, ultimately producing more emissions.
The study, conducted by the firm Emissions Analytics, said the main difference between exhaust pipe and tyre emissions is that the majority of particulate emissions released from the tyre go directly into the soil and water, while exhaust negatively affects the air quality.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Lol, who knew, “green” technology isn’t that green…
You sit on a giant battery of dubious reliabiity at the best of times. If you have a vehicle that relies upon advanced sensory electronics and communication technology then you should be aware of the vulnerabilities that accompany this approach. Do you ever hear anyone taling about the risks of battery technology or even the ethical concerns in terms of raw materials? We are already well into it though. The Americans might reach a stumbling block if they ever try to organise a farmers protest because their tractors can now be switched off remotely, to save the planet of course. We are at a nexus point where we either disrupt this system or fall into a dark age without end which has the ability to augment itself for every further moment of its existence. And then you will have the black iron prison. Such a future would not be a human one. But on the positive side farmers are beginning to ken that if you control the food supply then you have a lot of influence.
Classic. Love it. Eco fascists and their illogic.
Add in; lithium mines, cobalt, manganese, copper…the mining, transport, usage and replacement.
Then toss in £5-10.000 every 6-10 years for a new battery….
These crap technologies don’t save Gaia and don’t save the environment. Quite the opposite.
They kill people on a mass scale for a technology doomed to fail based on a business model which secretly acknowledges this. So what would be next then? This is quite easy, a reality where we no longer exist. And don’t say you can’t understand their mindset. If you have ever sat in a traffic jam you might well have thought about how much nicer it would be if most of the drivers on the road were annihilated, perhaps all of them. We are human beings we all have these feelings but we seem to have a problem in acknowledging that our overlords are directing these impulses towards us.
Given the above, which is pretty damning stuff and the fact that leccy cars cost 50% more to buy than the equivalent ICE car, the range is a half on a ‘full tank’, charging takes many hours assuming a charging point can be found, Insurance premiums for leccy cars are 50% higher than the equivalent ICE model. The depreciation suffered by electric vehicles is hugely more than ICE. Given all that (and more), the electric car market must surely be one of the greatest commercial scams in history.
Nobody on a tight budget is going to buy one
https://order-order.com/2024/03/05/bbc-panoramas-disinformation-scoop-just-photos-from-twitter-parody-account/
This is just too funny
That’s a cracker tof.
Yeah I’m still chuckling – she’s a right chump
People put a lithium battery in front of their face, sometimes with unpleasant result just look online at exploding vaping pens. On a fundamental level, even if you accept as a premise that electrical technolgy is superior, we can see clear deficiencies. Can you imagine a mainstream media source talking about batteries and their disposal. We have had an example recently in France of a fire which they might still be struggling to put outl In survivalism a lithium battery is a last ditch attempt – if you have no options left then split open the battery and pur water on it. You will have a strong source of ignition for about half an hour.
Hold on!! This article and all the comments miss a large part of the issuer for ordinary people. When an electric vehicle, 30% heavier than its petrol/diesel equivalent, hits a pothole, it causes rather more than 30% additional damage to the pothole.
Makes you wonder if thats where the pothole pandemic is coming from, doesn’t it..?
I have an EV, but I am not an evangelist for their adoption. As an alternative firm of transport it suits me. My experience is that brakes and tyres last far longer on my EV than recent cars I’ve had from VW, Audi and MB. Not sure why tyres would last longer, but the ability to brake using the engine clearly helps reduce the wear on the brakes.
Nothing wrong with free choice. Just like the vaccine mandates.
Way back when, did government have to come along with a policy to get everyone off their horse and cart and into a motor car?
I am not sure your example is apt, since it implies that people should be left in all circumstances to make buying decisions purely on selfish grounds.
The question with EVs vs ICE cars is the supposed (???) damage in climate terms caused by the latter, which an individual may not take into account in his buying decision. Likewise, absent government regulation and incentives, a person may choose to buy a diesel car rather than a petrol car, because of fuel efficiency and other driving benefits. But the pollution downsides of diesel relative to petrol give rise to a need for government measures. If everyone was able to make buying decisions purely on selfish grounds, ignoring negative externalities like pollution, we would not have an optimal outcome overall.