Electric cars - finally a counter arguement...
Discussion
The report only looks at particulates, nothing else, so it's entirely possible that the stats are accurate given how clean modern exhausts are. It takes no account of other emissions.
It's conclusion is that heavier cars put out more particulates, so lighter cars are better. Reading the abstract of the article it doesn't say "EVs are bad because they're heavy", it says "Exhaust particulate emissions are now so low they're not a big deal, we need to think about tyres and brakes. Heavier cars emit more particulates so they're bad, EVs tend to be heavier than the equivalent ICE car so in terms of particulates they're not what people think, policy makers should think about this"
That seems pretty reasonable to me, I had never thought about anything other than exhaust particulates as a source of pollution. Particulates are of course only one part of the air quality picture, but they're a pretty important one.
I don't know the methodology because the paper is behind a paywall and without reading it properly there's no way to judge it one way or the other. It could be that the brakes are only a tiny factor and it's mostly tyres in which case the data will probably hold up, regen or not. It might be a load of old cack but without having read it properly how can anyone judge?
It's not the scientists fault that the media is just looking for something controversial to get page views so suddenly pick up on a report that's been around for a couple of years and turn it into an "EVs are bad shock horror" headline.
It's conclusion is that heavier cars put out more particulates, so lighter cars are better. Reading the abstract of the article it doesn't say "EVs are bad because they're heavy", it says "Exhaust particulate emissions are now so low they're not a big deal, we need to think about tyres and brakes. Heavier cars emit more particulates so they're bad, EVs tend to be heavier than the equivalent ICE car so in terms of particulates they're not what people think, policy makers should think about this"
That seems pretty reasonable to me, I had never thought about anything other than exhaust particulates as a source of pollution. Particulates are of course only one part of the air quality picture, but they're a pretty important one.
I don't know the methodology because the paper is behind a paywall and without reading it properly there's no way to judge it one way or the other. It could be that the brakes are only a tiny factor and it's mostly tyres in which case the data will probably hold up, regen or not. It might be a load of old cack but without having read it properly how can anyone judge?
It's not the scientists fault that the media is just looking for something controversial to get page views so suddenly pick up on a report that's been around for a couple of years and turn it into an "EVs are bad shock horror" headline.
Mercky said:
pherlopolus said:
Jimbo. said:
Nope: push the brake pedal and the regen facility kicks in, performing a large chunk of the slowing. Also, should the car have the option of variable regen, then you can use that as the brakes to help you slow, using the friction brake to pull you to a stop only. The Outlander PHEV I had last year, with the regen turned to max, would slow surprising hard without the friction brakes.
I know, wife has a leaf, my comment was when I was replying to regeneration on an ice carMr Tidy said:
Phunk said:
Yes they are slightly heavier than the equivalent ICE car but nothing in comparison to a SUV!
The brake pad thing is utter rubbish, electric cars use the regen to slow down 90% of the time, most pads and discs last over 100k!
And your point is what exactly?The brake pad thing is utter rubbish, electric cars use the regen to slow down 90% of the time, most pads and discs last over 100k!
My 123d had 81K miles recorded when I sold it and according to the OBC had another 15K to go before it needed new brakes (and I bought it as a pre-reg with 20 miles recorded)! So a plug-in appliance may do another few miles - wow, that is real progress - or might be if it didn't drive like a POS!
How much CO2 is generated in making the battery pack? How much CO2 is generated in recycling the defunct battery pack when it dies? And in the UK, how much of the electricity required for the plug-in process is CO2 neutral?
F***all I expect, but loads of CO2 in the ozone layer from Chinese coal-fired power-stations making battery packs!
Seems to me the CO2 tax driven by the EU (which we may hopefully leave soon!) is just a revenue raising exercise - or did I miss something?
RobDickinson said:
Valgar said:
eh?
If you wanted to convince people not to buy EV vehicles just look at a 3 year old LEAF and see the depreciation
If that's not enough check out the price of a replacement battery £5000+
Leaf have a 96 month battery warranty ....If you wanted to convince people not to buy EV vehicles just look at a 3 year old LEAF and see the depreciation
If that's not enough check out the price of a replacement battery £5000+
So you end up buying a new battery anyway.
RobDickinson said:
Mr Tidy said:
How much CO2 is generated in making the battery pack?
How much CO2 is generated by drilling,transporting, refining your petrol? If you are going to take into account (fairly for sure) every aspect of a BEV vehicle you have to do the same for an ICE.But anyhow, the BEV works out better plus its emission are contained in larger plants away from people and far easier to manage and optimise.
George111 said:
What are the terms ? Will they replace the battery if the range drops to less than 80% of new or do they class that as still operational ? I suspect ageing isn't covered under the warranty.
So you end up buying a new battery anyway.
You can always google you know.So you end up buying a new battery anyway.
http://www.nissanusa.com/electric-cars/leaf/chargi...
RobDickinson said:
George111 said:
What are the terms ? Will they replace the battery if the range drops to less than 80% of new or do they class that as still operational ? I suspect ageing isn't covered under the warranty.
So you end up buying a new battery anyway.
You can always google you know.So you end up buying a new battery anyway.
http://www.nissanusa.com/electric-cars/leaf/chargi...
It says 5 years / 60,000 miles - which isn't a lot of miles, they do warranty that capacity won't drop below 9 bars on the meter. Does it start at 10 bars ?
George111 said:
RobDickinson said:
Valgar said:
eh?
If you wanted to convince people not to buy EV vehicles just look at a 3 year old LEAF and see the depreciation
If that's not enough check out the price of a replacement battery £5000+
Leaf have a 96 month battery warranty ....If you wanted to convince people not to buy EV vehicles just look at a 3 year old LEAF and see the depreciation
If that's not enough check out the price of a replacement battery £5000+
So you end up buying a new battery anyway.
Couple that with the fact hybrids have been around for 15-20 years now and battery failure isn't a big issue then I don't think there is a lot to worry about.
The study in Science Direct looks sensible to me on a first pass.
I know how Science Direct works - all articles published are peer reviewed before acceptance so to get to publication stage there has to be a high degree of certainty from the scientific community the data is correct.
That said the article only refers to weight as a component of PM emissions. There is no correlation between the findings in the article on Science Direct and the newspaper garbage some press hack has thrown together as a result of having nothing else to write about.
Lifetime emissions of petrol/diesel/EVs would be a very interesting discussion if you take into account the shipping of fuel from oil fields to pump. With an EV the shipping of batteries occurs once whereas I can see some portion of the total emissions for ICE coming from regular fuel shipments. To offset that the power stations require fuel but if we had an electricity generation infrastructure based on renewable and nuclear energy that becomes significantly lower.
I know how Science Direct works - all articles published are peer reviewed before acceptance so to get to publication stage there has to be a high degree of certainty from the scientific community the data is correct.
That said the article only refers to weight as a component of PM emissions. There is no correlation between the findings in the article on Science Direct and the newspaper garbage some press hack has thrown together as a result of having nothing else to write about.
Lifetime emissions of petrol/diesel/EVs would be a very interesting discussion if you take into account the shipping of fuel from oil fields to pump. With an EV the shipping of batteries occurs once whereas I can see some portion of the total emissions for ICE coming from regular fuel shipments. To offset that the power stations require fuel but if we had an electricity generation infrastructure based on renewable and nuclear energy that becomes significantly lower.
RobDickinson said:
charltjr said:
It's not the scientists fault.
Whatever gave you the idea these are scientists?charltjr said:
Researchers then. Interested parties. Whatever, the point stands that slagging them off for being biased without having read the report is a great example of confirmation bias.
I think the issue is that 1) the parties who wrote the piece are not unbiased
2) the journalists who picked up on the article were looking for sensational story that they could spin against EV cars
3) The Anti-EV "just because" groups have picked up on 2) with out doing research on 1)
if there were 3 independent unbiased sources of 1) (and Wikipedia isn't one of them) I would look on it more favourably. but basically they are saying all cars kick up more pollution than the kick out, and heavier cars kick up more pollution, EV cars are heavier (wrong) and therefore kick up more pollution than "ICE".
I would be interested to see a correlation between the same weight car with narrow higher profile tyres and wider lower profile tyres...
AnotherClarkey said:
George111 said:
If I had been sufficiently interested I would have
There are more characters in your 'not sufficiently interested' sentence than it takes to google 'nissan leaf battery warranty', whereupon the answer pops up right in front of your face.Happy now ?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff