Are we being forced to go electric?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

geocycle

Legendary Member
TBH every time I commute in the car, any car, I'd rather be getting pi$$ wet through on my bike.
Me too. Had to drive in twice this week because of ice and hated it. Felt dreadful all day, couldn’t get parked, cost me money and sat in a jam on the way home. Thoroughly miserable experience!
 

icowden

Veteran
Location
Surrey
There are some interesting studies showing that the reductions in NOx and hydroxyl radicals due to lack of car use, which would be the same with an increase in EV's, have vastly increased levels of atmospheric methane with a far higher global warming potential than CO2
This is true, although it is also true to note that NOx is much more harmful than CO2 (298 times as bad) as it has a radiative effect and takes a long time to break down. Methane is only 28 times as bad as CO2. NOx is a major pollutant and component of smog and is irritating to the eyes and respiratory tract. So although the reduction in NOx and hydroxyl means that less methane is inhibited and therefore an increase in methane, that still looks better than continuing to belch out NOx.

, and also increasing the very harmful ground level ozone,
This one is a bit disingenuous. EVs have no emissions and do not increase ground level ozone. There are numerous studies that have found the reverse. However they do "increase" ozone if you measure from fuel generation and tailpipe when compared to ICE cars depending on how the fuel is created. If your country is using coal, oil and gas to make electricity then EVs create more ozone per km than ICE. The answer therefore is to push for more renewables and stop using coal, oil and gas to make electricity. It's also important to note that power station emissions are dispersed around the country rather than being delivered straight into urban areas and primary schools.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cind.818_3.x

EV's may not be the solution to the perceived problem, in fact they could be making it worse.
But it's more likely that they are making it better, but with some side effects as we are weaned off oil. If we all switch to EVs and renewables the world will have to go cold turkey and will have withdrawal symptoms, but it's still better in the long run than continuing to set things on fire.
 
This is true, although it is also true to note that NOx is much more harmful than CO2 (298 times as bad) as it has a radiative effect and takes a long time to break down. Methane is only 28 times as bad as CO2. NOx is a major pollutant and component of smog and is irritating to the eyes and respiratory tract. So although the reduction in NOx and hydroxyl means that less methane is inhibited and therefore an increase in methane, that still looks better than continuing to belch out NOx.


This one is a bit disingenuous. EVs have no emissions and do not increase ground level ozone. There are numerous studies that have found the reverse. However they do "increase" ozone if you measure from fuel generation and tailpipe when compared to ICE cars depending on how the fuel is created. If your country is using coal, oil and gas to make electricity then EVs create more ozone per km than ICE. The answer therefore is to push for more renewables and stop using coal, oil and gas to make electricity. It's also important to note that power station emissions are dispersed around the country rather than being delivered straight into urban areas and primary schools.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cind.818_3.x


But it's more likely that they are making it better, but with some side effects as we are weaned off oil. If we all switch to EVs and renewables the world will have to go cold turkey and will have withdrawal symptoms, but it's still better in the long run than continuing to set things on fire.

When you try to compare NOx to CO2, you are comparing apples to oranges, and showing that you have a very limited understanding of the issues. Generally, NOx is a local health issue, whilst CO2 arguably impacts on the climate. NOx emissions can indirectly impact on the climate as explained on the link I posted.

Ozone is more harmful than NOx. An increase in EV's will reduce NOx, which in turn will contribute to increased ground level ozone, but not through the mechanisms you mention.

Your comments on power stations is lacking a few essential details.

The world will get warmer whatever we do, we are still coming out of one of the coldest periods this planet has experienced. The measures proposed could perhaps delay that by a small amount, although that is debatable for reasons mentioned in the article, among others.
 

Fastpedaller

Über Member
I haven't read the previous 217 pages, so forgive me if It's already been asked.......
How much extra cost/damage is likely to result from the weight of EV being much higher than ICE vehicles?
 

icowden

Veteran
Location
Surrey
Ozone is more harmful than NOx. An increase in EV's will reduce NOx, which in turn will contribute to increased ground level ozone, but not through the mechanisms you mention.
Have you got some studies we can look at? I provided a link to C&I's analysis of a study which suggests electric cars create almost twice as much ozone per km than ICE cars and which explains why.

Here's a link to a study by NRDC:
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/luke-t...cles-can-dramatically-reduce-carbon-pollution

Here's another one from Northwestern University published in Science Daily:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190412122912.htm

ANother one from NCBI:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7567144/

COmmentary https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2220923120:
” Princeton’s Net-Zero America report, which Mayfield worked on, estimates that switching entirely to EVs powered by renewable or other zero-carbon electricity would avoid up to 170,000 premature deaths and $1.5 trillion in damages (mostly from the avoided deaths) by 2050 (1). The 2035 Report 2.0 from Energy Innovation and the University of California (UC), Berkeley, estimates 150,000 avoided deaths and $1.3 trillion in lower environmental and health costs by 2050 (2). “I don’t think there is any doubt that if we electrify vehicles and green the grid, we are going to see tremendous health benefits,” says Horton. Even with an electricity grid like today’s, in which 61% of power is generated by burning fossil fuels, swapping out just one-quarter of all vehicles for electrics would avoid nearly $17 billion in damages, Horton’s modeling shows (3). A grid with more renewable energy inputs will further enhance the health benefits.
 

Moderators

Legendary Member
Moderator
Location
The Cronk
Last warning folks. Any more negative comments aimed at other members and we will thread ban those making them.
 

FishFright

More wheels than sense
When you try to compare NOx to CO2, you are comparing apples to oranges, and showing that you have a very limited understanding of the issues. Generally, NOx is a local health issue, whilst CO2 arguably impacts on the climate. NOx emissions can indirectly impact on the climate as explained on the link I posted.

Ozone is more harmful than NOx. An increase in EV's will reduce NOx, which in turn will contribute to increased ground level ozone, but not through the mechanisms you mention.

Your comments on power stations is lacking a few essential details.

The world will get warmer whatever we do, we are still coming out of one of the coldest periods this planet has experienced. The measures proposed could perhaps delay that by a small amount, although that is debatable for reasons mentioned in the article, among others.

We should be entering a cooling period right now. Currently we are in an intra ace age period and not an inter ice age period,
 

icowden

Veteran
Location
Surrey
but wot about the children digging up the rare metals needed to build the accursed vehicles?
The sourcing of materials is an issue. But the same materials (albeit in differing quantities) are used in many other sectors including the manufacture of ICE vehicles. I think we all agree that we need to find better solutions. The race to improve battery tech should mean that this happens much more quickly. Tesla are trying to move away from Lithium and Cobalt. New ideas for battery tech are emerging almost monthly.
 
To be honest, this post was
There are many studies into various aspects of it rather than one that covers it all.

Here's one article that touches on a few of the bits.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2351739-puzzling-methmethane ane-rise-in-2020-linked-to-pandemic-lockdown-effects/

The claim that fossil fuel reduction would have adverse effect as Methane will rise is new to me. Read the article and others it looks kosher. However it appears that scientists are advocating even more aggressive Methane gas reduction measures rather than impede the reduction of fossil fuel consumption to counter the effects of moving away from fossil fuel use.

Historically we know what smog is with London having 2 major episodes as well other urban cities. Even without the climate argument, we all know that fossil fuel use has only direction to go. And EVs are the obvious practical answer.

The trouble with this thread is that the active advocates ( I count only 3) of moving to EVs now, do not realise the vast majority of us have signed up to the positive effective of EVs long time ago. We do want to save the planet. They also fail to comprehend that most of us are not ready because of other limiting factors. So it goes in circles.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom