Electric Cars Are Harder on the Environment than Gas-Powered Ones

by Hans Bader

“Electric vehicles release more toxic particles into the atmosphere and are worse for the environment than their gas-powered counterparts,” according to a study, reports the New York Post:

The study, published by emissions data firm Emission Analytics … found that brakes and tires on EVs release 1,850 times more particle pollution compared to modern tailpipes, which have “efficient” exhaust filters, bringing gas-powered vehicles’ emissions to new lows. Today, most vehicle-related pollution comes from tire wear. As heavy cars drive on light-duty tires — most often made with synthetic rubber made from crude oil and other fillers and additives — they deteriorate and release harmful chemicals into the air…. Because EVs are on average 30% heavier, brakes and tires on the battery-powered cars wear out faster than on standard cars.

Emission Analytics found that tire wear emissions on half a metric tonne of battery weight in an EV are more than 400 times as great as direct exhaust particulate emissions. For reference, half a metric tonne is equivalent to roughly 1,100 pounds. The most popular EV in the US, Tesla’s Model Y, boasts a lithium-ion battery that weighs in at a hefty 1,836 pounds. Another sought-after electric model, Ford’s F-150 Lightning pickup truck, also has an approximately 1,800-pound battery….

The study throws doubt on the practicality of the Biden administration’s EV mandates, which tout electric cars as “zero-emissions vehicles” in a quest to force two-thirds of new cars in America to be all-electric by the year 2032. California lawmakers have similarly referred to EVs as producing “zero emissions” because they don’t have tailpipes, per the [Wall Street] Journal, which added that the label is “deceptive.”

Electric cars still use tires made from petroleum that create particle pollution as they wear….“you have this downside of EVs that increases particle pollution. Air pollution is about what we breathe and the health effects…Tires are made up of a lot of nasty chemicals,” said Emissions Analytics chief Nick Molden.

Increased exposure to these toxins “can increase the risk of health problems like heart disease, asthma, and low birth weight,” according to the New York Department of Health…“A lot of it [chemicals] goes into the soil and water, affecting animals and fish. And we then go and eat the animals and fish, so we are ingesting tire pollution,” Molden added….Even so, California’s air agency used a model that assumes electric and gas vehicles have the same amount of tire wear when analyzing the effects of the ban [on gas-powered vehicles].

As Ed Morrissey notes at Hot Air, “Thanks to the increased efficiency of internal combustion engines, their emissions are relatively clean. The increased weight from the massive batteries in EVs forces a significantly higher rate of erosion of tires and brakes, creating massive increases in emissions…. The reaction from regulators so far suggests that the study may be accurate. The California Air Resources Board suggested that batteries may become lighter in the future, and that manufacturers can use lighter-weight materials on other parts of EVs to “compensate” for their heavy batteries. “That, however, would mean trade-offs on safety in collisions.” Using lighter-weight materials increases traffic fatalities. The National Research Council concluded that 1,300 to 2,600 people per year died due to federal fuel economy regulations that resulted in cars being made of lighter materials and thus less protected against collisions.

Electric vehicles also require enormous damage to the environment just to produce their batteries — 250 tons of mining is required for a single battery, according to Real Clear Energy. Switching to electric cars would require a radical expansion of mining across the world, and the minerals for the car batteries will be refined mainly using the coal-powered electric grid of China, the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. Yet states are starting to mandate electric vehicles. Nine states, including California, have now decided to ban gasoline-powered cars by 2035, requiring that all cars sold be electric instead.

In 2021, Virginia’s Democratic-controlled legislature passed a law adopting California standards for Virginia vehicles, so Virginia also will ban gasoline-powered cars in 2035, unless that law is repealed, as Republicans seek to do (the Republican-controlled Virginia House of Delegates voted to repeal the ban on gas-powered cars in 2023, but the Democratic-controlled Virginia state Senate kept the ban in place, and Democrats regained control of the Virginia House of Delegates in the 2023 election).

Real Clear Energy describes the challenges of switching to electric vehicles (EVs):

a typical EV battery weighs about 1,000 pounds…That half-ton battery is made from a wide range of minerals including copper, nickel, aluminum, graphite, cobalt, manganese, and of course, lithium. And to get the materials to fabricate that half-ton battery requires digging up and processing some 250 tons of the earth somewhere on the planet…80%–90% of relevant minerals are mined and refined outside the U.S. and E.U. and will be for a long time regardless of subsidies. And, since China refines 50%–90% of the world’s suite of energy minerals for EVs, it’s relevant that its grid is two-thirds coal-fired—and will be for a long time.

Moreover, compared to building and fueling a gasoline-powered car for a ten year period, an electric vehicle “entails a ten-fold greater extraction and handling of materials from the earth, and far, far more acreage of land disturbed and, unfortunately, often polluted….the mines operating and planned can’t supply even a small fraction of the 400% to 7,000% increase in demand for minerals that will be needed within a decade to meet the [electric vehicle mandate]. What’s relevant is that the IEA [International Energy Agency] has told us we’ll need hundreds of new mega-mines, and that it takes 10 to 16 years to find, plan and open a new mine.”

Since most of these mines will not open before 2035, the minerals needed for electric car batteries will be in increasingly short supply as 2035 approaches, causing price spikes for car batteries, which typically cost up to $20,000 in 2022. That means the price of electric vehicles, which typically cost more than gasoline-powered cars, could skyrocket. Real Clear Energy’s conclusions are echoed by The Guardian, which notes that a “transition to electric vehicles” in the U.S. “could require three times as much lithium as is currently produced for the entire global market, causing needless water shortages … and ecosystem destruction.”

It is sometimes claimed that electric vehicles result in less emissions of greenhouse gases than gasoline-powered cars. But this claim is based mostly on flawed studies that assume electric car batteries are smaller than they in fact are, radically understating their environmental footprint and the greenhouse gases emitted to produce them.

As Real Clear Energy explains, “nearly all studies making emissions claims are worse than guesses,” typically cherry-picking “low numbers” for battery size:

A meta-study of 50 different technical studies found the estimates of emissions varied by over 300%. And, worse, that analysis exposed the fact that most emissions claims were based on assuming use of a small 30 kWh battery. That’s one-third the size of batteries actually used in most EVs. Triple the battery size and you triple the upstream emissions – and you triple the demand and thus price-pressure for the minerals.

A “net increase in global emissions” could easily result from the transition to electric vehicles, it says. That is because the mining needed for car batteries would not only expand massively, but require mining low-grade ores that require enormous amounts of energy and greenhouse gas emissions to dig up and process:

Geologists have long documented that ore grades have been and will continue declining. That’s because global ore grades are declining – for the non-cognoscenti, that means for each new ton of mineral there’s a steady and unavoidable increase in the quantity of rock dug up and processed. A decrease of just 0.4% in copper ore grade will require seven times more energy to access the copper.

If a significant fraction of motorists switch to electric vehicles, that could strain the power grid. CNBC says that when “half of all new cars sold in the U.S.” are electric vehicles, that may “put a major strain on our nation’s electric grid, an aging system built for a world that runs on fossil fuels.”

In states like California and Virginia, all new cars sold in 2035 will be electric vehicles, posing an even greater risk of straining the electric grid. As Real Clear Energy points out, the infrastructure needed for “EV fueling stations is greater than it is for” gas stations. Because EV charging takes longer than filling a gas tank, “long refueling times will translate into long lines at EV fueling stations as well as the need for five to 10 times more charging ports than fuel pumps.” Moreover, EV fueling stations will have “staggering requirements for grid infrastructure upgrades. Today roadside fuel stations have the electric demand of a 7-Eleven; but convert those to EV fueling station and every one of them will have the electric demand of a steel mill – and highways will need thousands of them.”

Electric vehicles will also place a strain on transportation infrastructure. They are much heavier than gasoline-powered vehicles. As Axlewise explains, “The average EV battery weighs about 1,000 pounds. Some batteries weigh more than 2,000 pounds. The heaviest EV battery is the Hummer EV battery, which weighs around 2,923 pounds.” One study found that electric vehicles place more than twice as much stress on roads as gas-powered vehicles. That means more cracks in the pavement.

A convoy of electric trucks could cause a bridge to collapse, even if it could handle being packed with gas-powered trucks. Last May, The Telegraph reported that the “sheer weight of electric vehicles could sink” some bridges in England.

Hans Bader practices law in Washington, D.C. Republished with permission from Liberty Unyielding.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

95 responses to “Electric Cars Are Harder on the Environment than Gas-Powered Ones”

  1. LesGabriel Avatar
    LesGabriel

    A lot of food for thought here. I don’t know if anyone has calculated the increased demand for copper that will result from having to rebuild our entire electrical distribution grid plus thousands of additional charging stations, but a rough guess would be a LOT. In addition to bridges and tunnels that would need to be rebuilt, many if not all parking garages would have to be re-engineered (or restricted for EV usage) when EV’s begin to make up a significant portion of our vehicle fleet.

    1. how_it_works Avatar
      how_it_works

      Very little copper is used in the distribution side. Little in the transmission side too.

      For aerial lines, ACSR cable is what is commonly used. Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        More real info from someone who knows as opposed to the indiscriminate FUD from the anti folk…. thanks…

        it really is Luddite-lite stuff coming from the right these days.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        More real info from someone who knows as opposed to the indiscriminate FUD from the anti folk…. thanks…

        it really is Luddite-lite stuff coming from the right these days.

        1. how_it_works Avatar
          how_it_works

          Even distribution transformers are largely using aluminum windings these days, from what I read on an electrician’s forum.

  2. William Chambliss Avatar
    William Chambliss

    Comparing tire and brake wear on EVs to tailpipe emissions from ICE vehicles? Yeah, that makes sense. I took the tires and brakes off my Honda years ago….

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Contrary to popular opinion, you can drive on the rims. But be careful, the speedometer may not be accurate.

      As for the brakes, if you’re on the rims then they’re going to be worthless anyway.

  3. Turbocohen Avatar
    Turbocohen

    There is sooo much utter baloney, lies and lame guess buffoonery in this article. Ive driven Diesel, gasoline, CNG, LPG, H2, electric and plug in electric vehicles for 40 years. The tire claim its made up. If the same tire SIZE and rating of a similarly sized vehicle is used yes heavier electric vehicles produce more Relative fine tire particles. However, in practice that is not the case. In reality, modern tires designed for EV’s produce about 10-20% more fine particle from tires. Now for the reality. Fine tire particles consisting of rubber and carbon decompose in sunlight to become CO2, if it did not you would be able to find lots of fine particle accumulation by major roads. I did work on position papers on alternative fueled vehicles decades ago for Siemens while doing emissions benchwork and this topic about tire and EV emissions was factored in. At that time the estimate was that tire particulate emissions was a potentially big issue but when I consulted with the people in the industry with measurement expertise at EG&G and Southwest Research in Texas where they performed all manner of emissions testing I learned to discriminate between Emissions and pollutants. A corn stalk consumes about as much of the CO2 produced by the average EV tire. Sorry to burst your bubble on this one.

    Oh, as for brake wear, most EV’s brakes will last 2-4x as long as those on a gas vehicle, same for newer plug in hybrids, because they use regenerative braking. Got any more myths about this that need busting?

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Oh, but it sounded so good when he was making it all up.

    2. walter smith Avatar
      walter smith

      I’m not sure you busted any myths. And you didn’t bust all of them. But as to the tire particulate, you brush it off as going away in CO2. Isn’t that the death gas according to the climate cultists? How dare you!
      There are costs and benefits in any decision. Mandating electric is not cost justified. Just first world virtue signaling, harming the poor but making the so called elites feel virtuous (to go with the smugness)

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        He has to bust all of them? So to turn Republicans from Trump one has to point out ALL of his lies?

        Wow! The definition of credibility has changed.

        If a tire were made entirely of CO2, it wouldn’t amount to that in a bottle of Coke.

        1. walter smith Avatar
          walter smith

          TDS much?

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            What does your doctor say?

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            no science please.

          3. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Just like a Commie in the fake “vaccine” for the Chinese lab leak funded by our government and Dr. St. Fau(x)ci – why do you totalitarians like to violate HIPAA so much? My body my choice only applies for killing babies?

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            stir some more NN…

          5. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Larry – did the virus come from the Wuhan lab. The US says it did, now. Did the “vaccine” work? No it didn’t. It was certainly not “effective.” Nor was it “safe,” and eventually our beloved government will notice the excess deaths and disabilities trailing for a number of years, just “happening” after the clot shot rollout, mandated in violation of the Nuremberg Code. All of which I just said is true. Not a conspiracy theory. Like being called “racist,” when called “conspiracy theorist” your suspicions are correct.

    3. ‘most EV’s brakes will last 2-4x as long as those on a gas vehicle’….that’s because you can’t drive as far.

      1. WayneS Avatar

        Okay, that was funny – I don’t care who you are.

        1. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          But, but you get half as far more quickly so how can brakes last 2-4x as long?? Oh, this gives me a headache just like sniffing old brake shoe dust used to do.

      2. Turbocohen Avatar
        Turbocohen

        Tell that to high mile commuters who drive older tesla and a few other brands. Join the Hugh Mileagee Tesla Owners club and you will find a lot of high milers myth busting this issue. Yess batteries degrade with time but there are plenty with 90+% capacity after 200,000 miles using original brakes.

      3. No that’s because damn near all gas-powered vehicles on the road today use automatic transmissions, thus they do not have the engine braking capability of a stick-shift vehicle. Meanwhile, EVs and hybrids use the braking power of reduced electrical current to assist the brakes, thus, less wear on the brakes.

        My old stick shift 1996 pickup goes TWICE as far on brake shoes/pads as my 2004 Ford Explorer.

    4. William O'Keefe Avatar
      William O’Keefe

      The basis for his narrative is work by Emissions Analytics which is viewed as a leading and independent firm in the UK. Hans is a first rate legal mind, so you should not be so quick to dismiss him.
      Review the work and then tell us about its flaws.

      1. Will Stewart Avatar
        Will Stewart

        “which is viewed as a leading and independent firm ”

        By whom?

        Is this work in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal or simply a paper written for a paying client?…

        1. William O'Keefe Avatar
          William O’Keefe

          Check it out and you tell me.

  4. American Cavalier Avatar
    American Cavalier

    The recently completed Menghua Railway in China is an 1,837 km, dedicated coal line that transports roughly 200 million tonnes of dirty- burning coal annually from Inner Mongolia to Jiangxi. This is more coal than the rest of the world uses combined. But hey, I’m sure driving your EV to Whole Foods, or snacking on your Impossible Burger while you charge at Sheetz during a long road trip will do some good. Maybe gullible, mild-mannered westerners can figure out a way to convert their virtue into an energy source.

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        What you (intentionally) ignore is they are doing a crash program in both thermal and weather-dependent generation. And the CO2 output will continue to spiral. Much of the coal is melted to make the panels!

        Saw this business about the tire dust elsewhere and discounted it already. Bottom line, any technology has its downsides and perfection eludes.

      2. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        What you (intentionally) ignore is they are doing a crash program in both thermal and weather-dependent generation. And the CO2 output will continue to spiral. Much of the coal is melted to make the panels!

        Saw this business about the tire dust elsewhere and discounted it already. Bottom line, any technology has its downsides and perfection eludes.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          They’re basically doing an “all the above” approach in an effort to provide electricity to most of their people, who right now use 1/2 what we do:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bd88c351164b66c8fda6314dcab043f61d77281961c60bde5681c7150226569d.png

          You’d support the idea that China should not provide electricity to their people similar to the way we have?

          That should be their contribution to reducing CO2?

          fair?

          sounds more like a way to undermine efforts to reduce CO2 overall?

  5. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    So, NOW, we KNOW that Hans is not just a conservative interested in the law but really into other things and on a culture warrior/ludditism realm.

    The issue about the tires has some credence but EV’s like ALL new technology is about optimization and calibration/tweaking.

    We’ve seen the same general evolutions whether about unleaded gas, energy-efficient furnaces and heat pumps, medical treatments, on and on.

    And every one of these has it’s critics and Luddites proffering their “concerns” and these days, spinning into misinformation and just plain blather.

    EVs are not going away – period. They have to get better just like we’ve seen with virtually every new and evolving technology.

    But I congratulate Hans for “coming out”. I sorta suspected all along that he was pretty much in the culture war game all along.

  6. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    re: ” As Ed Morrissey notes at Hot Air, “Thanks to the increased efficiency of internal combustion engines, their emissions are relatively clean.”

    But Hans and others make the argument that EV’s are “harmful” because of what is burned for electricity as well as the indirect issues like tire “pollution” etc, without really looking at what happens with fossil fuels – starting with how they are extracted (with gas flaring), the refinery process which produces very large pollution and transmission with gas line leaks , etc.

    Making fuel in one place, ideally from wind/solar/nukes and transmitting it across distances without using pipelines and fuel trucks is by far, far less polluting than the fossil fuel “path”.

    And the “fuel” is 100% American made and not subject to the highest bidders that control the world price of oil.

    All we hear from the likes of the New York Post, Hot Air, Real Clear Energy/Politics and other hard right news sites is fairly culture war ludditism.

    Used to be, most of us, cheered the ambitious and forward looking technology advances to bring us better, more efficient, less costly solutions – understanding that they all go through a process of calibration to address initial flaws and shortcomings before we get to far better versions.

    We saw this, for instance, when we went away from leaded gas and then later when we required less polluting cars, neither not without some initial issues that had to be addressed. NOW, “we”, including the original naysayers, take all of this for granted and many initial opponents claim they were all for it all along!

    It’s the same folks now playing the same “anti” game except, now with a generous helping of culture war thrown in to make it even stinkier!

    1. WayneS Avatar

      Used to be, most of us, cheered the ambitious and forward looking technology advances to bring us better, more efficient, less costly solutions – understanding that they all go through a process of calibration to address initial flaws and shortcomings before we get to far better versions.

      Absolutely, and if the government waited until the process of calibration to address initial flaws and shortcomings was nearer completion before mandating use of the technology, then I would look forward to embracing it.

      I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, until there are some large leaps forward in battery technology from the standpoint of size, weight, charge duration, and charging time, all-electric vehicles cannot and will not be a better, more efficient, less costly solution.

      For now, if they must push for something, the government should be pushing for hybrids to replace 100% petro-fueled vehicles until the shortcomings of all-electric vehicles are more adequately addressed. I’d have a hybrid myself right now if one of the major manufacturers offered a manual transmission version.

      And I do not want EVs to “go away”. I want them to actually be a better solution than gas-powered cars before I am forced to own one if I want to drive somewhere.

    2. WayneS Avatar

      Used to be, most of us, cheered the ambitious and forward looking technology advances to bring us better, more efficient, less costly solutions – understanding that they all go through a process of calibration to address initial flaws and shortcomings before we get to far better versions.

      Absolutely, and if the government waited until the process of calibration to address initial flaws and shortcomings was nearer completion before mandating use of the technology, then I would look forward to embracing it.

      I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, until there are some large leaps forward in battery technology from the standpoint of size, weight, charge duration, and charging time, all-electric vehicles cannot and will not be a better, more efficient, less costly solution.

      For now, if they must push for something, the government should be pushing for hybrids to replace 100% petro-fueled vehicles until the shortcomings of all-electric vehicles are more adequately addressed. I’d have a hybrid myself right now if one of the major manufacturers offered a manual transmission version.

      And I do not want EVs to “go away”. I want them to actually be a better solution than gas-powered cars before I am forced to own one if I want to drive somewhere.

    3. WayneS Avatar

      Used to be, most of us, cheered the ambitious and forward looking technology advances to bring us better, more efficient, less costly solutions – understanding that they all go through a process of calibration to address initial flaws and shortcomings before we get to far better versions.

      Absolutely, and if the government waited until the process of calibration to address initial flaws and shortcomings was nearer completion before mandating use of the technology, then I would look forward to embracing it.

      I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, until there are some large leaps forward in battery technology from the standpoint of size, weight, charge duration, and charging time, all-electric vehicles cannot and will not be a better, more efficient, less costly solution.

      For now, if they must push for something, the government should be pushing for hybrids to replace 100% petro-fueled vehicles until the shortcomings of all-electric vehicles are more adequately addressed. I’d have a hybrid myself right now if one of the major manufacturers offered a manual transmission version.

      And I do not want EVs to “go away”. I want them to actually be a better solution than gas-powered cars before I am forced to own one if I want to drive somewhere.

    4. WayneS Avatar

      Used to be, most of us, cheered the ambitious and forward looking technology advances to bring us better, more efficient, less costly solutions – understanding that they all go through a process of calibration to address initial flaws and shortcomings before we get to far better versions.

      Absolutely, and if the government waited until the process of calibration to address initial flaws and shortcomings was nearer completion before mandating use of the technology, then I would look forward to embracing it.

      I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, until there are some large leaps forward in battery technology from the standpoint of size, weight, charge duration, and charging time, all-electric vehicles cannot and will not be a better, more efficient, less costly solution.

      For now, if they must push for something, the government should be pushing for hybrids to replace 100% petro-fueled vehicles until the shortcomings of all-electric vehicles are more adequately addressed. I’d have a hybrid myself right now if one of the major manufacturers offered a manual transmission version.

      And I do not want EVs to “go away”. I want them to actually be a better solution than gas-powered cars before I am forced to own one if I want to drive somewhere.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Naw. Technology evolves as a basic thing.

        And yes, we mandate changing refrigerants in response to the Ozone Hole and the initial changes had issues and needed to evolve to a better method and DID!

        If we followed the “wait” idea, we’d still not yet have satellites ! They’re STILL a work in progress and STILL need to get better but we don’t WAIT!

        Happens without govt mandates also. Ever had a windows computer 10 yrs back and now?

        Cell Phone? initial versions “flawed”?

        Luddite hand-wringing is not a good thing IMO.

        1. WayneS Avatar

          I did not say wait until it is perfected. I said wait until it is further along before mandating its use.

          And the government never mandated that I use Windows or have a cell phone. I have a choice in those matter.

          And as a matter of fact, I do run Windows 95 on one of my computers. It’s the last version of Windows that will run my old AutoCad 14 license. I do not use Autocad for my personal work enough to justify paying the high cost of upgrading (and the now ubiquitous annual subscription fee). That’s being pragmatic, not anti-technology.

          I am not a luddite, and you intentionally misinterpreting my comments so that you can accuse me of being one does not make it so.

          1. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Trust you keep that puppy far far away from the internet. Pentium 4s were nice processors:)

            I’m still running Office 2000 for the same reason, I’ve paid for the licenses and everything I need in a word processor or spreadsheet was in those products. Actually it was all there in Word Perfect on diskettes years before that.

            Several of my computers have”free” Win 10 upgrades dating back to Win 7, but they’re barred from Win 11 by the security requirements. Very clever Microsoft. They’re sort of like George Washington’s hatchet, 3 heads and 5 handles.

            OTOH I’m writing this on a Linux machine and it has proven to be reliable and convenient. Just like with Windows updates there’s a learning curve on where stuff is tucked away, but it’s not a big hurdle. It’s a viable upgrade path, and remarkably easy on hardware requirements.

            My old P3, P4 and dual core hardware is getting ready to head to the dumpster. Sign, I paid good money for that stuff and it was all still running when I upgraded from it long ago. Oh well, progress. The hard drives get a swat with a sledge before they go. That hurts, they were expensive too.

            When you get ready to upgrade I’ve got copies of Win 98 and NT I’ll give you.:)

          2. WayneS Avatar

            Trust you keep that puppy far far away from the internet. Pentium 4s were nice processors:)

            Yes, I do.

          3. WayneS Avatar

            The hard drives get a swat with a sledge before they go.

            I use mine for target practice. It’s amazing what a couple of hollow-point .357 magnum rounds can do to a hard-drive.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Right. But if we do your “wait” and another person’s “wait” and add all the Luddite “waits”, WHEN?

            No accusing you of being a Luddite but I AM characterizing behaviors that I view as luddite.

            Wear the shoe as you see fit – pun intended.

          5. WayneS Avatar

            As usual, you have once again intentionally misinterpreted my comment.

          6. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            It’s tiring burning down all those scarecrows he tosses out, isn’t it.

          7. WayneS Avatar

            It is. Sometimes I wonder why I bother – and sometimes it’s fun.

      2. CrazyJD Avatar

        I’m new, …well, renewed …on this blog. There seems to be a lot of blather about EV’s. I haven’t read most of it, and so don’t know the answer to the following question: Do any of you writers actually own/lease and drive an EV? If so, which one?

  7. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    SO MUCH BLATHER!

    ANY heavier vehicle no matter how it is fueled will have the same effect on tires, including diesel-fueled 18 wheelers and gasoline powered Pickup Trucks and SUVs.

    1. WayneS Avatar

      That doesn’t make any sense.

      Sure, an 18-wheel truck of any kind releasees more pollutants than a car, but an electric 18-wheeler will experience greater tire wear than a diesel-powered 18-wheeler, and an electric 3/4 ton pickup will experience greater tire wear than a gasoline powered 3/4 ton pickup.

      The article may or not may not be “blather” but you should at least compare apples to apples.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        It’s the weight of the vehicle that is causing the accelerated tire wear , right?

        For instance, if you compared tire wear from a small compact to a SUV or pickup – all gas powered.

        No?

        1. WayneS Avatar

          Do you even know what “apples to apples” means?

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I do in fact and apples to apples looks at the tire wear by weight with the same fuel.

            pretty much apples to apples comparison.

            That seems to be a problem when some folks see apple to apple differently – like comparing different fueled vehicles on tire wear and concluding it’s the different fuel at issue?

          2. WayneS Avatar

            No, in this case, “apples to apples” looks at differing tire wear between similarly sized vehicles powered by different fuels.

            If the the use of a “different fuel” results in a similarly sized vehicle being heavier than a “regularly fueled” vehicle, and if increased weight causes increased tire wear, then yes, the different fuel is the reason for the increased tire wear.

            That is not only an “apples to apples” comparison, it is simple logic. Your childish bullcrap of comparing an 18-wheeled truck to a car is not. Nor was that the basis of Mr. Bader’s claim, which is allegedly what you are arguing against.

            I’m not defending the article, nor am I saying the increased tire wear experienced by electric vehicles over similarly sized fossil-fuel powered vehicles is significant enough to worry about, but your illogical argument does not help disprove Mr. Bader’s claims.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            How about comparing a typical car with a typical pickup or Van?

            I’d question your version of “logic” or perhaps what you’re willing to use logic with or not.

            It’s not the simplistic idea you and Bader think it is IMO.

            What is the difference between those versus between the same model in each category?

            Do you think reformulating tires might be part of an evolution? You want to freeze it right now and pretend nothing more will advance?

            Mr. Bader IMO is spreading FUD in general that is coming from the right in the culture wars.

          4. WayneS Avatar

            How about comparing a typical car with a typical pickup or Van?

            Why? That’s not what the article is about.

            In your quest to never admit you are wrong about anything you have gone from the illogical to the absurd.

            Do you think reformulating tires might be part of an evolution? You want to freeze it right now and pretend nothing more will advance?

            One more absurd straw man from the master of strawmen.

            I competitively road-raced motorcycles for more than ten years. I bet my life on knowing and utilizing the latest in tires and I venture to say that I have forgotten more about tire compounds and tire technology than you will ever know.

            I also told you I am not defending Mr. Bader’s article. However, it is a stone-cold law of physics that a heavier vehicle is going to experience greater tire wear than a lighter vehicle of the same type, and from a relative wear standpoint better tire compounds are not going to change that.

            As of today, it is also a fact that an all-electric vehicle will be heavier than a fossil-fuel powered vehicle of the same type.

            Your arguments on this subject are ludicrous and ridiculous.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            the article is basically about how weight affects wear on tires –

            the claim is that per give model – one with fossil fuels will be lighter than the same model with EV.

            I’m asking – how much as well as how that might compare to fossil fuel models that are heavier and if heavy vehicles in general no matter how fueled are also “harmful” to the environment.

            Are SUVs no matter how they are fueled more harmful to the environment than smaller, lighter cars?

            More so than the difference between a given model fueled by fossil fuels or EVs?

            Beyond that if you compare across the board from what it takes to generate fossil fuels from dirt to gas tank, is that dirtier and more harmful than fuel coming across power lines?

            Bader has picked one thing which is coming from the right and climate deniers – culture war style.

            Do I believe it across the board for all impacts?

            Nope. Why should I believe ONE THING coming from climate deniers is relevant to the bigger issue in the first place?

            Finally, have you read that as technology is advancing that batteries are getting lighter?

            “Will EV batteries get lighter?
            EV batteries will have to be 50% lighter in future …
            EV batteries will have to be 50% lighter in future, Stellantis tech chief says | Reuters.Sep 8, 2023”

            Would you just SWALLOW what is coming from Bader and the Culture Warriors as fact from on high?

            You should not!

            besides that – if some technology has come to the market and still has issues and flaws – would you stop it until they “fix” it? It doesn’t work that way. Who would invest it making it better if there was no existing market and would not be until it was “fixed”?

            We’d never have satellites or GPS or weather radar if that was the standard for technology.

            They all have flaws and things that need to be further refined and made better and the market want them to do it.

            Would you want companies to stop making products because they have recalls?

          6. WayneS Avatar

            Would you just SWALLOW what is coming from Bader and the Culture Warriors as fact from on high?

            Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I’ve already told you twice that I am not defending Mr. Bader’s article, and I have not defended it.

            As far as the rest of your comment goes, all anyone has to do is read my previous comments on this thread to see that you are throwing out strawman after strawman after strawman.

            Please, at the very least, go read what I have already written, and already predicted, about advancements in battery technology.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            You took Bader’s claim as fact and a basis to say that technology should not be implemented if it has such problems… or at least that’s what I was interpreting it.

            And I pointed out the wider context of the issue as well as the fact that right now they’re working on batteries getting lighter.

            I did not take what Bader said as face value because:

            1. I am well aware of how Bader deals with issues on a fairly often basis – so no I do not trust what he writes without further checking.

            2. I had already seen that issue as well as follow a wider context of it.

            I just disagree with your view about when and how technology should go forward and not stop because it’s not yet perfected and has flaws.

            I don’t think I’ve mischaracterized what you were saying on the issue in general and you apparently do give some credence to what Bader wrote. I do not especially when I see him quoting the NY Post and Hot Air and the usual culture war suspects.

          8. WayneS Avatar

            I have never said technology should be perfected before it is brought into use. That is a flat-out mischaracterization of what I have stated on numerous occasions on this blog.

            Here is a direct quote from one of my previous comments today: I did not say wait until it is perfected. I said wait until it is further along before mandating its use.

            AND: I do not want EVs to “go away”. I want them to actually be a better solution than gas-powered cars before I am forced to own one if I want to drive somewhere.

            Furthermore,

            RE: Finally, have you read that as technology is advancing that batteries are getting lighter?

            I am well aware that people are working on improving batteries, and not just by making them lighter. This is evidenced by this quote from one of my other comments today: They’ve also spun off an all-electric series called Formula-E. The cars are not as fast, but the racing tends to be competitive and battery life becomes another factor in race strategy. I suspect the next great leap forward in battery technology will come from those guys. When taken in context with the other comments I have made about motorsports being a leader in advancing automotive technology, even an intentionally obtuse person would have to conclude that I am following developments in battery technology.

            As far as giving credence to Mr. Bader, I gave credence to the FACT that a heavier vehicle is harder on tires than a lighter vehicle. And I gave credence to the FACT that as of today, EV’s are heavier than their comparable fuel-powered counterparts.

            Everything else you wrote in your efforts to discredit me is crap you made up on your own. You read way too much of your own personal bias into the comments I make and you should stop doing that.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Okay. So correct me with the right message you were saying.

            Yes you gave credence as if the technology was fixed and final and it’s not. That’s what I felt you were saying and responded to.

            I’m not trying to discredit you.

            I’m basically saying that what Bader said should not be taken at face value with respect to EVs and that, it sounds like a Luddite view , like we have seen in the past as they generally opposed advances and often on the basis that they had flaws, etc

            I just feel that technology is ever evolving and looking at it in a snapshot is not looking at the reality of how technology does advance.

            Here’s who I DO TRUST – the govt and the vast majority of scientists when it comes to climate science and the auto companies when it comes to technology – not the the deniers and culture war folk.

            I think EVs are real and will get better and better and not go away despite the FUD that Bader and company are spreading.

            Again, sorry if I rubbed you the wrong way and I’ll remember in future comments where your “points” might be and try not to hit them.

  8. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    The 2035 mandate was just more virtue signaling from the left. There are endless problems with that mandate. One that is under-discussed is the need for voltage transformers. Between AI and EVs, there just aren’t enough and the prices for them have increased 70% recently. Maybe Biden should launch a second Inflation Reduction Act!

    https://newatlas.com/technology/elon-musk-ai/

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Talking about needs to get done to move to a more efficient energy future is a bad thing? Maybe to some.

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        Setting an explicit date with no basis in reality is the problem.

        I’m all for EVs but mandating 100% new car sales to be EVs by 2035 without even a whisper of a plan is just virtue signaling.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          goal dates DJ, JUST LIKE WE DID with unleaded gas, lower polluting vehicles and cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay.

          You call… goals to clean up rivers and improve air quality “virtue signaling”?

          Have you bought into the “rights” anti science, anti-govt, conspiracies and FUD?

          1. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            It’s a lot more than a goal. How long do you think it takes a car manufacturer to retool their entire production base to make only EVs? How long do you think it takes for the grid to have ubiquitous charging stations? How long do you think it takes for the amount of extra power generation required to charge a 100% EV world to be brought online?

            These mindless, unplanned mandates (untethered to any reality) cause a lot of economic disruption.

            The Imperial Clown Show in Richmond™ has had plenty of time to back up their drunken boast of 100% EV sales in Virginia by 2035 with real plans. But they haven’t produced those plans.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            How long? Not long looking at the current re-tooling ongoing.

            The 100% thing is a goal guy.

            Not unlike the “goal” to transition to unleaded fuel – which has not reached 100% in 60 years!

            Do you think mandating unleaded fuel was not tethered to any reality? Or perhaps the EPA mandates to get to cleaner air ? Or the mandates to switch refrigerants in HVACs?

            DJ, you seem to have joined the anti-govt, anti-science forces on this IMO and buying in to the rights FUD and Luddite-Lite approach to science and technology these days.

            It’s anchored in climate denial and vaccine denial for two and there are others

            It’s all about opposing efforts to address climate issues and selling disinformation to the gullible.

            It’s the very same game that the cigarette makers used on a broader and wider scale powered by the right.

            You’re not that guy, I hope.

          3. WayneS Avatar

            Well said, sir. Thank you.

          4. Chip Gibson Avatar
            Chip Gibson

            Ditto

    2. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      In addition just plain old mega amps. The WashPost has a graphic on the front page today showing electricity demand has more than doubled since 2019 and our poor old grid is struggling to keep up. They attribute that to data centers and high tech manufacturing. Add in to peak demands of 500,000 fast chargers for EVs and our power lines will melt.

      Ukraine’s demand for replacement transformers since some of theirs have been taken out of service has had an impact on the market too. Them big boys are long lead time items.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        Imagine that, they’ve managed to innovate without being mandated to do so 🙂

        1. WayneS Avatar

          Those guys have always been on the leading edge of vehicle technology. And once F1 decided to “go green”, as they say, they have made huge leaps forward in the use of hybrid technology, energy harvesting, and less-polluting materials.

          They’ve also spun off an all-electric series called Formula-E. The cars are not as fast, but the racing tends to be competitive and battery life becomes another factor in race strategy. I suspect the next great leap forward in battery technology will come from those guys.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            As they says, necessity is the mother of all invention.

            Even from the inception, look at the innovations that racing has given the ICE community, F1 and all other flavors.

          2. WayneS Avatar

            Yes.

            Over the years motorsports designers and manufacturers have perfected fuel injection, electrically-operated valve trains, disc brakes, anti-lock brakes, traction control, active suspension, the hybrid engine and a lot of other performance, efficiency and safety related technologies.

            Of course, once a race team perfects any new ‘driver-assist’ technology, it is typically banned by the sanctioning body for use in race cars.

            They want the driver to control the car. Maybe that’s why I like it so much…

          3. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            I can understand and appreciate that, makes all other things being equal (must be the engineer in you ) and depends on the skill of the driver.

          4. WayneS Avatar

            I think drawing energy from the oceans is a great idea. But as we have learned over the centuries, we need to investigate all of the consequences of doing so.

            Some sources of energy are, from the standpoint of human on this planet, essentially unlimited. The sun comes to mind. The oceans seems like one. Our oceans contain an immense amount energy, some of which we can and should harness and utilize. However, capturing that energy removes it from the ocean. And if you remove enough energy, could you affect ocean currents?

            The idea that we humans can alter ocean currents may seem absurd – maybe it is absurd – but there is some limit to the amount of energy we can safely remove from ocean waves without having a noticeable effect on something.

            I am of course not claiming that implementing fields of wave energy structures would ever alter ocean currents, but physics dictates that no source of energy is free.

          5. WayneS Avatar

            I think drawing energy from the oceans is a great idea. But as we have learned over the centuries, we need to investigate all of the consequences of doing so.

            Some sources of energy are, from the standpoint of human on this planet, essentially unlimited. The sun comes to mind. The oceans seems like one. Our oceans contain an immense amount energy, some of which we can and should harness and utilize. However, capturing that energy removes it from the ocean. And if you remove enough energy, could you affect ocean currents?

            The idea that we humans can alter ocean currents may seem absurd – maybe it is absurd – but there is some limit to the amount of energy we can safely remove from ocean waves without having a noticeable effect on something.

            I am of course not claiming that implementing fields of wave energy structures would ever alter ocean currents, but physics dictates that no source of energy is free.

          6. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            I always wondered about this. These guys seem focused on waves. I think about tides.

            The wind stops blowing, the sun stops shining, but tides just keep coming.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Yep, but the energy from tides thing has been going on for a long time and seems to have not gotten to a practical place yet.

            These might not either.

            BUt part of the point is, we need to continue to push in that direction – like we always have and not take “anti” stances against it like we are now seeing in general from the right these days.

            HEY! Do you think AI might have a role in all of this?

          8. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Yep, but the energy from tides thing has been going on for a long time and seems to have not gotten to a practical place yet.

            These might not either.

            BUt part of the point is, we need to continue to push in that direction – like we always have and not take “anti” stances against it like we are now seeing in general from the right these days.

            HEY! Do you think AI might have a role in all of this?

          9. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            I agree that “tidal power” has not progressed. I just don’t know why not.

          10. WayneS Avatar

            I think drawing energy from the oceans is a great idea. But as we have learned over the centuries, we need to investigate all of the consequences of doing so.

            Some sources of energy are, from the standpoint of humans on this planet, essentially unlimited. The sun comes to mind. The oceans seems like one. Our oceans contain an immense amount energy, some of which we can and should harness and utilize. However, capturing that energy removes it from the ocean. And if you remove enough energy, could you affect ocean currents?

            The idea that we humans can alter ocean currents may seem absurd – and maybe it is absurd – but there is some limit to the amount of energy which can be safely removed from ocean waves without having a noticeable effect on something.

            I am of course not claiming that implementing fields of wave energy structures would ever alter ocean currents, but physics dictates that no source of energy is free.

          11. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Global Warming seems to be capable of altering ocean currents, no?

            I don’t think we have to worry about trying to “use” ocean currents…. geeze … it would be have to be down in the .00001 %!

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Always! Except the one time when Indy ran turbines. That was insane!

        1. WayneS Avatar

          Except the one time when Indy ran turbines.

          That idea was a bit over the top to be sure. The 1967 STP car, with Parnelli Jones behind the wheel, was very fast, though, until the transmission ‘blowed-up’.

          Lotus entered three or four turbine cars in the 1968 race, and they performed pretty well – Graham Hill led the race for a while but crashed. Their best ‘finish’ was by former motorcycle racer Joe Leonard in 12th following a mechanical failure.

          After that, turbine cars were banned.

          Fun Facts: Joe Leonard won the 1957 and 1958 Daytona 200 motorcycle race. He was also a three-time winner of the AMA Grand National Championship series.

  9. Lefty665 Avatar
    Lefty665

    EVs are not ready for prime time yet, and the mandates are idiotic. However, they do have their niche, around town with at home charging. All in this article is not defensible either.

    The argument that EVs have greater debris from braking is false. They use regenerative braking for much of the stopping power required. That greatly reduces the use of physical brakes. My wife’s hybrid will often show 90% of braking is regenerative. Its braking particulates are lower than ICE cars. Her previous hybrid went a decade, 150k miles without needing new pads (or batteries for that matter), rather remarkable. Show me the particulates per mile studies to prove the greater brake pollution argument.

    Tires are sized and formulated for load. EVs, and hybrids for that matter, have larger tires and different compounds to deal with the load. Again from my wife’s hybrid experience, in addition being bigger the tires had a harder compound to reduce rolling resistance. That also reduced wear. She gets a lot more miles out of her tires than I do on my truck, and mine are a lot bigger so there’s more particulates to shed. Excess wear comparing same tires with different loads is nonsense.

    1. WayneS Avatar

      I was 100% with you until: Excess wear comparing same tires with different loads is nonsense.

      Maybe I misunderstood what you were driving at, but if one is going to compare tire wear between two different vehicles in the same class, and such studies are done all the time, then the tires would at least need to be the same compound, and preferably the same size.

      I am surprised that EVs would use harder compound tires, since their handling capabilities are already somewhat compromised by the increased weight of the vehicle. It seems to me that hard compound tires and a heavy vehicle are not the safest combination.

      By the way, I’ve never been a huge fan of hard compound tires on my street vehicles. I’m willing to trade a bit of tire life for better traction. I will say that in recent years, as tire technology has moved forward, that trade-off has become less and less noticeable – or maybe I’ve just slowed down a little…

      1. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        But different tires are fitted to different vehicles to match the load. A heavier load takes more tire to deliver comparable wear to lighter duty. Big feet help handling too:)

        My wife’s Fusion Hybrid came with tires 2 sizes up and aspect ratios down over a not Hybrid Fusion to compensate for the heavier load of the battery. It looks like it’s going to get 40k-50k on this set. I doubt it would be much more than half that with regular Fusion tires.

        They’re apparently also a harder compound to reduce rolling resistance. That should have an impact on tread wear too. So far they’ve handled well in the rain which was my concern.

        What is strange about it is the infinitely variable transmission. It’s about as anti stick as it can be. Push the accelerator, the engine speed goes up and gradually comes down as it accelerates. The faster you go the slower the engine turns. Sorta spooky really, but it works well. Ya get a surprisingly good boot from the electric motor ICE combo. Electric motor max torque at zero rpm is a winner.

  10. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    Like most things in life, electric vehicles, indeed, climate change are full of tradeoffs. Of course, politicians and the MSM tend to ignore them. But believe it or not, the WaPo shows some hope of examining the complexities.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/amid-explosive-demand-america-is-running-out-of-power/ar-BB1jtM69

  11. Paul Sweet Avatar
    Paul Sweet

    Tire and brake dust pollution and increased road wear can’t be blamed solely on the 1000 pound batteries in electric vehicles. People trading their 4000 pound sedans and stati0n wagons for 5000 to 6000 pound SUVs and pickup trucks share the blame.

    At this time I think that hybrid vehicles are the best compromise. They have greatly increased gas mileage, especially in town, and less of a weight penalty. I expect that in a decade or two electric vehicle technology will have improved enough that there will be only a few limited applications where internal combustion engines will make more sense.

  12. The Marxists can shut down ev stations and keep those unwashed masses from red states from protesting in Washington DC

Leave a Reply