Motorway noise won’t be reduced by electrification:
Graph:
Car noise sources, ICE drivetrain with a notchy transmission.
The little table about cars and trucks compares the crossover speeds above which tyre noise surpasses drivetrain noise.
Meaning:
The constant traffic roar in the suburbs will continue, because at dual carriageway speed, eliminating drivetrain noise has minuscule effect on total noise.
As, Hg and Se exhaust emissions were dominated by fuel combustion while Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn exhaust emissions were dominated by lubricant oil combustion.
My point was that electric cars, as a drop-in replacement for ICE cars, increase the quality of life in cities. And substantially.
Go to Shenzhen and you will see what I am talking about.
The overall energy issue is irrelevant to that. The motorway noise issue is irrelevant to that.
Also: the graph you post on particle pollution, with its title “far more particles”, is misleading. It refers to tyres specifically. But particles also come from brakes and, of course, combustion. The overall increase is minimal, and very dependent on the speed of the vehicles - which can be reduced in cities.
Particles aside (it’s an issue, yes), EVs emit zero gases. They are hugely quieter at lower speeds. The difference it makes in cities is big and real.
[This comment is now included under the image in question]
The little table about cars and trucks compares the crossover speed above which tyre noise surpasses drivetrain noise.
Graph:
Car noise sources, ICE drivetrain with a notchy transmission.
Meaning:
The constant traffic roar in the suburbs will continue, because at dual carriageway speed, eliminating drivetrain noise has minuscule effect on total noise.
Motorway noise won’t be reduced by electrification:
Graph: Car noise sources, ICE drivetrain with a notchy transmission.
The little table about cars and trucks compares the crossover speeds above which tyre noise surpasses drivetrain noise.
Meaning: The constant traffic roar in the suburbs will continue, because at dual carriageway speed, eliminating drivetrain noise has minuscule effect on total noise.
Urban planning won’t be improved:
Heavy metal pollution will be reduced:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231012006942
Microplastic pollution will increase:
This is nitpicking.
My point was that electric cars, as a drop-in replacement for ICE cars, increase the quality of life in cities. And substantially.
Go to Shenzhen and you will see what I am talking about.
The overall energy issue is irrelevant to that. The motorway noise issue is irrelevant to that.
Also: the graph you post on particle pollution, with its title “far more particles”, is misleading. It refers to tyres specifically. But particles also come from brakes and, of course, combustion. The overall increase is minimal, and very dependent on the speed of the vehicles - which can be reduced in cities.
Particles aside (it’s an issue, yes), EVs emit zero gases. They are hugely quieter at lower speeds. The difference it makes in cities is big and real.
I’m failing to see how the first image is relevant. Isnt that comparing cars and trucks, not electric and ICE?
[This comment is now included under the image in question]
The little table about cars and trucks compares the crossover speed above which tyre noise surpasses drivetrain noise.
Graph:
Car noise sources, ICE drivetrain with a notchy transmission.
Meaning:
The constant traffic roar in the suburbs will continue, because at dual carriageway speed, eliminating drivetrain noise has minuscule effect on total noise.
They will in slow speed zones. Motorcycles are the worst offenders
Surely, but the image you show depict 2 entirely different situations. Trying to compare them is dumb. It also has serious implications.
Sure. That’s something, but not the only source of pollution.
Are you some kind of source-posting diety? I submit myself for worship