EVs Will Increase Tyre Toxin Pollution
By Paul Homewood
h/t Paul Kolk
From The Telegraph:
Drivers of electric cars are unwittingly releasing more toxic tyre particles into the air than those driving petrol vehicles, experts have warned.
Scientists, analysts and regulators are growing increasingly concerned about the amount of potentially harmful tiny particles coming off tyres, especially those from heavier cars such as electric vehicles, due to the number of toxic petrochemicals that they are made from.
This comes as the Government is attempting to reduce carbon emissions under its “net zero” drive by encoruaging drivers to use electric cars. Motorists with older petrol vehicles in London also face fresh charges to enter Sadiq Khan’s Ultra-low emission zone (Ulez), which is expanding to cover all London boroughs from August.
Ministers have also been considering a “tyre tax” to cut harmful emissions.
However, experts have warned that non-exhaust pollution will rise when more electric cars are on the road.
Professor Roy M. Harrison, at the School of Geography, Earth & Environmental Sciences at the University of Birmingham, said: “The non-exhaust emissions from road traffic in developed countries now exceed the exhaust emissions, so that is a problem. And it’s a problem that will get slightly worse as we go into a battery electric fleet and also as traffic volumes probably increase additionally.”
Modern tyres contain around 400 organic compounds, many of which are derived from crude oil. Some of these are highly toxic chemicals such as naphthalene, toluene, and isoprene, as well as heavy metals like zinc and lead.
Every time someone drives, tiny bits of their tyres break away, releasing a range of these toxic chemicals, both in larger pieces and nanoparticles. The bigger pieces will be carried off the road by rain into rivers and sewage, where they may seep into the earth or flow into the sea. The smaller particles will filter into the air and be breathed in by humans and animals, reaching deep into the lungs.
Nick Molden, chief executive at Emissions Analytics, which studies the pollution caused by tyres, said: “We’re going diametrically in the wrong direction at the moment by making our vehicles heavier.
“SUVs and electric cars are shedding an awful lot of tiny but nasty chemicals – some of which are highly carcinogenic – which we’re partly inhaling but are also getting into our water and food.”
Emissions Analytics conducted a test last year that concluded almost 2,000 times more particle pollution is produced by tyre wear than what is pumped out of the exhausts of modern cars.
“If you’re worried about burning fossil fuels in your car engine, you should be as worried about the wear from tyres”, Molden said. “Tailpipe emissions really only affect the air, whereas tyre wear affects air, soil and water.”
This is an issue for the UK and other nations as they move towards having more electric cars. The heavier a vehicle, the greater wear a tyre will face. Electric vehicles weigh an average of 200kg to 300kg more than a petrol car, due to the battery pack. They also need higher torque – the twisting power that launches a car from a standing start – than internal combustion engines, which also puts more pressure on the tyres.
The tyre manufacturer Michelin said conventional tyres wear out around 20pc faster in an electric vehicle, while Goodyear said they can wear out as much as 50pc faster.
In February, researchers at Imperial College London called for more research into the potentially harmful impact of toxic tyre particles on health and the environment. It said six million tonnes of tyre wear particles are released globally each year, and in London alone, 2.6 million vehicles emit around nine thousand tonnes of tyre wear particles annually.
The weight of electric vehicles is already causing concern from some engineers that they will put some multi-storey car parks built in the 1960s and 70s under such pressure they will be at the risk of collapse, The Telegraph reported in April. Government ministers have also urged councils to check how much weight bridges in their area can hold.
This may become even more of an issue in the future as electric cars are set to carry more weight. Rather than battery packs getting lighter as technology advances, electric car manufacturers like Tesla are actually opting for heavier iron-based batteries that do not use the expensive, scarce materials of nickel and cobalt.
I’m sure a tyre tax will solve the problem!!
We have known about the greater tyre wear on EVs for years, with its implications for particulate matter pollution. But the issue of toxic chemicals is now an added problem.
Interestingly, Michelin comment that tyre wear could be 20% higher. Tyre replacement for my car is the biggest maintenance cost for me, so along with extra brake pad wear the claim that EVs are cheaper to maintain sounds like hogwash.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
The message is clear, the war on the motorist will not stop until everyone is forced out of their cars and on to a bike, bus, or train.
But what about the tax revenue? I can’t see the most successful cash cow ever being culled anytime soon.
They don’t care. The object is
You will be poor
You will be cold
You will be hungry
You will lose your car
You will lose your job
You will lose your house
You will lose your mind
The scraremongering against private transport never stops, but at least they are waking up to even more problems with electric cars in addition to pathetic ranges, long charging times, more expensive, lack of manual transmissions, lack of normal size vehicles (most are expensive city runabouts) and the few normal size ones are toys for rich people.
And the extraordinary damage to the environment the mining of the unbelievable amounts of rare earths needed for the batteries etc. But no worries! To save the environment, we must destroy it.
https://www.netzerowatch.com/britains-electric-car-strategy-is-doomed-to-failure/
“Turning to the raw materials needed to produce batteries, Kelly claims: “If we replace all of the UK vehicle fleet with EVs, and assuming they use the most resource-frugal next-generation batteries, we would need the following materials:
207,900 tonnes of cobalt – just under twice the annual global production;
264,600 tonnes of lithium carbonate – three-quarters of the world’s production;
at least 7,200 tonnes of neodymium and dysprosium – nearly the entire world production of neodymium; and
2,362,500 tonnes of copper – more than half the world’s production in 2018”
Most rare earths and critical resource minerals are mined and processed in China. So western EV drivers can virtue signal whilst trashing China’s environment as many of the processes used there would not be allowed in the West.
Yup. And mining Neodymium (used in turbines as well) is extremely carcinogenic.
Still, there’s loads more Chinese miners where the dead ones come from.
For Greens, the ends (clean air in the UK) justifies the means (environmental hell in the 3rd world). The end justifying the means is a core belief of totalitarianism.
Size! I was invited to the opening of our Toyota Dealerships new sales showroom this week. I’m not in the market for a new vehicle and won’t be for some time but went out of curiosity. The size of the vehicles was amazing they are huge. The interior space hasn’t increased it’s all used up by all thestuff needed for a hybrid.
What isn’t publicised is the difference in mpg between urban and motorway driving in some these hybrids. The best is in urban environments where regenrative breaking comes into play, one model claimed 70+mpg in urban and about 20% less on motorways no better than my current vehicle taking into account my real numbers and their test values. Carting around a large battery and electric motor which are rarely used on motorways doesn’t help. So if you only ever drive in town and do a high mileage then a hybrid might be a good option. Explains why taxi drivers use a Prius which isn’t available new at the moment
The BZ4X pure electric a monster with a range of 315 miles maximum depending on model specification, and 30 minute standard charge to 80% (fast charging is available). So well less than 300 miles range in reality, recharge at 200-250 miles max. Don’t understand why journalists give us heart rending stories of testing EV performance between Bristol and Glasgow. It’s obvious what will happen.
And of course the usual attacks against “SUVs”. The manufacturers actually got it right with SUVs and produced practical vehicles in demand by the market. But the politicians have never stopped attacking them.
Until MPs finally realise that:
Manmade carbon dioxide emissions are not the sole or even major (or minor !) cause of climate change, and that
Cutting manmade carbon dioxide emissions will not have any measurable effect on the climate, then
We are doomed to ever more self impoverishing legislation making everything more expensive and cutting down individual choice and freedom.
—
I would like to think I am seeing a little more public push back against Net Zero, but my goodness there is a lot of damage going to be done to our country before it stops.
Please keep posting on public sites where you can – even if it means taking out a subscription to a newspaper you don’t really like.
Basically, Just Stop Net Zero https://www.juststopnetzero.com/
There does seem to be a bit of a campaign against EVs at the moment, depreciation, tyre pollution, battery fires, lack of working chargers, cobalt child labour, bring it on. U-turn on ICE vehicles coming up?
Let’s hope so and that the politicians stop and reverse ALL the attacks on ICE vehicles.
Multi-fuel ICE is what is needed – petrol, diesel, LPG as outlined here: https://www.liquidpiston.com/ but I haven’t read all the detail there yet.
>>U-turn on ICE vehicles coming up?
Or, if EVs turn out to be NOT the vehicular Messiah as advertised, the Ecoloons might then conclude that ANY car or should I say non publicly operated transport….should be “cancelled”…
That’s the plan. But the arguments are all BS. Air quality is excellent after all the stinky old buses have been replaced.
Exactly – a recent video showing the pollution in London Underground vs the street above was a very inconvenient revelation to Kahn and his ecoloons. Just a fact they will not wish to acknowledge …
I have been saying for five years that tyre wear, brake dust and increased road damage would be the result of the very heavy EVs.
No one will listen to an Automotive Engineer with a science based degree. What could I know. Listen to the Oxford PPEs who know apparently everything which is why they have been in charge of the UK for seventy years overseeing our orderly collapse.
And just wait as our 40 tonners turn overnight into 60 tonners, with their concomitant destruction of roads.
From several decades of travelling throughout Western Europe, tyre wear and brake dust has always been a problem. Autobahns with unrestricted speed are tough on both; driving in an mountainous region in France, Austria and Germany is especially tougher on both – a sticking brake problem caused by steep ascents and descents in southern Germany fixed by German main dealer and he told me very specifically that apart from servicing the bulk of their work is tyres and brakes because of the pounding they take (not diminished by the standard of driving the dealer told me…)
Because you miss the point. Politicians start with something they want to to do – ban cars – and then find reasons to do so. The notion that politicians look at a problem and then dispassionately discover its causes and the best solution is quaint.
You can take that back a further stage and ask why they want what they want. It’s what they think will sound good to peers and electorate. Pure bien pesant-erie, virtue signalling etc. Mind you I’d rather you didn’t press me too hard on my reasons why I want to do things in ordinary life. How many would pass scrutiny of cool calculation weighing up costs and consequences?
No doubt, but neither you nor I wish to impose our irrational choices on others!
That is the difference between normal people and politicians/control freaks
If a normal person doesn’t like product X, he doesn’t buy/use it, but would never dream of banning it or hammering with taxes and regulations.
>>impose our irrational choices on others
Politics trumping engineering and technology never works. We shouldn’t be surprised.
Unfortunately, that’s where we are going.
Why has this concern only surfaced recently?
Cars have been getting heavier for ages due to growth, crash protection and all the extra creature comforts we now require – and the huge popularity of SUVs. Iirc, a Land Rover Discovery is well over 2 tonnes!
The article does not mention the decline in annual mileage, especially since the move to working from home: less miles = less pollution.
Brake wear is much less of an issue for EVs than for conventional ICE vehicles because they use regenerative braking. Many have the option of “one-pedal” driving where acceleration and retardation are all modulated by the throttle pedal; the brakes are only used for sudden stops, in excess of the regen.
I don’t have an EV and have no intention of getting one unless forced to and/or my usage patterns change. While they work for some people, they are not a universal panacea and there are major problems looming with materials, public charging, grid load, impact on local distribution infrastructure, etc..
However this article smells like EV bashing and is sadly reminiscent of the many OTT climate scare-stories that we face every day.
ICE cars have been getting heavier due to the construction and use regulations forcing things to be installed that neither the manufacturers nor the market asked for.
I thought cars were getting lighter Mike.
They used to, but the anti-rust protection has improved.
But look at all the things that most people don’t need or want that is now mandatory due to regulations and legislation.
Take a look sometime at the weights of the same make and model outside Europe
>>I thought cars were getting lighter
Not just the anti-rust protection but the quality of the steel.
In the 1970s British Steel used to produce a grade for the automotive industry that was £10 per ton cheaper because £10 worth less oxygen was pumped through it while it was molten to remove the phosphorus, arsenic etc. that caused it to rust by electrolytic action, Italian steel was even worse which is why you can practically watch Fiats of certain years dissolving in the rain in front of your very eyes!
If you go to classic car rallies you can tell the years that British Steel was on strike and the industry had to import higher quality steel from Sweden and Germany by the years of the entirely rust-free vehicles with certain letters on the number plate, F, G and H are much more common than most.
Modern tyres contain around 400 organic compounds, many of which are derived from crude oil.
So ‘Just Stop Oil’ = just stop tyres, unless they’re natural rubber only?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_rubber
From Wikipedia: Rubber, also called India rubber, latex, Amazonian rubber, caucho, or caoutchouc,[1] as initially produced, consists of polymers of the organic compound isoprene, with minor impurities of other organic compounds.
It seems to me natural rubber isn’t going to solve this problem.
“The poison is in the dose” goes the old adage. Trees emit isoprene and toluene, that doesn’t stop us from going for a walk in the woods. Give a “scientist” a piece of kit that can detect stuff in tiny concentrations and tell him that his grant depends on saying something socially relevant and hey presto a new bugaboo to frighten us all.
Yes. If you task people with finding heresy, and make their livelihood dependent on them finding heresy, then you end up like the Spanish Inquisition – continually finding ever more micro examples of heresy. (Ditto race)
Look at almost any scientific article – it will have the climate change mantra mentioned – just like 500 years ago books and articles had to mention the glory of god etc in order to be published ; and it will usually end with a plea for more research (= more money please.)
—-
Re your opening adage. A German doctor I met when travelling in Asia in 1976 said to me “Ah, David, you see all medicine is poison, the only difference is the dose.” Long remembered, as you can tell 🙂
I perhaps should have added that a touch of Asperger’s would help, especially if shared by the supervisor, or some other inhibitory factor that reduces the input from the part of the brain where commonsense and a sense of proportion live.
Could be your German doctor friend got it straight from Paracelsus:-) First uttered at the opening meeting of WG1 of the IPTBMG (Intergovernmental Panel on the Transmutation of Base Metal to Gold).
Zinc is good for the Wuflu too.
Quiute so; Pines, for one, emit Terpenes which has very beneficial effects to humans. The biophilic effect on humans is well documented…….
““The poison is in the dose” goes the old adage.”
Exactly.
Just another alarmist scare based on the statistical sophistry of the Liner No Threshold BS.
Cancel the trees:
https://www.southernliving.com/travel/why-are-the-blue-ridge-mountains-blue
The TUV found an above average number of defects in the brakes of battery cars. The regenerative braking causes the brake pads to lose efficiency through lack of use so that when you do need them they will not work as expected. Their advice was to regularly use the brakes to keep the pads and discs clean.
TUV also so more failures due to axle problems in battery cars.
Advise from the Colonies: Don’t lick the street.
‘Scientists, analysts and regulators are growing increasingly concerned’
Gamecock translation: Communists have found a new angle to attack the bourgeoisie.
‘This comes as the Government is attempting to reduce carbon emissions under its “net zero” drive by encoruaging drivers to use electric cars.’
Yep. Push the people into electric cars, then BAN ’em. Who didn’t see this coming? Again.
‘The smaller particles will filter into the air and be breathed in by humans and animals, reaching deep into the lungs.’
Steve Milloy debunked this trope years ago. See junkscience.com.
‘Modern tyres contain around 400 organic compounds, many of which are derived from crude oil.’
What does ‘derived from crude oil’ add to this? It proves the article is BS agitprop.
Unintended consequences are still consequences. Reality will win in the end.
We need an ‘open-day’ for the extermination of these goddamned ‘experts!
That 20% mentioned by Michelin will be more than compensated by the reduction in car ownership. Though, come to think of it, there will be an increase in the number of delivery vans as folks are obliged to shop from home.
The politicians have a problem. They are so invested in Net Zero, man induced climate change and a climate crisis that realising they’ve been had and changing direction is not an option. How would they be able to carry on as politicians if what they have been supporting with gusto is then accepted to be just plain wrong. They would be lucky to not be charged with treason by any incoming party. They will probably say they were following the science but that’s no excuse in my book.
There is no ‘the science’ in predicting future climate scenarios.
Another non-issue.
Fuss about nothing. Stop using tyres, start using tracks, like a tank. Easy peasy.
While Mr. Khan has denied that the level of particulates in the underground is not dangerous at around 100 times those found near roads. This is untrue according to American research which considers the iron particulates just as toxic as carbon, Tyre and brake dust.
How about the platinum, palladium and rhodium from catalytic converters that have been in road dust in sufficient quantities for years now to make recovery profitable?
Platinum from road dust, Veolia cleans up on British streets
PARIS, Dec 2 (Reuters) – French firm Veolia is recycling precious metals worth 100,000 pounds ($155,000) each year from dust swept off British streets and plans to recover more by opening two new plants.
Every day, catalytic converters in cars spit out minute particles of platinum, palladium and rhodium, which end up in road sweepings gathered by waste recyclers like Veolia.
https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-environment-dust-idUSL6N0TM38A20141202
And plenty of other companies doing it too.
If tyre particles are unhealthy I can’t see inhalation of finely divided potent catalysts being any more conducive to good health, somehow.
It’s all nonsense. Most of these things are essentially inert in our bodies. We put very large quantities of metals, plastics and ceramics in bodies every day in the form of joint replacements, heart valves, pacemakers and so on. PMs we deal with and always have doge e.g. pollen.
Quite a bit of hype here I agree although fighting fire with fire provides some justification perhaps. PM2.5 scare is just that.
‘The EPA and auto/truck industry rentseeker-funded Health Effects Institute has a new study claiming that cleaner air increases the risk of death …’
https://junkscience.com/2022/01/pm2-5-reaching-new-depths-of-fraud-cleaner-air-is-deadlier-air/
Not only more particulates but also more road damage, which is proportional to the 4th power of the axle weight.
Therefore, an EV, which is typically 1.5-2.0 times heavier than an ICE vehicle, causes 5-8 times the more road damage when compared with its ICE equivalent.
‘Sadiq Khan’s Ultra-low emission zone (Ulez)’
How does one get food into an Ultra-low emission zone?
Will the UN in blue helmets bring food to the starving people of London? Will the British military stop them? Do the British have a military?
How does one get rubbish out of an Ultra-low emission zone?
How does one move his business OUT OF an Ultra-low emission zone?
Perhaps the delivery companies should simply refuse to make ANY deliveries at all within the “emission zones” AND of course to the control freaks that created them irrespective of where their own addresses are.
It would also help if shops and other businesses refused to sell anything at all to the eco-terrorists (and their families).
>>How does one get food into an Ultra-low emission zone?
At least with ULEZs one has the option to pay. But with LTNs that option does not exist – the roads are closed. Who is going to buy a property with no access for personal or visitor use, no deliveries (inc Amazon), no tradespeople, no taxis, no emergency vehicles etc. How does that place the mortgage lenders? Anyone remember Northern Rock?
Delivery companies should point blank refuse to make ANY deliveries to those zones instead of paying even more taxes in addition to road tax and fuel tax.
>>At least with ULEZs one has the option to pay
And what happens for people and businesses who were already in such zones BEFORE all the roads got closed? They cannot do anything now and they cannot sell the property. Only those who rent rather than buy can escape. But even that has financial consequences and long notice periods to terminate a rent agreement.
>>LTNs that option does not exist – the roads are closed
Some good news. Police in the Netherlands used water cannons to disperse 1500 extinction rebellion protesters blocking a major road. It didn’t work so they arrested the lot.
Let’s hope they put those ER idiots in jail and throw away the key AND make them pay compensation for all the damage they cause and have caused.
“…Let’s hope…”
‘Realist’ should change his moniker, if he does hope.
First, the enemy sends spies into the city. Then it sends whisperers to stir up the malcontents. Then it sends gold to bribe the officials.
Then it sends saboteurs. Then it attacks the surrounding countryside, and ruins the trade of the city and starves it. Then it brings an army of brutes to attack the walls, sneering that the gods of the city have already fled away. The enemy enters with the aid of the ‘fifth columns.”. The people sigh with relief; “This is not so bad!” Then the enemy makes towers of skulls.
The sooner people realise that all this electronic vehicle and clean air zone bullying is about control and making money for the corporation the better.
Watch “EXPOSING the LEZ and ULEZ air quality SCAM in Scotland, London and Beyond.”
Why not tax Ministers that cannot pass a high school physics test?