Don't be in such a panic over "non-exhaust pollutants" from hybrids and electrics just yet

"No, I don't thank you for the fish at all" (notindetroit) 05/10/2016 at 15:57 • Filed to: pollution, electric cars, science, science-y stuff

2

13

I’m really not in the mood to type of an organized, professional-looking article this time so I’ll just get right to the bullet points on why there may be drastic “non-exhaust” pollution reduction in the future, so you can hold on to your Tesla:

Plastic Roads

“Tarmac,” “Macadam” or “Asphalt”road surfaces are mostly made up of petroleum products and can have a variety of consistency, from a tar-gravel aggregate to basically plasticized tar. They have many advantages over concrete road surfaces, such as being smoother, and one benefit touted by state DOTs is that they are much more recyclable - a machine can scrape up and grind an obsolete road surface for reuse being laid down somewhere else. Unfortunately the downside is that they produce much more particulate pollutants - and if Jason’s article seems counter-intuitive on how that can be, all you need to do is look at any well-worn tarmac surface (quite possibly the road in front of your very house) and see the tar-coated pebbles that clog the street’s gutters. Now, imagine those pieces being ground smaller and smaller not just by traffic but by weather-related forces, and those particles become small enough to get airborne.

A plastic road surface - a true plastic road surface, made of the exact same petroleum products that current tarmac is made of but chemically rearranged to resemble more of, say, a sturdy plastic shipping box - has the potential to be much more wear-resistant and thus producing significantly less airborne particulate. Granted the airborne pollutants would still be there, but reduction and mitigation still results in meaningful improvement. Being plastic, they would not only last longer but be just as easily recyclable (even completely relocatable) and easier and potentially more green to manufacture. They may also be easier on tires, reducing tire-contributed airborne particulates (a major problem even Jason’s piece somewhat understates - and why many municipalities prefer light rail to buses).

Electromagnetic brakes

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! use the force of magnetism to assist in physical-contact braking and some scientists hope one day they can completely supplant physical-contact braking altogether. In the course of Maglev trains, that literally hover over a track using magnetic force, non-physical contact pure-electromagnetic braking is one practical means of stopping such a train although physical-contact forms of braking are also widely used. A Maglev train (or an electromagnetic railgun) also perhaps best demonstrates how this principal works - at its simplest a train can be represented by a magnetic bar that if “floating” on a long track consisting of other magnetic bars. The “train” has polarity identical to the “track” and thus is “repelled” by the track. This is useful for floating, but not very useful for actual forward locomotion - to do that, some of the magnetic bars on the track ahead of the “train” have their polarities switched to be in polar opposite of the “train” and thus attracting the “train” forward. Since the attraction is strong enough to crash the bars on top of each other, the polarity is switched back to keep the “train” floating, but not too soon as to disrupt forward momentum.

But what if you want to disrupt forward momentum? Switch all the magnets on the track back to the same polarity as the “train” and it will come to a floating halt. And now you have braking!

Magnetic forces can also offer an assist to the rotor brakes on your car while also recharging batteries, just as they do on a Tesla. By reducing the stress of braking, it could more than make up for the added weight those brakes have to deal with.

Party-vi > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 05/10/2016 at 16:12

2

What’s the static friction coefficient for tires on plastic? I’m wondering if it’s better than tires on a wet/dry asphalt or concrete surface. Also, would the plastic degrade after years of oils, coolant, and lord knows what else is dropped onto it?

Hoccy > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 05/10/2016 at 16:16

2

I wonder how the plastic roads would cope with seasonal frost in the ground underneath? Regular tarmac is elastic to some degree, could this feature be replicated with plastic without losing the sturdy, weathering resistant surface? What if the plastic surface cracks because of the frost heave? Is it then as resistant as it was earlier? Does it even have the same characteristics at very low (or very high) temperatures?

I’m all for inventions that has an environmental benefit, as long as it works under all possible long term conditions.

HammerheadFistpunch > Party-vi 05/10/2016 at 16:24

1

and UV

Nibby > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 05/10/2016 at 16:26

1

I’d say scrap asphault and plastic roads altogether.

Blood is pavement.

ZoopZoopLoops > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 05/10/2016 at 16:26

2

There are many ways to reduce the non-exhaust pollutants of any vehicle. Heavier will always consume more to accelerate, but the entire factor can be reduced via technology, infrastructure, or regulation to make this aspect of the argument vs combustion engines moot.

It is great that people are considering the entire car’s potential pollution rather than just the singular hot topics. The technologies you mention can eventually become enough of a business case as electric cars have done.

Autonomous cars will be able to drive more efficiently than the masses of human drivers, which can certainly lead to less tire and brake wear. It will be easier to implement the technologies that you pointed out once I no longer care about the responsive feel I get from daily driving my Bridgestone RE-71R’s. I will only have to care about the feel of R-compounds when I’m at the track on the weekends.

Party-vi > HammerheadFistpunch 05/10/2016 at 16:31

1

I forgot about that.

random001 > HammerheadFistpunch 05/10/2016 at 16:32

2

UV is a myth propagated by climate change propagandists and sun tan lotion snake oil salesmen.

HammerheadFistpunch > Party-vi 05/10/2016 at 16:33

1

yeah, even UV stabilized plastic turns to crud in 20-30 years.

Loping Camshaft > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 05/10/2016 at 17:03

1

Solution:

We should just get rid of paved roads altogether and just drive lifted Subarus and 240Zs.

facw > Loping Camshaft 05/10/2016 at 17:07

1

Road dust is a major pollutant in India, where many roads still aren’t paved, but there are many cars.

Vlachen > Nibby 05/10/2016 at 17:08

1

Blood also makes the grass grow.

Loping Camshaft > facw 05/10/2016 at 17:24

1

This is the reason we need hydrogen cars. Use that H2O exhaust to keep the dust down.

facw > Loping Camshaft 05/10/2016 at 17:31

1

Hmm:

Looks like we are good. No hydrogen powered rally commuting for you :P