[1]https://www.ridef2.com/blog-del-direttore-ridef/will-electri...
[2]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13522...
And the claim is a bit dubious, imo. It looks like they're counting "resuspension" (kicking up existing settled PM2.5 in the wake) as a source.
[1]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13522...
It's almost as if regenerative breaking reduces break wear and compensates for the marginal increase weight as many other people have already pointed out?
- most PM 2.5 pollution is produced by brake pad and tire wear
- which [i.e. PM 2.5 pollution produced by brake pad and tire wear] is made worse by EVs due to their weight
These are direct quotes from my links:
- "A large fraction (50-85% and up to 90%) of traffic generated PM10 and PM2,5 is not due to the exhaust emissions by the motor, but rather to non-exhaust emissions (brake wear, road wear, tyre wear and road dust resuspension)"
- "A positive relationship exists between vehicle weight and non-exhaust emissions."... "Electric vehicles are 24% heavier than their conventional counterparts."
Both are true. However, without factoring in decreased friction-brake usage in EVs (due to regenerative braking), this point is meaningless or deceptive.
Personally, I would like light EVs.
> A positive relationship exists between vehicle weight and non-exhaust emissions."
As others already pointed out, that is the same study, the same study that found that EV's create less particulate pollution. The more weight = more particulate emission part did not control for EV regenerative breaking. So your position is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worse.
This will be my last comment here on the account that I will not debate facts with random people on the internet. If you can't be bothered to read the study, don't cite it, don't reference it and for god's sake don't try to use it to say something that is literally the opposite of it's findings.
But if that is all you have to add to this discussion, I wonder why you bothered.
