EVs don’t have tailpipe emission but they have tire and brake dust (worse, due to the average weight) and make tire and wind noise, not to mention having horns. From a climate change perspective, less CO2 is better but for things like heart disease, asthma, stress as well as water pollution they’re not much of an improvement.
> have tire and brake dust (worse, due to the average weight)
this isn't really true. EV brakes barely get any use because of regenerative breaking, and EV tires tend to be stiffer which mostly evens out the tires.
> Assuming lightweight EVs (i.e. with battery packs enabling a driving range of about 100 miles), the report finds that EVs emit an estimated 11-13% less non-exhaust PM2.5 and 18-19% less PM10 than ICEVs. Assuming that EV models are heavier (with battery packs enabling a driving range of 300 miles or higher), however, the report finds that they reduce PM10 by only 4-7% and increase PM2.5 by 3-8% relative to conventional vehicles. Additional simulations indicate that the uptake of electric vehicles will lead to very marginal decreases in total PM emissions from road traffic in future years. In scenarios where electric vehicles comprise 4% and 8% of the vehicle stock in 2030, their penetration reduces PM emissions by 0.3%-0.8% relative to current levels.
And by studied you mean come up with synthetic / theoretical models that are not verified against reality?
Ignoring actual tailpipe emissions and focusing on large PM10 particles like dust kicked up from the road is not a serious evaluation of the benefits of EVs vs combustion engines
This sub-thread came from someone specifically questioning a comment acdha had made about non-tailpipe emissions. To bring tailpipe emissions back up here is a bit of a non-sequitur.
That’s just one of many studies - look at the fishery damage caused by tires in the PNW next - but I’m not arguing against EVs, only that they are not a solution to pollution and any better world should involve fewer and smaller cars.
