[sathackr]

yes. it's an argument that since EVs are heavier than fossil-fuel vehicles due to their batteries, that they generate more particulate emissions (brakes/tire dust) than fossil-fuel vehicles.

it's a wrong argument, but it's still circulated in groups of factually-challenged people

[globular-toast]

Nobody said they generate more but simply that they generate some. Modern petrol engines output very little particulates so almost all the particulates are from tyres and brakes. Why would EVs produce any less?

[seanmcdirmid]

While EVs are heavier—increasing tire wear—their regenerative braking significantly reduces brake dust, and they eliminate tailpipe exhaust entirely. Overall, EVs offer a net reduction in particulates.

[kjkjadksj]

Now compare that to a 2200lb civic with a 5 speed you can engine brake with.

[globular-toast]

> Overall, EVs offer a net reduction in particulates.

Nobody said anything to the contrary.

I am sceptical about the reduction versus a modern, efficient hybrid, though. Those can use regenerative braking too.

EVs are heavier which increases road wear. Everyone loves to forget about the road.

When it comes to particulates and other issues, EVs are just "less bad". We still need to push for walking, cycling and trams and stop pretending that EVs solve the bigger problems. I hate how every comment on HN that doesn't sing the praises of EVs from the rooftops gets immediately downvoted. We can do better than "less bad". We should be aiming much higher.

I wish EVs happened earlier, before the explosion in fossil fuels that led to enormous vehicles with full air-conditioning "cabins" (more like portable living rooms). EVs being slow to charge is an extremely good thing for us. It makes it obvious that this energy isn't free and takes a while to accumulate. If this was obvious from the start, I doubt people would have wanted these huge, inefficient things. Imagine opting for a climate controlled cabin or a larger vehicle if it meant a significant increase in charging time. Nobody would go for it unless they really had to.

[seanmcdirmid]

> EVs are heavier which increases road wear. Everyone loves to forget about the road.

Passenger vehicles are pretty negligible when it comes to road wear compared to trucks (1000 times more). The weight is more important when we consider freight trucks (electric freight trains just get the power from overhead cables or a third rail). As freight trucks transition to electric, we will definitely have more road wear to worry about.

> When it comes to particulates and other issues, EVs are just "less bad".

Is this a perfect is the enemy of good argument? I mean sure, using public transit, bikes, and walking is better than using private personal transportation. But I can tell you...Beijing has all of that and electric cars are still much better than the ICEs they used to have.

> I hate how every comment on HN that doesn't sing the praises of EVs from the rooftops gets immediately downvoted.

All kinds of Perfect is the enemy of good comments generally get downvoted because the fallacy is overused on HN.

> Imagine opting for a climate controlled cabin or a larger vehicle if it meant a significant increase in charging time.

It really depends on how much you need to drive.

[tokamak-teapot]

The WSJ and Daily Mail both ran stories with headlines explicitly stating that they generate more particulates. I can't find any credible source stating the same, so I'm assuming the stories were the usual agenda fiction, but they do exist.

[ifwinterco]

It's an argument that means you can still say cars are bad even if they're electric, which may be true but also clearly leans into some people's preexisting biases