Auto Pollution

[91040]

From Marketwatch:

http://www.marketwatch.com/video/as...r-health/1FA37327-D88F-4EE4-B396-B6E2534C3949

Nov. 7, 2011
New research from Los Angeles, a city defined by the automobile, adds to a pattern of public health studies in recent months on the surprising impact of air pollution from tail pipe exhaust. Lee Hotz has details on Lunch Break.

 

[91040]

I was thinking about this yesterday while reading about the autism-car pollution link.. perhaps its time to increase the number of HOV lanes in LA. How would that fly?.. riots?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203733504577024000381790904.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"As roadways choke on traffic, researchers suspect that the tailpipe exhaust from cars and trucks—especially tiny carbon particles already implicated in heart disease, cancer and respiratory ailments—may also injure brain cells and synapses key to learning and memory."

 

[91040]

From BBC News: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17704116" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Referenced report: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es2040416" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Cars and lorries emit right by where people live and work and so have a greater impact," explains lead author Steven Barrett.

 

[91040]

The way that even low levels of carbon monoxide can be fatal, by disrupting the heart's rhythm, has been unravelled by researchers in Leeds.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19093308" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[91040]

Wonder if this study's conclusions are well founded?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x/abstract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles

Summary

Electric vehicles (EVs) coupled with low-carbon electricity sources offer the potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and exposure to tailpipe emissions from personal transportation. In considering these benefits, it is important to address concerns of problem-shifting. In addition, while many studies have focused on the use phase in comparing transportation options, vehicle production is also significant when comparing conventional and EVs. We develop and provide a transparent life cycle inventory of conventional and electric vehicles and apply our inventory to assess conventional and EVs over a range of impact categories. We find that EVs powered by the present European electricity mix offer a 10% to 24% decrease in global warming potential (GWP) relative to conventional diesel or gasoline vehicles assuming lifetimes of 150,000 km. However, EVs exhibit the potential for significant increases in human toxicity, freshwater eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and metal depletion impacts, largely emanating from the vehicle supply chain. Results are sensitive to assumptions regarding electricity source, use phase energy consumption, vehicle lifetime, and battery replacement schedules. Because production impacts are more significant for EVs than conventional vehicles, assuming a vehicle lifetime of 200,000 km exaggerates the GWP benefits of EVs to 27% to 29% relative to gasoline vehicles or 17% to 20% relative to diesel. An assumption of 100,000 km decreases the benefit of EVs to 9% to 14% with respect to gasoline vehicles and results in impacts indistinguishable from those of a diesel vehicle. Improving the environmental profile of EVs requires engagement around reducing vehicle production supply chain impacts and promoting clean electricity sources in decision making regarding electricity infrastructure.

Troy R. Hawkins,
Bhawna Singh,
Guillaume Majeau-Bettez,
Anders Hammer Strømman

Article first published online: 4 OCT 2012

BBC News summary of the study http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19830232" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Electric cars might pollute much more than petrol or diesel-powered cars, according to new research.

 

[Herm]

I believe that study was funded by an oil company.. surprising!

 

[91040]

The funding seems to come from the E-car Project via SINTEF They do have a petroleum research division. Any information regarding the funding or the validity of this study would be appreciated.

http://www.sintef.no/home/About-us/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.forskningsradet.no/servlet/Satellite?c=Prosjekt&cid=1232110434892&pagename=ForskningsradetNorsk/Hovedsidemal&p=1181730334233" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[91040]

From BBC World News:

Air pollution is harming people with weak hearts - even killing them, a big international study reveals....The strongest link was found with gases such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide, as well as fine particulate air pollution - fumes from buses, taxis and lorries that can get deep into the lungs and, from there, into the bloodstream.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23231194" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[gsleaf]

Exposure to vehicle exhaust during pregnancy has also been tied to an increased risk of autism.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-18/autism-tied-to-air-pollution-brain-wiring-disconnection.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[edatoakrun]

Un-Happy 70th birthday-Smog!

True, the word had already been long in use, as coal smoke had been a problem for many centuries in London, as had coal fire and industrial emissions in many other regions, for many years.

But the proliferation of the ICEV, resulting in cars emerging to become a primary cause of "smog" might be said to have arrived on this date in 1943:

July 26, 1943: L.A. Gets First Big Smog

By Jess McNallyEmail Author
July 26, 2010 |

1943: In the middle of World War II, Los Angeles residents believe the Japanese are attacking them with chemical warfare. A thick fog that makes people’s eyes sting and their noses run has taken hold of the city. Visibility is cut down to three city blocks.

As residents would later find out, the fog was not from an outside attacker, but from their own vehicles and factories. Massive wartime immigration to a city built for cars had made L.A. the largest car market the industry had ever seen. But the influx of cars and industry, combined with a geography that traps fumes like a big bowl, had caught up with Angelenos...

http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2010/07/0726la-first-big-smog/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[cgaydos]

Wonder if this study's conclusions are well founded?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x/abstract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles

Summary

Electric vehicles (EVs) coupled with low-carbon electricity sources offer the potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and exposure to tailpipe emissions from personal transportation. In considering these benefits, it is important to address concerns of problem-shifting. In addition, while many studies have focused on the use phase in comparing transportation options, vehicle production is also significant when comparing conventional and EVs. We develop and provide a transparent life cycle inventory of conventional and electric vehicles and apply our inventory to assess conventional and EVs over a range of impact categories. We find that EVs powered by the present European electricity mix offer a 10% to 24% decrease in global warming potential (GWP) relative to conventional diesel or gasoline vehicles assuming lifetimes of 150,000 km. However, EVs exhibit the potential for significant increases in human toxicity, freshwater eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and metal depletion impacts, largely emanating from the vehicle supply chain. Results are sensitive to assumptions regarding electricity source, use phase energy consumption, vehicle lifetime, and battery replacement schedules. Because production impacts are more significant for EVs than conventional vehicles, assuming a vehicle lifetime of 200,000 km exaggerates the GWP benefits of EVs to 27% to 29% relative to gasoline vehicles or 17% to 20% relative to diesel. An assumption of 100,000 km decreases the benefit of EVs to 9% to 14% with respect to gasoline vehicles and results in impacts indistinguishable from those of a diesel vehicle. Improving the environmental profile of EVs requires engagement around reducing vehicle production supply chain impacts and promoting clean electricity sources in decision making regarding electricity infrastructure.

Troy R. Hawkins,
Bhawna Singh,
Guillaume Majeau-Bettez,
Anders Hammer Strømman

Article first published online: 4 OCT 2012

BBC News summary of the study http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19830232" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Electric cars might pollute much more than petrol or diesel-powered cars, according to new research.

http://green.autoblog.com/2012/10/16/norwegian-university-study-exaggerates-downside-of-electric-vehi/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Robert Llewellyn wrote an important article drawing connections between the report authors and the oil industry (hint: there are many). He also points out some egregious assumptions the authors make, for example, "Their calculations were for a 1,000 kg motor, the motor in the Nissan Leaf weighs 53kg. As you can imagine, an error of this magnitude could skew the figures rather badly. "

 

[RonDawg]

Un-Happy 70th birthday-Smog!

True, the word had already been long in use, as coal smoke had been a problem for many centuries in London, as had coal fire and industrial emissions in many other regions, for many years.

But the proliferation of the ICEV, resulting in cars emerging to become a primary cause of "smog" might be said to have arrived on this date in 1943:

July 26, 1943: L.A. Gets First Big Smog

By Jess McNallyEmail Author
July 26, 2010 |

1943: In the middle of World War II, Los Angeles residents believe the Japanese are attacking them with chemical warfare. A thick fog that makes people’s eyes sting and their noses run has taken hold of the city. Visibility is cut down to three city blocks.

As residents would later find out, the fog was not from an outside attacker, but from their own vehicles and factories. Massive wartime immigration to a city built for cars had made L.A. the largest car market the industry had ever seen. But the influx of cars and industry, combined with a geography that traps fumes like a big bowl, had caught up with Angelenos...

http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2010/07/0726la-first-big-smog/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I can believe the smog could have been caused by industry (and in SoCal, defense was a big industry at that time) and perhaps mass transit, but private car usage at that time was severely curtailed due to gas rationing starting December 1, 1942 (and earlier in some states). Unless you were a policeman, doctor, or truck driver, or certain other "essential" occupations you were limited to as little as 3 gallons per week.

There are people I know who wouldn't be able to survive on a strict limit of 3 gallons a day, much less per week.

 

[Boomer23]

Lots of discussion of environmental costs of building an EV versus building an ICE car in this thread:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=13385&hilit=environmental+cost+electric+vs+ice" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[LeftieBiker]

The claimed increase in water pollution and metal toxicity both come from the mining of lithium and the manufacture of the battery packs. There are two ways to avoid these downsides: develop more low-toxicity battery chemistries (NiMH is less toxic, for example) or clean up the mining and manufacturing processes. The mining is by far the bigger problem overall, with Chinese "environmental standards" far too lax. If we want high energy densities, we have to be willing to produce them much more cleanly.

 

[edatoakrun]

Un-Happy 70th birthday-Smog!...


July 26, 1943: L.A. Gets First Big Smog

By Jess McNallyEmail Author
July 26, 2010 |

1943: In the middle of World War II, Los Angeles residents believe the Japanese are attacking them with chemical warfare. A thick fog that makes people’s eyes sting and their noses run has taken hold of the city. Visibility is cut down to three city blocks.

As residents would later find out, the fog was not from an outside attacker, but from their own vehicles and factories. Massive wartime immigration to a city built for cars had made L.A. the largest car market the industry had ever seen. But the influx of cars and industry, combined with a geography that traps fumes like a big bowl, had caught up with Angelenos...

http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2010/07/0726la-first-big-smog/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I can believe the smog could have been caused by industry (and in SoCal, defense was a big industry at that time) and perhaps mass transit, but private car usage at that time was severely curtailed due to gas rationing starting December 1, 1942 (and earlier in some states). Unless you were a policeman, doctor, or truck driver, or certain other "essential" occupations you were limited to as little as 3 gallons per week.

There are people I know who wouldn't be able to survive on a strict limit of 3 gallons a day, much less per week.

I think a lot of the increase in gas use was due to defense-industry ICEV commuters.

...By the end of 1942, half of U.S automobiles were issued an 'A' sticker which allowed 4 gallons of fuel per week. That sticker was issued to owners whose use of their cars was nonessential. Hand the pump jockey your Mileage Ration Book coupons and cash, and she (yes, female service station attendants because the guys were over there) could sell you three or four gallons a week, no more. For nearly a year, A-stickered cars were not to be driven for pleasure at all.

The green 'B' sticker was for driving deemed essential to the war effort; industrial war workers, for example, could purchase eight gallons a week. Red 'C' stickers indicated physicians, ministers, mail carriers and railroad workers. 'T' was for truckers, and the rare 'X' sticker went to members of Congress and other VIPs. Truckers supplying the population with supplies had a T sticker for unlimited amounts of fuel...

http://www.ameshistoricalsociety.org/exhibits/events/rationing.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting to note how few miles were driven 70 years ago, presumably mostly due to the much shorter average commutes.

Sept. 10, 1942

Gas rationing was the recommendation of committee charged with managing the nation’s rubber supply. They reported to President Roosevelt that a national speed limit of 35 miles an hour was needed and they wanted to reduce the annual national average driving distance from 6,700 to 5,000 miles.

According to 2011 statistics from the U.S. Department of Transportation the average driver clocks about 13,500 miles annually. About twice the average 70 years ago...

http://sloblogs.thetribunenews.com/slovault/2012/09/gas-rationing-amphitheater-construction-world-war-ii-week-by-week/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[RonDawg]

Some workers (like the ones you mentioned above) did get a larger ration, but 8 gallons/week is still not a lot of usage.

As you said, commuting distances were much shorter then than they are now. There was only one completed freeway (the Arroyo Seco Parkway) by that time, and a partially completed freeway (the Cahuenga Pass portion of the Hollywood Freeway) which along with fuel rationing helped to limit commuting distances. If you wanted to commute from far away, you had to use the old Red Car interurban.

 

[dgpcolorado]

Some workers (like the ones you mentioned above) did get a larger ration, but 8 gallons/week is still not a lot of usage.

As you said, commuting distances were much shorter then than they are now. There was only one completed freeway (the Arroyo Seco Parkway) by that time, and a partially completed freeway (the Cahuenga Pass portion of the Hollywood Freeway) which along with fuel rationing helped to limit commuting distances. If you wanted to commute from far away, you had to use the old Red Car interurban.

Don't forget that cars of the thirties and early forties were massive polluters, several orders of magnitude more pollution per mile than modern ICE cars. And stop and go streets produce more pollution than freeway travel per mile. That plus just the right inversion layer plus the factory and refinery emissions and I can see a major smog event despite the relatively low number of car miles traveled.

 

[RonDawg]

]Don't forget that cars of the thirties and early forties were massive polluters, several orders of magnitude more pollution per mile than modern ICE cars. And stop and go streets produce more pollution than freeway travel per mile. That plus just the right inversion layer plus the factory and refinery emissions and I can see a major smog event despite the relatively low number of car miles traveled.

They were massive polluters, but so were cars for the next 30 or so years after that, when the Clean Air Act finally took hold. CARB itself didn't exist before 1967. Early smog-reducing devices like smog pumps didn't come until what, 1973 or so?

Yet if so few cars can cause smog, then by the time the postwar era came around, it would seem like LA would be in perpetual second-stage smog alert. Growing up in LA in the 70's, I know the air was worse then than now, but we still had our days where it was OK to play outside. I should know, I'm one whose asthma is triggered by strenuous activity during significant pollution.

 

[dgpcolorado]

They were massive polluters, but so were cars for the next 30 or so years after that, when the Clean Air Act finally took hold. CARB itself didn't exist before 1967. Early smog-reducing devices like smog pumps didn't come until what, 1973 or so?

Yet if so few cars can cause smog, then by the time the postwar era came around, it would seem like LA would be in perpetual second-stage smog alert. Growing up in LA in the 70's, I know the air was worse then than now, but we still had our days where it was OK to play outside. I should know, I'm one whose asthma is triggered by strenuous activity during significant pollution.

Crude emissions control devices started somewhat earlier than that; the '63 Buick Special wagon I learned to drive in had a valve that routed some emissions back to the intake manifold, although I can't remember what it was called. Smog in the early '60s was very bad and getting a bit better per vehicle mile by the '70s.

In my opinion, the California air quality regulations and vehicle emissions standards have been an outstanding success: the greater LA basin would be unfit for human habitation without them. Not that it is all that pleasant in Riverside even today on smoggy days.

[I lived in LA, full time or part time, from '68 to '77. I had family in LA that I visited beginning in 1960. Yes, that means that I am an old codger.]

 

[Rat]

I suffered from asthma for years after moving back to Silicon Valley in 1980. Prior to that I lived in relatively smog-free environments for seven years or so. Then the MTBE mandate came in and within weeks my asthma got much better -- by at least 50%, I'd estimate. Later MTBE was banned, but other oxygenators were mandated as well as other methods of reducing auto pollution. My asthma then went away completely after my doctor took me off Ventolin. I'm not out to save the world. I'm out to save myself.