EVs being nearly 50% heavier will cause tires to Gaining traction, losing tread Pollution from tire wear now 1,850 times worse than exhaust emissions

1.2 billion divided by 1.2 million is 1/1,000 or 2 pounds ...

A single quart jar per year ... wow ... I'm ashamed of you ...
Oopes - metric tons, not tonnes
Approx 6.2 million metric tons per year now, if that increased 20% as stated - then 1.2 million metric tons additional
 
Being an Environmental Engineer with over 30 years experience in permitting I challenge you to go out and permit a new nuclear power plant or expand one nowadays. You will be fucked. You will spend billions getting the permit and it will take years, if it is ever approved. Several companies have started the permitting process but quit because they were not going to be able to start construction in a reasonable time to get a return on the investment.

If you have never been in the business you have no idea of the bureaucratic costly nightmare that is tied up in permitting projects like this. Permitting nuclear power plants is the worst. And that is when there is a Republican administration. When there is a filthy Democrat administration then forget it. Switching from the Bush Administration to the Gay Barry Administration is what caused the Texas expansion project I worked on to close up shop. They knew the EPA and NRC would throw up every obstacle they could to prevent construction and run up the cost to be uneconomical. That was even in a friendly Red State. Had it been in a Blue State there would have been another massive layer of bureaucracy push back. Like when they shut down the FFTF test bed in Washington State. One of the dumbest things ever done.
Totally agree with your observations.
 
To replace the 3,400 fossil fuel plants at cost of $ 7 billion/nuclear plant is $23,800,000,000,000.

Why do you feel it is a 1-1 ratio?
The USA has 54 nuclear plants that contains 93 reactors. This produces 20% of the electric. So 54 / 20 = 2.7 x 100 = 270 nuclear plants.

270 - 54 means needing 216 more nuclear plants.

216 x $7bn = $1.5 trillion
 
Thanks.

One thing we can count on is that healthmyths will fuck up the math.

There's always variables in guessing these types of things, cos if 93 reactors means 20%, then 465 means 100%. Some of those 54 plants have anywhere between 1 to 4 reactors, so 465-93 = 372. Could 4 reactors go in a new plant, or ,93 plants. Would each plant still cost $7bn, so $651bn instead of the $1.5t?

I think it's wise if someone could find a relevant body in the US that shows exact/better figures. I'm UK so searches always want to default to UK sites, it gets tricky finding American stuff.
 
There's always variables in guessing these types of things, cos if 93 reactors means 20%, then 465 means 100%. Some of those 54 plants have anywhere between 1 to 4 reactors, so 465-93 = 372. Could 4 reactors go in a new plant, or ,93 plants. Would each plant still cost $7bn, so $651bn instead of the $1.5t?

I think it's wise if someone could find a relevant body in the US that shows exact/better figures. I'm UK so searches always want to default to UK sites, it gets tricky finding American stuff.

My $20 billion quote is for a "seven-reactor" power plant using Chinese reactor cells ... do we know of anyone else making these things ... we may have to rely on Communist Economies to produce these items with slave labor if we want affordable ...

Westinghouse bankrupted out from underneath their production ... heavy financial losses trying to build reactor cells ... and this is just for "light-water" reactors? ... how much more for molten sodium breeder Thorium reactors? ...

This is health care all over again ... only spending half as much money as we need, so the health care itself is the danger ... the first cost cut for nuclear is safety, every time ... $1.5 trillion for failing reactors that produce poisons ... like health care is today ...
 

So here we have a study showing losing tire tread pollution from tire wear is now 1,850 times worse than exhaust emissions.
The research Emissions Analytics published in early 2020 claiming that tire particulate wear emissions were 1,000 times worse than exhaust emissions generated the most feedback of any subject we have tackled so far – feedback that was a mixture of surprise and scepticism.
Now we have concerns that tires losing tread are 1,850 times worse in adding to the atmosphere than gas exhaust emissions.
BUT where is the answer to this question?
With Biden guaranteeing to "I guarantee We Are Going To Get Rid of Fossil Fuels” September 06, 2019, 5:49 PM

where will of the 4,230,000,000,000 kWh of electricity generated at utility-scale electricity generation facilities in the United States that about 60% of this electricity generation was from fossil fuels—coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases.
AGAIN 60% coming from destroyed fossil fuels power plants means 2,538,000,000,000 kWh GONE!
Would someone please tell me I'm wrong that Biden wants to destroy 60% of our electricity and some of you are going to vote again for this destroyer of America?

From Wikipedia's article on automobile exhaust gas

1709922134112.png

That totals 440 grams per mile traveled. A tire generally last 35,000 miles. 35,000 miles of travel would produce 15,400,000 grams which is just slightly under 34,000 pounds. A typical passenger car tire weighs 22 lbs. Thus the engine's emissions equal the weight of 1,545 tires. So, I call bullshit on your claim.
 

Forum List

Back
Top