Chad dw links the studies it mentions
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2023
291 points (98.3% liked)
Europe
8324 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
"2x above WHO limits" means "within EU limits". WHO recommends 5 micrograms, which is pretty unrealistic considering the population density of urban areas today. Unless we fully move off CO2 based transportation
Unless we fully move off CO2 based transportation
Which is no problem at all in urban areas.
It’s not achievable yet. Trucks are, at minimum, the last mile for transport of everything from building materials to equipment to food to medicine. EV trucks and vans are in development but battery technology isn’t quite there yet.
It would also require banning large container and cruise ships from most major ports. The former world obliterate economies. The latter would obliterate tourism industries for many major cities around the world. We’re decades away from large ships being low emission. Maersk is trialing hydrogen vessels right now to poor results.
Spoiler: Most Europeans don't live near major ports. You can discuss a lot about cargo ships, but the cruise industry shouldn't be at all allowed to cruise into major ports and poison the population. It's totally possible to build clean ships. We don't have to accept this!
I suppose it depends what you mean by “near.” Around 41% of Europeans live in coastal regions. Most of them live in larger urban areas near ports. That’s hundreds of millions of people.
I’m also opposed to cruise ships, but entire cities rely on tourism for survival. The sheer human suffering which would result from a ban is incalculable.
cruise ships do little for local tourism. The people only spend a short time, maybe buy some souvenirs and have a meal. Meanwhile the pollution drives away land based tourists, that would actually spend time and money in the local economy.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I guess people forget that ships originally where powered 100% by wind and manpower. Would love to see that coming back in some form, but seems like it's just not profitable enough (yet).
Given the mass of modern ships, wind doesn’t generate enough force to manoeuvre and thrust ships anywhere close to safety and efficiency. The math just doesn’t work. It would take a 5x5km kite (extremely rough estimate) with perfect wind conditions at all times. Maersk is trialing kite thrust augmentation right now, which is projected to reduce oil consumption, but not by a large margin.
It's obviously not as energy-efficient as burning fossil fuels, so it's a hard sell. Honestly, I just want it to come back for the looks (and obviously the environmental health benefits).
I wonder whether vertical wind turbines would be powerful enough to power a ship?
The vast majority of ships can be powered from shore, they're doing it all the time in wharfs. Ports actually having the infrastructure is another issue, especially when they're small and the ships large, but IIRC the EU is requiring things to be implemented by 2030.
And it's not exactly trivial: Powering a canal/river barge with a couple of electrical systems is no biggie, that's basically connecting up a house or even just camper, but ocean-going container ships need a couple of megawatts peak power, cruise ships over ten.
EV trucks are perfectly doable for the last mile with current battery tech. You dont need a big battery for that. Also it would be relatively cheap to build trucks using a tramlike wiring and a small battery. You could even piggyback on existing tram and bus infrastructure in many cities.
EV trucks are perfectly doable for the last mile with current battery tech. You dont need a big battery for that.
This is not accurate at all. For posterity (and forgive me if this sounds condescending) “last mile” doesn’t literally mean last mile. It refers to taking cargo from a backbone transport route (ports and railway depots). This last mile is often hundreds of miles.
Trucking margins are slim, and to stay in the black, trucks need to be on the road most of the time. The larger companies have their trucks in motion near 24x7, while the independent drivers stop when law dictates for sleep (but often skirt these laws). Trucks which require frequent charging would be much less efficient. They would be more expensive than ICE trucks. This is why we have so few EV trucks on the road. Because today, they are not yet viable for most last mile transport.
Trams have the same limitations of railways: high capex and inflexibility. Rails and trams can’t be economically built to every town and front door.
You are going back to front. You assume that EV trucks would need to fit in the current infrastructure and the current market. But both need to change and there needs to be a regulatory framework that forces and incentivises this change. So with this logistics need to become more expensive at first, when the transformation needs to be financed. But they will become much more expensive otherwise, as trucks are very inefficent, in particular for labor. And we see less and less workers willing to to take the difficult work conditions for the relatively bad pay. In the UK alone after Brexit there is a driver shortage between 50k and 100k. In mainland Europe it is similiar and in the US it will soon look like this too, unless the US makes it much easier to migrate for work. But even then it is only temporary fixes to the underlying problem of an inefficent system.
In a new infrastructure, maximising the use of trains and rivers, combined with an end to absurd manifacturing supply lines, that only work because of the ruinous competition in logistics, we will have an environment where the last mile is really just a few miles.
load more comments
(2 replies)
This last mile is often hundreds of miles.
Then your railway infrastructure sucks. Also, the semantics of the terms (no matter how well-used they are in your country, in your industry, etc) are bonkers: Anything going depot to depot is, by sane definition, not last mile, even if one of those depots is only reachable via truck.
I agree that it’s not a literal translation, but many terms are not literal. I work in the shipping industry and the term is well used internationally. It’s taught in business schools and well documented. I think sometimes there are many terms for domain specific knowledge which aren’t clear at first for people who aren’t educated or involved in the field. I certainly don’t hold it against you. I am only offering my experienced perspective.
U.S. railway infrastructure is poor. Still, most towns don’t have sufficient populations to justify commercial railway lines. Europe’s railway infrastructure is often run at a loss. There is an argument to be made about imputed negative externalities, but this should be done with both eyes open. It would be very expensive to expand rail in the U.S., and even if hundreds of billions were permanently allocated, most towns would still not have rail access.
I’m not being a fatalist about this. EV trucks are on the way and will be viable eventually. I have faith in capitalism and the technological progress it provides. We’re just not there yet.
EV trucks and vans are in development but battery technology isn’t quite there yet.
EV trucks are not in development, they are on sale and deployed. Especially last mile ones.
https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/trucks/renewable-fuels/electric-trucks.html
In Gothenburg, there are plenty of all electric trucks. Tbf, Gothenburg is Volvo's HQ but still. Volvo has sold more than 4300 electric trucks
https://www.volvogroup.com/en/news-and-media/news/2023/feb/news-4474482.html
Electric vehicles make the city much more livable. Less noise and pollution.
Speaking of DHL from 2014 to 2022 they were an automotive producer, building these things. They were making a loss on the whole operation and tried to halt production in 2020 but they needed so many trucks that they went on to produce regardless, 2022 the whole thing was sold off to a Luxembourgian consortium now calling themselves B-ON still producing street scooters.
That, btw, is what an actual last-mile truck looks like: It's a minivan. At least if you're a parcel delivery service. They should operate from depots, swarming out, making their tour of direct deliveries and returning on the same day, and those depots should not be serviced by trucks, but trains. Supermarkets can use full-size trucks for that purpose, easily shipping multiple pallets to a limited number of locations, but mostly when you're looking at electric full-sized trucks the reason they exist is shoddy rail infrastructure.
Oh and older, used/refurbished, DHL streetscooters sell like hotcakes. It's not easy to get that kind of vehicle as a small business so they sell at a premium, which makes it attractive to DHL to sell and buy a new one vs. continuing to maintain an old one. They're ridiculously utilitarian: Huge loading volume with very low loading floor with actual right angles, cargo accessible from back and side... and only one seat (but with room to install a second), utterly reliable.
If you're a farmer delivering fresh cabbage directly to local greengrocers, or a baker driving things from the actual bakery to your 3-10 outlets this is just a perfect vehicle.
Dhl in Sweden(and elsewhere) also uses these electric bikes
https://www.velove.se/news/city-containers-new-pilot-dhl-express-frankfurt-utrecht
load more comments
(4 replies)
obliterate tourism industries for many major cities around the world
Not really. Banning cruise ships would be bad for cruise ship companies. But for the port cities cruise ship tourists don't do much. They may actually cost more than they bring in. The problem is that the tourists from cruise ships have food and shelter onboard for free. So local businesses don't get much.
Also: You can simply ban the cruise ships from running their engines in the harbor. Many are capable of getting their electricity via cables from shore. They just opt to not do that because it's cheaper to use bunker oil. That doesn't solve all the issues, but a lot.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Unless we fully move off CO2 based transportation
My understanding is that electric cars produce similar amounts of particulate pollution compared to other cars, because while they lack an internal combustion engine, they are also heavier and that increased the amount of particulates produced through tire wear and braking.
In other words, cars as a whole are the problem. Walking, cycling, streetcars and subways are the solution.
While it is true that all cars hurt the environment (Creating a 1t box out of rare and complex materials and moving it along with the person to every place simply does) the thing with particle pollution is a myth by the anti-climate-change-mitigation movement.
Just think of the fact that they use regenerative breaking most of the time. Almost no wear on the breaks. And the battery weight is largely offset by drive train and engine.
The very article you linked shows how the real-world tire wear of electric vehicles is substantially higher than the same models using IC engines. Whether it is due to higher acceleration or higher weight is not explained.
I am not opposed to electric cars. I am opposed to all cars and to the idea that electric cars are somehow a panacea, ignoring their externalities like traffic noise, air pollution and danger to other road users.
It doesn't?
It is 12.5% higher for a taxi company as stated in the article ( 25% Front wheels, 0% rear wheels, while break wear is 50% lower) and there was no difference measured for moderately driven vehicles.
Edit: This also strongly suggests it is due to acceleration as the back wheels also have to carry the weight and the front wheels get the additional wear from the acceleration)
Combine that with tail pipe/energy emissions (which only get better as more and more of our energy mix is renewable) and the picture is quite clear.
I repeat myself here: Yes I agree cars are bad! Reasons stated above. But if somebody insists on buying a new car it is better for the climate and the environment if he gets an electric one.
For the record: Nope do not have a car myself and I am well of legal age to get one.
Right but you can drag the pollution outside the environment
load more comments
(2 replies)
Guess what, WHO is way more abouth health
So I would rather go in that direction
I agree, as I said I would love to move off carbon based transport. But the 5 microgram goal is realistically not achievable with the current state of transportation and the current political goalposts of electrification
So we should change our current technological and political ways.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Or we start filtering the air we breathe. I.e. use more air cleaners and wear masks more often.
That would be horrible. I don't want Europe to become like China
Become? The problem here is that we already are far beyond what is healthy. Air quality tends to be worse in China than in Europe, but a big difference is also that the Chinese tend to be less hesitant about wearing masks when it's important for the health.
The air is actually getting better (both in Europe and in China), but it will likely take decades before it's within WHO limits. Hence for the foreseeable future it makes sense to consider masks and air cleaners as an option. I'm not saying it's a good idea to wear a mask 24/7, but there's quite a few places and times in Europe where I'd put one on. There's real time data (e.g. here for Germany) and certain weather conditions exacerbate the problem, so it should be possible to avoid most issues with relatively little mask wearing.
The only issue with normal (FFP1-FFP3) masks is that they only work against particulates. For other issues (SOx, NOx, Ozone) they don't do much. Though afaik air cleaners with activated charcoal are helpful in these cases.
I already tend to wear an N95 on the Tube in London whenever I go there. The air quality down there is absolutely horrendous, let alone being packed in like sardines.
It's wild to me, old enough to remember the thick clouds of yellow smog that used to blanket Los Angeles and acid rain dissolving historical buildings and statues, to see how far we've advanced in reigning in air pollution. I can kind of understand the struggle that older generations have in updating their ideas about what is and is not acceptable. All the more reason to have age restrictions on politicians to try to make advancement possible at the speeds required to save the species from climate change.
I haven't thought about how having young politicians increase the overall speed of progress, not only due to the difference in ideas from one generation to the next but also from a purely logistics viewpoint.
Sulfur isnt the only kind of air pollutant.
With the EU voting on new air quality rules, satellite data shows that 98% of people face pollution above limits recommended by the World Health Organization.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Virtually everyone in Europe lives in polluted towns and cities where annual average levels of fine particulate matter are higher than the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommended limit.
The European Parliament's Environment Committee had suggested adopting the WHO recommendations, which are stricter at five micrograms of fine particulate matter per cubic meter of air.
Geography is partially to blame: the region is surrounded by mountains and pollution created by heavy traffic, industry, agricultural emissions and residential heating is trapped in the area.
A study published in the science journal The Lancet used pollution data from 2015 to estimate that around 10% of deaths in cities like Milan could be prevented if average PM 2.5 concentrations dropped by around 10 micrograms per cubic meter.
"On top of having a negative geographical situation, we've been doing exactly the opposite of what we should do," said Anna Gerometta, a lawyer and president of Cittadini per l'Aria, an NGO that advocates for stricter air quality policies in Italy.
In Italy, environmental campaigners have noticed a similar problem in bridging a gap between science and daily life: "People don't understand the issue with air pollution.
The original article contains 1,206 words, the summary contains 176 words. Saved 85%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
load more comments
(1 replies)
Having lived in Bergen (Norway) I can say with some degree of confidence that these readings are taken in summer. Otherwise Norway would have 5% marked in black.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I love living in a tiny village
Until your neighbours start burning wood
I read that whole news article. the only thing they have to blame is geography? That's so stupid. Air pollution does not come from the ground.
They don't. The sentence you're likely referring to is this:
Geography is partially to blame: the region is surrounded by mountains and pollution created by heavy traffic, industry, agricultural emissions and residential heating is trapped in the area.
That's as accurate as you can be.
I read that whole news article.
You don't seem like a person that read the whole news article.
view more: next ›