I appreciate all the work you’ve put into this, a great public service. It’s very interesting how transportation pollution has been reduced so much, and how switching to EVs may not help much with PM2.5 emissions since half are from the tires and heavier cars will Emi more, and because electricity is still heavily reliant on gas and somewhat on coal. I wonder how much catalytic converters would help reduce NOx from gas turbines producing electricity.
I know you didn’t go into climate much here, but saying CO2 emissions from US electricity generation causes much PM2.5 because of wildfires seems like a stretch. Most wildfires in North America are from bad electric line maintenance, poor forestry management, arson and high seasonal winds. Most CO2 that affects climate is already in the atmosphere and most additional amounts come from Asia. The IPCC attributes only small increases in fire weather durations to emissions. Spending more money on better transmission line and forestry management may be more effective than carbon reductions.
I'm curious how much the efficiency of a large natgas plant compares with a modern ICE car with catalytic convertors and how that affects PM2.5. I would think, theoretically, that large scale generation can generate more energy / unit of PM2.5 than a small ICE engine and so even a natgas powered EV is less polluting than a small ICE engine but I have no actual idea.
Is there some way you can help me understand how SO2 and NOx lead to PM2.5? I think of PM2.5 as bits of solid in the air (like metal or plastic or dust) and I don’t understand how soluble gases can turn into those. But maybe there’s some explanation that helps me understand. This seems like an important and central point, since the PM2.5 impacts of NOx are such a large part of the effects.
You also say: “When thinking about a new industry, the question should always be “Will this, along with all activity in the area, collectively reduce the general local, regional, and/or national air quality down to a level that we’ve separately agreed is too low?”” I saw in the text that this is how the EPA regulates things, but why wouldn’t it be better to do cost-benefit analysis, or impose monetary penalties in proportion to costs, rather than do the threshold analysis you mention? As you said, most of the impacts occur below the threshold, because most places are below the threshold.
I appreciate all the work you’ve put into this, a great public service. It’s very interesting how transportation pollution has been reduced so much, and how switching to EVs may not help much with PM2.5 emissions since half are from the tires and heavier cars will Emi more, and because electricity is still heavily reliant on gas and somewhat on coal. I wonder how much catalytic converters would help reduce NOx from gas turbines producing electricity.
I know you didn’t go into climate much here, but saying CO2 emissions from US electricity generation causes much PM2.5 because of wildfires seems like a stretch. Most wildfires in North America are from bad electric line maintenance, poor forestry management, arson and high seasonal winds. Most CO2 that affects climate is already in the atmosphere and most additional amounts come from Asia. The IPCC attributes only small increases in fire weather durations to emissions. Spending more money on better transmission line and forestry management may be more effective than carbon reductions.
I'm curious how much the efficiency of a large natgas plant compares with a modern ICE car with catalytic convertors and how that affects PM2.5. I would think, theoretically, that large scale generation can generate more energy / unit of PM2.5 than a small ICE engine and so even a natgas powered EV is less polluting than a small ICE engine but I have no actual idea.
Two questions:
Is there some way you can help me understand how SO2 and NOx lead to PM2.5? I think of PM2.5 as bits of solid in the air (like metal or plastic or dust) and I don’t understand how soluble gases can turn into those. But maybe there’s some explanation that helps me understand. This seems like an important and central point, since the PM2.5 impacts of NOx are such a large part of the effects.
You also say: “When thinking about a new industry, the question should always be “Will this, along with all activity in the area, collectively reduce the general local, regional, and/or national air quality down to a level that we’ve separately agreed is too low?”” I saw in the text that this is how the EPA regulates things, but why wouldn’t it be better to do cost-benefit analysis, or impose monetary penalties in proportion to costs, rather than do the threshold analysis you mention? As you said, most of the impacts occur below the threshold, because most places are below the threshold.
Andy please do a Charlie Kirk style debate booth on AI environmental effects