looks like they're just assuming electric vehicles behave like light trucks because they're heavier than most passenger vehicles and therefore attribute 67% more emissions due to brake wear and don't account for regenerative breaking. (They estimate 2% more emissions from tire wear than lighter vehicles).

I expect Tesla would happily hand you a bunch of this anonymized data since it's likely to paint them in a positive light.

There are ways to get brake wear - switch the regen setting to LOW, or do a track day :)

> The authors regret that as Victor Timmers did not carry out the research under the auspices of the University of Edinburgh, nor in collaboration or consultation with any personnel at the University of Edinburgh, the affiliation of “University of Edinburgh” has now been removed from this work at the request of the Institution. In addition, subsequent to the publication of the Paper, Victor Timmers has disclosed a potential Conflict of Interest with regard to the work, namely: “non-financial support from Innas B.V, during the conduct of the study”.

> The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

---

Innas B.V appears to be the same consulting firm where the first author works.

Reading the paper full-text, you see a lot of policy recommendations and one wonders what the standing of the authors is for full-on policy recommendations, based on the very limited data in the paper.

Namely, the analysis is really just using vehicle weight as a scale factor on a primitive PM2.5/PM10 "emissions/kg" relationship. Re-suspension of road dust dominates these particulates (in their model, anyway), and EVs and ICVs both do this, so any PM reductions by EVs are dominated by road dust kicked up by their larger weight.

Here's a much more detailed review paper:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135223101...

And here's a non-review that examines ozone emissions, but from a much more serious modeling point of view:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135223101...

The top comment in the thread was about Teslas improving human/lung health through air quality in cities which is heavily affecting by the resuspension affect.

A significant difference, to be sure, but not dramatic. And battery technology is improving rapidly.

Combined with the fact that there's no exhaust, on balance EVs are already superior for health, as long as the local power plant is anything other than coal.

Tesla Model 3 range: 310mi (which is on the upper end)

Sure, this will get better as battery tech improves. Everyone knows that. But we're not talking about the future, we're talking about right now.

The Model 3 either meets your driving range needs or it doesn’t.

A bit all over the place. For one, they linked it directly with weight. But then they mentioned regen and decided to model it at 0 brake wear on EVs. Then they talked about EVs being made of lightweight materials such as aluminum, and the difference would be even larger if they WEREN'T. (what?)

It also models particular resuspension in the air as a function of vehicle weight, arguing that heavier vehicles are typically less aerodynamic -- which is probably not the case with EVs.

Anyway, interesting.