Connect with us

Published

on

Goodyear has demonstrated a tire consisting almost entirely of what it claims are “sustainable materials,” with a mission to further increase that percentage to 100% by the end of the decade.

The new tire also has lower rolling resistance compared to a “reference tire.” Lower rolling resistance means less friction with the road, which makes a car more energy-efficient.

At last year’s CES show, Goodyear showed off a 70% sustainable tire, which included 13 “featured ingredients” across nine tire components. It wants to work with suppliers to bring that tire to market and start selling it to drivers in 2023. If you want to know when you can buy this 70% sustainable tire, you can sign up for updates on Goodyear’s website.

At this year’s CES, they’ve upped their game and are now demonstrating a 90% sustainable tire, with 17 ingredients across 12 components. The new tire has passed Goodyear’s internal testing and all applicable regulatory testing.

The ingredients include recycled materials and relatively novel uses of natural compounds.

Goodyear’s new tire uses plant-based oil and end-of-life tires for carbon, soybean oil to keep the rubber pliable in changing temperatures, silica from rice husk waste to improve grip and reduce fuel consumption, recycled polyester and steel cords for reinforced structure, and renewable pine tree resin for traction.

Goodyear’s product video about their 70% sustainable tire, from 2022

Goodyear defines a sustainable material as “a bio-based/renewable, recycled material or one that may be produced using or contributing to other sustainable practices for resource conservation and/or emissions reductions including mass-balance materials.”

The company is already using some sustainable materials in some of their tires, with soybean oil appearing in eight of their product lines.

But Goodyear isn’t stopping there: It wants to have the first fully sustainable tire by 2030:

We continue to make progress toward our goal of introducing the first 100% sustainable-material tire in the industry by 2030. The past year was a pivotal one toward achieving this goal. We researched new technologies, identified opportunities for further collaboration and utilized our team’s tenacity to not only demonstrate our capabilities to produce a 90% sustainable-material tire, but to also produce a tire with up to 70% sustainable-material content this year. Our team continues to showcase its innovation and commitment to building a better future.

Chris Helsel, senior vP of Global Operations and Chief Technology Officer, Goodyear

Electrek’s Take

Tires are perhaps an underappreciated area of innovation in the automotive space, and one which could have big benefits in terms of efficiency, air quality, and waste. Rolling resistance is the second most significant source of energy loss in a vehicle behind air drag, so tires can offer a lot of efficiency gains.

But as for materials, one of the (often disingenuous) arguments that many people bring up against electric cars is that “they still have tires and tires are made from oil, so you’re still using oil! HA!”

This is of course ridiculous, as the percentage of oil used for tires is dwarfed by the percentage that is burned in engines. But, as with most disingenuous propaganda, it did come from some tiny kernel of truth.

It is true that tires create a significant amount of waste, and that reducing the amount of waste they are responsible for is a good thing. So a push toward using more sustainable materials and recycling tire waste is an important step toward cleaning up the system, alongside the electrification of transportation and a move to more sustainable transport methods (public transport, bicycles, walkable cities, etc.).

What we’d like to see next is for Goodyear, and other tire companies, to see if there’s anything that can be done about particulate pollution. In the course of normal wear and tear (or when people do sick burnouts), tiny bits of tire get left on the road and kicked up into the air, and those tiny tire bits are a significant contributor to particulate air pollution, which creates smog and harms health.

Car exhaust pollution has reduced significantly in recent years through regulation and as we begin the overall societal shift toward EVs, but so far, we haven’t seen much regulation around tire pollution (or brake dust pollution – another significant source, which EVs reduce by relying more on regenerative braking than friction brakes).

But as exhaust emissions reduce, regulators’ eyes may turn towards these other sources of particulate emissions, and if tire companies don’t want that smoke (pun intended), maybe they can get working on that problem ahead of time, too.

We do think that the definition of “sustainable material” here is perhaps a little broad, as while many of these materials are plant-based, some of them are still petroleum-related – like waste tires, recycled bottles, and methane. But efforts to “close the loop” (“increase circularity” in Goodyear’s parlance) will at least mean society won’t need to use new petroleum products and can continue recycling as much of what we have as possible, while continuing to push the limit on sustainable materials.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Tesla launches accessory to Macgyver power outlets on the go on new cheaper Cybertruck

Published

on

By

Tesla launches accessory to Macgyver power outlets on the go on new cheaper Cybertruck

Tesla has launched a new accessory enabling you to “Macgyver” a couple of power outlets from the Cybertruck’s charge port.

It appears to be designed for the new cheaper Cybertruck, which doesn’t have power outlets in its bed.

Earlier this week, Tesla launched the Cybertruck Long Range RWD: a new, cheaper, and badly nerfed version of the electric pickup truck.

The new version is extremely disappointing as it is $9,000 more expensive than the Cybertruck RWD was supposed to be, and while it has more range than originally planned, Tesla has removed a ton of features, including some important ones.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Here’s what you lose with the Cybertruck RWD:

  • You get a single motor RWD instead of Dual Motor AWD
  • You lose the adaptive air suspension
  • No motorized tonneau, but you have an optional $750 soft tonneau
  • Textile seats instead of vegan leather
  • Fewer speakers
  • No rear screen for the backseat
  • No power outlets in the bed

The last one has been pretty disappointing, as it can’t be that expensive to include, and Tesla is basically removing $20,000 worth of features for only a $10,000 difference with the Dual Motor Cybertruck.

But the automaker appears to have come up with a partial solution.

Tesla has launched a $80 ‘Powershare Outlet Adapter’ on its online store:

When combined with Tesla’s Gen 3 Mobile Connector plugged into the Cybertruck’s charge port, it gives you two 120V 20A power outlets.

Tesla describes the product:

Powershare Outlet Adapter allows you to power electronic devices using Mobile Connector and your Powershare-equipped vehicle’s battery. To use this adapter, plug Mobile Connector’s handle into your Powershare-equipped vehicle’s charge port and connect the adapter to the other end of your Mobile Connector. You can then use this adapter to plug in any compatible electronic device you want to power.

For now, Tesla says that this only works for the Cybertruck and you have to buy the $300 mobile charging connector, which doesn’t come with the truck.

Electrek’s Take

I guess it’s better than nothing, but I’m still super disappointed in the new trim. It makes no sense right now.

Not only you lose the 2x 120V, 1x 240V outlets in the bed, but you also lose the 2x 120V outlets in the cabin. Now, you can can pay $380 to have a “Macgyver” solution for 2 120V outlets in the back.

I’m convinced that Tesla designed this trim simply to make the $80,000 Cybertruck AWD look better value-wise.

It looks like Tesla took out about $20,000 worth of features while giving buyers only a $10,000 discount.

It’s just the latest example of Tesla losing its edge.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Great news: IMO agrees to first-ever global carbon price on shipping

Published

on

By

Great news: IMO agrees to first-ever global carbon price on shipping

The International Maritime Organization, a UN agency which regulates maritime transport, has voted to implement a global cap on carbon emissions from ocean shipping and a penalty on entities that exceed that limit.

After a weeklong meeting of the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the IMO and decades of talks, countries have voted to implement binding carbon reduction targets including a gradually-reducing cap on emissions and associated penalties for exceeding that cap.

Previously, the IMO made another significant environmental move when it transitioned the entire shipping industry to lower-sulfur fuels in 2020, moving towards improving a longstanding issue with large ships outputting extremely high levels of sulfur dioxide emissions, which harm human health and cause acid rain.

Today’s agreement makes the shipping industry the first sector to agree on an internationally mandated target to reduce emissions along with a global carbon price.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

The agreement includes standards for greenhouse gas intensity from maritime shipping fuels, with those standards starting in 2028 and reducing through 2035. The end goal is to reach net-zero emissions in shipping by 2050.

Companies that exceed the carbon limits set by the standard will have to pay either $100 or $380 per excess ton of emissions, depending on how much they exceed limits by. These numbers are roughly in line with the commonly-accepted social cost of carbon, which is an attempt to set the equivalent cost borne by society by every ton of carbon pollution.

Money from these penalties will be put into a fund that will reward lower-emissions ships, research into cleaner fuels, and support nations that are vulnerable to climate change.

That means that this agreement represents a global “carbon price” – an attempt to make polluters pay the costs that they shift onto everyone else by polluting.

Why carbon prices matter

The necessity of a carbon price has long been acknowledged by virtually every economist. In economic terms, pollution is called a “negative externality,” where a certain action imposes costs on a party that isn’t responsible for the action itself. That action can be thought of as a subsidy – it’s a cost imposed by the polluter that isn’t being paid by the polluter, but rather by everyone else.

Externalities distort a market because they allow certain companies to get away with cheaper costs than they should otherwise have. And a carbon price is an attempt to properly price that externality, to internalize it to the polluter in question, so that they are no longer being subsidized by everyone else’s lungs. This also incentivizes carbon reductions, because if you can make something more cleanly, you can make it more cheaply.

Many people have suggested implementing a carbon price, including former republican leadership (before the party forgot literally everything about how economics works), but political leadership has been hesitant to do what’s needed because it fears the inevitable political backlash driven by well-funded propaganda entities in the oil industry.

For that reason, most carbon pricing schemes have focused on industrial processes, rather than consumer goods. This is currently happening in Canada, which recently (unwisely) retreated from its consumer carbon price but still maintains a price on the largest polluters in the oil industry.

But until today’s agreement by the IMO, there had been no global agreement of the same in any industry. There are single-country carbon prices, and international agreements between certain countries or subnational entities, often in the form of “cap-and-trade” agreements which implement penalties, and where companies that reduce emissions earn credits that they can then sell to companies that exceed limits (California has a similar program in partnership with with Quebec), but no previous global carbon price in any industry.

Carbon prices opposed by enemies of life on Earth

Unsurprisingly, entities that favor destruction of life on Earth, such as the oil industry and those representing it (Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the bought-and-paid oil stooge who is illegally squatting in the US Oval Office), opposed these measures, claiming they would be “unworkable.”

Meanwhile, island nations whose entire existence is threatened by climate change (along with the ~2 billion people who will have to relocate by the end of the century due to rising seas) correctly said that the move isn’t strong enough, and that even stronger action is needed to avoid the worse effects of climate change.

The island nations’ position is backed by science, the oil companies’ position is not.

While these new standards are historic and need to be lauded as the first agreement of their kind, there is still more work to be done and incentives that need to be offered to ensure that greener technologies are available to help fulfill the targets. Jesse Fahnestock, Director of Decarbonisation at the Global Maritime Forum, said: 

While the targets are a step forward, they will need to be improved if they are to drive the rapid fuel shift that will enable the maritime sector to reach net zero by 2050. While we applaud the progress made, meeting the targets will require immediate and decisive investments in green fuel technology and infrastructure. The IMO will have opportunities to make these regulations more impactful over time, and national and regional policies also need to prioritise scalable e-fuels and the infrastructure needed for long-term decarbonisation.

One potential solution could be IMO’s “green corridors,” attempts to establish net-zero-emission shipping routes well in advance of the IMO’s 2050 net-zero target.

And, of course, this is only one industry, and one with a relatively low contribution to global emissions. While the vast majority of global goods are shipped over the ocean, it’s still responsible for only around 3% of global emissions. To see the large emissions reductions we need to avoid the worst effects of climate change, other more-polluting sectors – like automotive, agriculture (specifically animal agriculture), construction and heating – all could use their own carbon price to help add a forcing factor to drive down their emissions.

Lets hope that the IMO’s move sets that example, and we see more of these industries doing the right thing going forward (and ignoring those enemies of life on Earth listed above).

The agreement still has to go through a final step of approval on October, but this looks likely to happen.


Even without a carbon price, many homeowners can save money on their electricity bills today by going solar. And if you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them. 

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here. – ad*

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Podcast: new Tesla Cybertruck, tariff mayhem, Lucid buys Nikola, and more

Published

on

By

Podcast: new Tesla Cybertruck, tariff mayhem, Lucid buys Nikola, and more

In the Electrek Podcast, we discuss the most popular news in the world of sustainable transport and energy. In this week’s episode, we discuss the new Tesla Cybertruck RWD, more tariff mayhem, Lucid buying Nikola, and more.

The show is live every Friday at 4 p.m. ET on Electrek’s YouTube channel.

As a reminder, we’ll have an accompanying post, like this one, on the site with an embedded link to the live stream. Head to the YouTube channel to get your questions and comments in.

After the show ends at around 5 p.m. ET, the video will be archived on YouTube and the audio on all your favorite podcast apps:

Advertisement – scroll for more content

We now have a Patreon if you want to help us avoid more ads and invest more in our content. We have some awesome gifts for our Patreons and more coming.

Here are a few of the articles that we will discuss during the podcast:

Here’s the live stream for today’s episode starting at 4:00 p.m. ET (or the video after 5 p.m. ET):

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending