Slashdot Mirror


India Aims To Become 100% Electric Vehicle Nation By 2030 (ndtv.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report on NDTV: The Indian government is working on a scheme to provide electric cars on zero down payment for which people can pay out of their savings on expensive fossil fuels, for becoming 100% electric vehicle nation by 2030. "India can become the first country of its size which will run 100 per cent of electric vehicles. We are trying to make this program self-financing," said Piyush Goyal, Power Minister. That's forward thinking. However, it's not clear whether the Indian government is also committing to 100% renewable energy -- because if the electricity comes from coal, it might not help with curtailing the pollution level.

150 comments

  1. Very interesting, it they can do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APRIL FOOLS!

  2. W. VA Coal miners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good! I hope those W. VA coal miners who bitch when new regulations affect their employers (who are literally working them to death) that India and China "ain't do'in noth'in" hear about this.

    Anyway, they should go and get retrained and get into a field that has a future. Riiiiggght?!

    Retraining is the answer! Riiiiiiiigggght?!

    They should learn to code!

    1. Re:W. VA Coal miners by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Anyway, they should go and get retrained and get into a field that has a future. Riiiiggght?!

      At least a future that doesn't involve mesothelioma.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re: W. VA Coal miners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sit in a cubicle for 40hrs/week, and supossedly excessive sitting is the new smoking. So which fancy work related disease will I be able to claim in court?!

    3. Re: W. VA Coal miners by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I sit in a cubicle for 40hrs/week, and supossedly excessive sitting is the new smoking.

      Or not.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  3. Well okay by Slugster · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "We know electric vehicles cost much and many people are poor, but we will pass laws to make them be rich"

    1. Re:Well okay by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      They are obviously expecting prices to fall fast, as is everyone. Tesla are due to announce their $35k (before tax breaks etc) model in a few days. Nissan and Renault are expected to announce 200 mile range models in the same or lower price bracket this year.

      2030 is ambitious but not unreasonable. There will be a lot of used battery packs with hundreds of miles range in them by then too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Well okay by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      We know electric vehicles cost much and many people are poor,

      And just where did you get that idea? Do you magically think that suddenly everyone will buy a Tesla? In my recent travels to China I asked some of the locals about something I thought was strange, there was a HUGE number of electric motorbikes on the road. The answer was simple, the government limited vehicles with internal combustion engines, but people still needed to get around. Buying a moped and converting it to electric not only got around this ruling but was dirt cheap which was important given the relatively quite poor but still large city I was in.

    3. Re:Well okay by just+another+AC · · Score: 1

      Electric vehicles do not need to be expensive.

      Most of your basic consumers in India and China will not care if the car cannot do 0-100 in 5 seconds. They also won't be put off by range being 100 miles.
      As long as they can get to/from neighboring villages and cities in a reasonable time for work. Then there is also the bonus of it requiring far less maintenance etc.

      I'm sure that the auto industry could knock up a super cheap EV for these situations.

    4. Re:Well okay by westlake · · Score: 1

      "We know electric vehicles cost much and many people are poor, but we will pass laws to make them be rich"

      The people's car doesn't have to be a Tesla --- it only has to be affordable.

      Henry Ford didn't begin with a luxury car, he began with basic transportation and branched out from there. It is a strategy that works even when your up-market competitors have deep pockets and technical sophistication.

    5. Re:Well okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, only 35k before taxes!!! You do realize the government standard for American workers is $7.25 / hr which is $15080 a year...BEFORE taxes. If an average worker saved every penny they earned as well as paying no tax it would still take them over 2 years to buy a car, except they would be dead before then from not eating or expose from not having a place to live.

    6. Re: Well okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you have a Trump rally you should be violently protesting at?

    7. Re:Well okay by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Tesla are due to announce their $35k (before tax breaks etc) model in a few days.

      Does the battery pack have long enough service life that the vehicle will enter the used cars market eventually? Because it won't make much of an impact otherwise, in India or anywhere else.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    8. Re:Well okay by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The Panasonic cells used by Tesla are rated for 3000 cycles before they reach 80% capacity. That's 900,000 miles.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. Coal can be replaced easier than gas engines by JeffTL · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Coal power might not be much cleaner than internal combustion engines in the long run (though possibly more efficient due to economies of scale), but it's easier N faster to replace a power plant as better generation technologies become available or economically feasible than to replace everyone's car. Once the cars are electric, they automatically benefit from any changes in how the electricity is made without any action or investment by the end user.

    1. Re:Coal can be replaced easier than gas engines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If indeed it's easier to replace the coal powered plants than to replace cars, why aren't they starting with replacing the coal powered plants?

      Hint: It's not.

      And not everyone in India has electricity. Maybe they can power their houses from their electric cars.

    2. Re:Coal can be replaced easier than gas engines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "India's National Solar Mission was approved "in principal" last week by the Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change.
      The solar mega-project, aimed at expanding India's solar capacity from the current 3 megawatts (MW) to a reported 20 gigawatts (GW) by 2020 and 200 GW by 2050, will form the centerpiece of a National Climate Change Strategy and cost an estimated US$20 billion to implement.

      They are not looking to bring more coal online. In fact, this plan is being coupled with solar power generation and wind power generation.

      With worldwide installed solar-generation capacity totalling just 16.5 GW, and India's power generation capacity at 150 GW, the plan is notable for its scale and ambition."

      http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6220

      Couple that plan which the U.S. wants a piece of resulting in action at the WTO, blocking local procurement restrictions. We are talking about a government which is serious about the scale of what it wants done.

      And they are well on the way to doing it, see:
      http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/india--72-gw-of-utility-scale-solar-plausible-in-fy-2016-17_100022729/

    3. Re:Coal can be replaced easier than gas engines by MacTO · · Score: 1

      The other consideration is air quality within urban centres. A lot of people seem to forget that emissions standards were implemented due to air quality within cities, rather than the state of the environment globally. I suspect that is what India is trying to accomplish: shifting electricity production outside of the city through the use of electric vehicles shifts much of the pollutants outside of highly populated areas. Given the high population densities in parts of India, it is a larger consideration for them than for us.

    4. Re: Coal can be replaced easier than gas engines by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Also, running an electric car on coal generated electricity still makes less pollution than a gas car.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    5. Re:Coal can be replaced easier than gas engines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      India is bringing boatloads of coal capacity online.

      Just for starters, the vertically integrated Adani Group is in the process of developing the world's largest coal mine in Australia that will be shipping 60 million tonnes of coal a year directly to India for electricity generation, and that's not even considering the tens of megatonnes/year expansion in domestic production that's underway now that a whole bunch of corruption issues around the issuance of coal mining licenses has been sorted out.

  5. How about 100% indoor plumbing first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How about 100% indoor plumbing first?

    Toilets? Starvation?

    Worse. Government. Ever.

    North Korea has a higher GDP per capita!

    1. Re:How about 100% indoor plumbing first? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      False.

      (India is 168th, Best Korea is 196th.)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:How about 100% indoor plumbing first? by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1
    3. Re:How about 100% indoor plumbing first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who has actually been to the major cities in India could confirm that the air pollution is actually a bigger concern than luxuries such as toilets.

      I would much rather take a shit in public rather than have to breathe the literally toxic fumes from the vehicles (and factories)

  6. India taxi by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    Don't they have drivers of small motorcycle-like taxis in India that can't even afford the taxi they're driving? How the heck are those going to all be converted to electric? There must me tens of thousands of them.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:India taxi by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They're called Auto rickshaws and they're actually pretty damned handy. India has something more like traffic loose guidelines more than they have traffic laws, and these make it work. They're a lot more simple in terms of design so it wouldn't be too difficult to build an electric motor and replace the existing one. They're fun as well and far more economical as a short range taxi than European or American cabs. I wouldn't mind seeing them adopted in more American cities where it makes sense, especially in the parts of California where it's typically pleasant.

      The big problem is that India's grid is already over stressed and has problems keeping up as is, and this is in a country where a lot of people live in poverty and don't have any access to power. Putting all of the countries vehicles on that grid isn't going to work without a massive overhaul of the infrastructure. Maybe this plan or goal is the impetus to make that happen as well, but as things currently stand it's utterly impossible even if they could make the electric vehicles inexpensively.

    2. Re:India taxi by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Define 'wouldn't be more difficult', keeping in mind we're talking about a profit of pennies an hour running one of these things.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:India taxi by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I was going to say Rickshaw, but I thought that was Chinese. Thank for for that information.

      What I'm trying to say is, Auto Rickshaws don't look well maintained to me. I know the driver makes pennies an hour. So either the owner is keeping all the profit, or there is no profit because they must pay someone to do business in that area. How do you get them to 'invest' in a brand new electric engine for their Rickshaw? They would rather go back to the days before the motor.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    4. Re: India taxi by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Rentals

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    5. Re:India taxi by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The big problem is that India's grid is already over stressed and has problems keeping up as is

      Another way to look at it is because they have to expand it anyway why not consider doing a bit more than meeting current demand. That's the way we used to do things in the west, and while we don't do it any more there is no reason to be critical of another place doing what we used to do when we had the will to succeed in the long term instead of just get a good balance sheet this quarter.

    6. Re:India taxi by jrumney · · Score: 1

      China has already converted a large proportion of its 2-stroke motorcycle fleet to electric, so it isn't inconceivable. It's not like the Tesla Model S is the only choice they have.

    7. Re:India taxi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They make enough profit to feed their family, educate their children & after having run an AutoRikshaw for 5 years , buy a new one & give it on rent.

  7. Yes, they burn lots of coal by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    How much "new" electricity is coming from coal? The coal is being burned anyway, with or without electric cars. It seems to me that the conversion will make a big difference, at least on the street level.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Yes, they burn lots of coal by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      And I would imagine the noise levels will go way down. All those little two stroke putt-putts make a lot of racket, in addition to all that smoke.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Yes, they burn lots of coal by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Unlike oil, we have enough coal for centuries. "Peak Coal" won't occur until long after the ecological costs have become devastating.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:Yes, they burn lots of coal by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Unlike oil, we have enough coal for centuries. "Peak Coal" won't occur until long after the ecological costs have become devastating.

      Yea, people say that, but I don't think it is as true as you suspect it is...

      According to the 1970s, we were supposed to be running out of oil by now, except, we're not...

      Coal is in a lot of places, but we burn a crap ton of it and it doesn't have the endless reserves many people think it does. Not the cheap kind anyway.

    4. Re:Yes, they burn lots of coal by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      It will all be much cheaper if and when we send tunnel boring machines to do the job, like a worm eating out the innards of an apple. And besides that, having dug barely two miles into the crust, I doubt we have come anywhere near to knowing what we have available. Cheap, bountiful, and clean (aside from the heat factor) energy, water, food are not fantasies. With mechanization, they should no longer be an issue. Politics is the only thing holding us back. Peak oil/coal is a marketing gimmick for the commodities traders.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:Yes, they burn lots of coal by tlambert · · Score: 1

      How much "new" electricity is coming from coal?

      All the electricity generated by the coal plants every day, of course.

      You don't think they are running their light bulbs on old electricity, do you?

    6. Re:Yes, they burn lots of coal by plopez · · Score: 1

      I actually think in the beginning you might see a surge in street corner Honda generator charging stations.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    7. Re:Yes, they burn lots of coal by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Why not? We drink old water

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    8. Re:Yes, they burn lots of coal by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Everybody is using old electricity. You don't see anyone making new electrons do you? We're just shifting them around.

    9. Re:Yes, they burn lots of coal by dbIII · · Score: 1

      According to the 1970s, we were supposed to be running out of oil by now, except, we're not...

      Oil got redefined since to stuff from shale and liquid oil from places we had no hope of getting to in the 1970s (eg. under very deep water).

      but we burn a crap ton of it and it doesn't have the endless reserves many people think it does. Not the cheap kind anyway.

      There is that. For example there's a project in Mongolia to have a very deep pit to get to what would have been done before as underground mining but would be considered far too expensive to do. There is also a bit of friction due to some of the more convenient coal around the world being under some of the best farmland in the world.

    10. Re:Yes, they burn lots of coal by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Yes I knew a guy that was doing research into such a thing in 1990, very cool stuff. It's a good idea but still some way off.

      Politics is the only thing holding us back

      If you mean a lack of political will to fund efforts to overcome the aspects of reality holding us back, maybe, but there is no quick fix.

    11. Re:Yes, they burn lots of coal by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      90% of our efforts are used in building barriers between each other without going through official channels. We can drop a pallet anywhere on the planet within 24 hours, but you need six months to get the permits . *Bury 'em in paperwork* That's the objective. To reverse that stupid meme, when the incompetence in purposeful, it is a malicious act.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    12. Re:Yes, they burn lots of coal by dbIII · · Score: 1

      We can drop a pallet anywhere on the planet within 24 hours

      Seriously? Try stepping outside of a city some time. There's that annoying reality thing in the way again. Try to drop that pallet in a remote area and you've got to spend time finding someone who can do it that is not already doing something else.

    13. Re:Yes, they burn lots of coal by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      You don't remember *anything, anytime, anywhere*? Just make the call, flash enough green, or lead (to 'expedite' said paperwork... plata o plomo), and it'll be there. It shouldn't be any more difficult to do above board. The reality is that politics is the only impediment, the tech and ability have been around since World War Two.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    14. Re:Yes, they burn lots of coal by jrumney · · Score: 1

      And I would imagine the noise levels will go way down.

      Most of the noise from Indian traffic comes from horns, not engines, so I can't see it having any effect until they get self driving cars that can actually drive in an orderly fashion.

    15. Re:Yes, they burn lots of coal by dbIII · · Score: 1

      You are citing an ad?
      Wow.
      See how that works out to get something into Antarctica, the middle of any desert far from an airstrip or even just somewhere in the middle of Indonesia, Thailand or PNG.

    16. Re:Yes, they burn lots of coal by Immerman · · Score: 1

      We had some dramatic advances in oil extraction technology since then, boosting the average maximum amount of oil that could actually be extracted from, I think, around 20% to closer to 80%. Provided you're willing to do geological damage likely to cause earthquakes and contaminate water supplies. There' not really an option to do that again though - the last 20% might be extractable with enough effort, but it won't make anywhere near the difference that that 60% increase had. By the end of the century we will no longer be able to have an oil-fueled global economy, even if our energy demands were holding steady instead of rapidly increasing.

      Coal though - those reserves completely dwarf the oil supplies in terms of stored energy, by a few orders of magnitude if I recall correctly - there's something like 80 million years of compressed tree trunks down there, that's a LOT of stored solar energy. Release it though, and we'll also be releasing the runaway greenhouse effect that was interrupted by 80 million years of undigestible cellulose sequestering atmospheric carbon underground.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    17. Re:Yes, they burn lots of coal by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      What does that mean? Who said you have to land to drop the package? Jeeze, we don't don't even have to use a manned vehicle for delivery anymore. I don't understand your difficulty with this. It's pretty basic.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    18. Re:Yes, they burn lots of coal by dbIII · · Score: 1
      It means that you are sharing your magical thinking with us and it is very annoying.

      Suggesting that it's only politics in the way and if you could just say the right words somebody will "make it so" is a very juvenile and unrealistic way of looking at the world even if some managers promoted beyond their ability also possess that flaw. Societies try to teach children enough about science to cure them of such a problem but sometimes it doesn't stick.

      Who said you have to land to drop the package

      Good luck setting up an airdrop in 24 hours to most of those places I mentioned. The "you've got to spend time finding someone who can do it" is a little bit of a clue as to why your short timeframe is part of the magical thinking.

    19. Re:Yes, they burn lots of coal by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Nothing 'magical' about it. You're just conditioned not to accept what can be made trivially possible if not for people who actively put up artificial barriers to protect their own personal interests, short name, politics. That's what your dismissive post indicates anyway. If you believe something to be unrealistic, so it shall be. My expectations have been reduced accordingly.

      Alright! 48 hours... Jeeze!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    20. Re:Yes, they burn lots of coal by dbIII · · Score: 1

      You're just conditioned not to accept what can be made trivially possible

      Trivial? Didn't I mention the guy doing research into automated mining in the engineering lab I did some work at in 1990?

      Some things are actually difficult when politics is nowhere to be seen let alone get in the way. That is my point.

      An autocrat saying "make it so" is not the solution to everything. Such a fantasy is magical thinking.

    21. Re:Yes, they burn lots of coal by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Well fine, live with stagnation. Whatever is most convenient.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    22. Re:Yes, they burn lots of coal by dbIII · · Score: 1

      That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm merely pointing out that if you think politics is the only problem preventing action then either the environment you are in is totally fucked up or your mindset is utterly unrealistic. Extrapolating whichever of those problems to the entire world is just going to piss people off who have physical reality in their way instead of petty politics.

    23. Re:Yes, they burn lots of coal by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Remove the petty politics and witness how simple things become.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    24. Re:Yes, they burn lots of coal by dbIII · · Score: 1

      That's right - no politics AT ALL in the way and robots have come a long way since 1990.
      But not ready yet due to a lack of available magic to match magical thinking.

      Your "just remove the politics and it's easy" style mindset is a broken way to look at the world and I pity you for whatever political bullshit you have been subjected to that left you damaged in such a way. Please avoid spreading that damage.

    25. Re:Yes, they burn lots of coal by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Step by step... You shouldn't be so close-minded. Please avoid spreading that defeatist propaganda that you have been so conditioned to accept.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  8. More down to earth by qbast · · Score: 0

    How about getting some toilets first so people stop shitting on the streets?

    1. Re:More down to earth by dadelbunts · · Score: 1

      those people cant afford cars so fuck em

  9. Easier replacement by DrYak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Once the cars are electric, they automatically benefit from any changes in how the electricity is made without any action or investment by the end user.

    Yes. I totally agree.

    Compare this with the logistics complexities to introduce new types of fuels (either deploying biofuel alternative, or something more fundamentally different like hydrogen).

    Deployment of electric car make subsequently moving to greener power plant easier than moving to greener fuels.

    And that's neglecting even slight advantages of fossil power-plant over cars:
    Power plants only need to be efficient, they don't need to compromise on size and weight to be put inside a travelling car, unlike an internal combustion engine.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Easier replacement by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Having a huge number of batteries connected to the grid also helps smooth out renewables and provide backup where the grid itself is unreliable.

      Also, India is trying to build up its car industry. This should help get new technologies developed. I think people are looking at Tesla and thinking that for the first time in decades a new manufacturer can be successful.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Easier replacement by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 0

      I think people are looking at Tesla and thinking that for the first time in decades a new manufacturer can be successful.

      Maybe, but perhaps Tesla should consider being successful before everyone gets all excited.

      Tesla has a small volume luxury product that still loses money, and there is no assurance it is anywhere near ready to go mainstream.

      Time will tell, but it isn't successful yet.

    3. Re:Easier replacement by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Tesla has a small volume luxury product that still loses money

      If they're making a loss on each unit they just need to make it up in volume.

      Have the lessons of 1990s been forgotten already?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Easier replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tesla has a small volume luxury product that still loses money,

      There is a difference between investing all of your profit per car into increasing production capacity, and actually losing money on each car. Tesla's profit margin on the Model S is 25%. They invest all of this and more in building their production line for their lower cost Model 3, as well as in battery production. The losing money per car meme is GM and fossil fuel industry FUD.

    5. Re:Easier replacement by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      They are losing about $15,000 on each car sold, give or take.

      The Model S likely will never make money, it is the new Model 3 that is supposed to do that.

      But the battery in the Model S costs more than the base price of the Model 3, and batteries haven't gotten THAT cheap yet.

      Like I said, time will tell.

    6. Re:Easier replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coal plants are probably easier to equip with proper filters and carbon capture systems than the whole car population. Those filters and capture systems take more space than is available in a typical car.

    7. Re:Easier replacement by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Also, people are always comparing the fuel required to generate electricity for electric cars to the amount of fuel burnt by gasoline cars, but they tend to forget about the energy required to produce the gasoline. I read an article claiming that the amount of energy required to produce fuel for a gasoline car (pumping up the oil, refining, transporting) is about the same as what an electric car needs to drive the same distance. So when you have finished filling up your gasoline car, you have already polluted more than the electric car before you even start your engine.

      Granted, the article I linked to is probably not entirely accurate (it talks about "electricity" but it really ought to call it "energy" in general since much of the refining process is powered by burning a significant portion of the product) but it seems to be in the right ballpark when it comes to the amount of energy used.

    8. Re: Easier replacement by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Learn to read a financial statement.
      Tesla makes about $23,000 per car. They are investing in new factories and models so that eats the profit.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    9. Re:Easier replacement by delt0r · · Score: 1

      It is a joke. What we lose per unit make up for in volume. Was a thing of the 90s "long tail" stuff. Of course if you are losing money per unit no amount of volume puts you in the black.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    10. Re:Easier replacement by delt0r · · Score: 1

      I call BS. It costs very little per kg of gasoline to produce, refine and ship. Even with hydro-cracking your still only going to be a few Wh behind an electric car. A few miles at best. It is why we used it and why it so cheap.

      However a power station running on crude or heavy fuel oil (we don't do this much any more) would be a net saving and power stations with bottoming cycles and duel use of waste heat are 50% or better. While the best cars are about 35% to 40% if you drive like grandma. Electric distribution will losses you about 1-3% would be in the same ballpark as refining and transporting gasoline. But batteries kill you a bit. PolyLi is about 80% IIRC but varies on the specific battery. A good electric motor is about 90+%. All up however it is heavy.

      Running all the numbers doesn't really make it clear what is a net win. BUT we are leaving out the best part of electric cars. We don't need or even need to burn carbon fuels for it. Hydro wind solar and even low carbon fuels (aka natural gas) are used. Once you include that, then it is a no brainier and puts you pretty far ahead even with poor batteries.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    11. Re: Easier replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing there will tell you the raw production costs of any vehicles by Tesla.

    12. Re: Easier replacement by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Learn to read.
      3Q Financial statement:
      849 Million sales
      541 Million cost of sales
      251 Million profit
      251/849 = 29% profit on sale of cars.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    13. Re:Easier replacement by dbIII · · Score: 1

      That's a very lossy way to do things. Instead of thinking in base load and storage terms consider how we now have lots of tiny little units that can be brought online to follow demand. You don't need to "smooth out renewables", you just need to distribute them all over the place and use them as needed as is happening in many places.

    14. Re: Easier replacement by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Cost of Goods sold is not the only expense... You also have to subtract general operating expenses...

      http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=T...

      Tesla lost $6.93 dollars per share last quarter

      http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?...

      Net Income after expenses for all of 2015 was ($888,663,000)

      So Tesla lost nearly a billion dollars in 2015.

      Even if you back out R&D costs, it is still a negative, and you couldn't back them all out, since even if they had no plans beyond the Model S, some money must continue to be spent each year keeping the car current and legal.

    15. Re:Easier replacement by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between investing all of your profit per car into increasing production capacity, and actually losing money on each car. Tesla's profit margin on the Model S is 25%. They invest all of this and more in building their production line for their lower cost Model 3, as well as in battery production. The losing money per car meme is GM and fossil fuel industry FUD.

      No, it really isn't. You need to understand the difference between gross and net profit margin.

      http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?...

      Tesla lost $888 million dollars last year.

      They spent $718 million on R&D, but you couldn't back all of that out, some R&D would be required to keep the Model S up to date with features, laws, etc.

      Tesla's Model S currently boasts a gross profit margin of around 25%.

      That is a quote from your link. Gross profit margin ONLY takes into account the cost of goods sold, the actual cost to build each Tesla Model S, not counting the overhead of the company itself existing. It doesn't count the front desk girl, the CEO's pay, the cost of the phone lines, etc. It is just the direct cost of putting the cars together.

      The reason it is a useful number is that it means that if Tesla builds another 10,000 cars, they SHOULD be profitable per car, even if the company as a whole isn't.

      Even if they weren't investing in anything else, the company would NOT be profitable. It just doesn't work that way.

    16. Re:Easier replacement by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Having a huge number of batteries connected to the grid also helps smooth out renewables and provide backup where the grid itself is unreliable.

      No, it doesn't, because the very first accessory I'll get for any electric car I might own will be a grid smarts stripper which ensures it starts loading batteries as soon as I plug it in, and keeps them full. I'm not going to subsidy the electric company by either paying for a bigger battery pack than I need, nor replacing it more often due to the extra wear and tear. And even if I were willing to, it still wouldn't make sense to waste energy by hauling those batteries around rather than have them sit in a facility somewhere.

      There's also the question of honesty: if renewables are unreliable and require battery backup, then the cost of that battery backup needs to show in the electric bill, not on car price. Unless, of course, hiding it to make renewables look better than they actually are - in other words, lying - was the whole point.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  10. Need infrastructure first by sjbe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "India can become the first country of its size which will run 100 per cent of electric vehicles. We are trying to make this program self-financing,"

    They've got a LOT of electrical infrastructure to fix before this is anything more than a pipe dream. Electric outages in India aren't terribly rare in large parts of the country as of the last time I checked. Not to mention the challenges of installing all the charging infrastructure.

    1. Re:Need infrastructure first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "India can become the first country of its size which will run 100 per cent of electric vehicles. We are trying to make this program self-financing,"

      They've got a LOT of electrical infrastructure to fix before this is anything more than a pipe dream. Electric outages in India aren't terribly rare in large parts of the country as of the last time I checked. Not to mention the challenges of installing all the charging infrastructure.

      Have you seen the amount of solar installations happening in India? Seen the US WTO case against India, trying to scuttle the local procurement requirements? Live on in your dream. Indian electric supply has challenges because demand keeps growing exponentially, not because they don't know how to fix things or create new infrastructure.

      It's a question of resources, and people willing to pay for the resources. It's complicated. People are not willing to pay more then say $1/unit to light up their homes and watch tv. But they are already paying $3 to get their cars fueled, given that India is not a producer of oil, and imports everything. So, will they be willing to pay $1.5/mile to get an electric car and make monthly payments of $0.5/mile more than what they currently pay for in monthly emi for gasoline vehicles? Most probably they will. Because they save $1 per mile... Based on typical usage per month of some 600 miles per month average use.

    2. Re:Need infrastructure first by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Having a battery powered vehicle attached to your electrical supply would actually help get you through the glitchy power. Although the extra load will make the problem worse in the short run, it will make a mild degree of unreliability easier to tolerate in the long run.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    3. Re:Need infrastructure first by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      Are you sure you got your numbers right? Are you conflating the cost of the car, cost of the installation with the consumable per mile cost? What kind of amortization are you assuming?

      What I know of India is, capital is still very expensive there. You will find lots of pay-as-you-go customers, but people willing to plunk down some investment to reap the benefit of lower running costs are rare. The future is discounted heavily. So the solar city model, someone installs solar panels on the roof, sets up a meter and charge per kilowatt hour will take off. But even with govt subsidies, most home owners are reluctant to install solar panels. Farmers are far more willing to pay for solar panels to pump water. They will be even more receptive to pay-as-you-go plans.

      For commuting, mass transit is all most people could afford. Two wheelers come in as the middle class commuter's choice. Battery operated scooters are coming into the market now. Range is about 50 Km. If they can get the range up to 75 or 100 Km that would become the vehicle of choice. Assuming battery+motor costs same as IC-engine+transmission.

      Grid electricity is about 0.1 US$ per kwh. Gas is about 1 US$ per liter. Cars go 10 km per liter, 0.1 USD per km, or 0.16 US$ per mile. Two wheelers go typically 50 km/l. 0.02 US$ per km, 0.03 US$ per mile. Gasoline cars 8000 US$ for the very low end. Middle class cars are 12K US$. All the cars from US and Europe are available. BMW X5, Lexus, Audi etc etc.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    4. Re:Need infrastructure first by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The dream appears to be to fix a LOT of electrical infrastructure and add more.

    5. Re:Need infrastructure first by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      which by moving to EVs, they fix 2 things at once with 1 solution: EV and Building electric.
      Note that given the choice of bringing in more gas stations, or bringing their electric up to a decent level, you can guess which is better for the nation.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    6. Re:Need infrastructure first by sjbe · · Score: 1

      Having a battery powered vehicle attached to your electrical supply would actually help get you through the glitchy power.

      So does having a tank of gasoline and a generator and that's a lot easier to do.

      If you are suggesting talking about having the car power your little portion of the grid during an outage that is a bad idea on several levels. First off it would require substantial upgrades and clever controls to be put into a grid that is barely functional as it is. If India can't even get the basic transmission right I think that fancy distributed power routing is going to be beyond their abilities on any sort of wide scale. Second, exactly how does this help when the car isn't parked in the garage? Third, it burns through battery cycles faster and reduces lifespans of the rather expensive battery packs. Fourth, it would require the vehicle be adapted for uses it was never really designed for and shouldn't be used for. It is FAR more cost effective and efficient to actually fix the grid to work properly.

    7. Re:Need infrastructure first by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean to imply the car's owner would power anything but their own residence in an outage, and I don't think anyone could reasonably be expecting them to do so. Obviously they'd want to power down major draws like air conditioning or appliances during such an event as well.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  11. Electric Vehicles are a fad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good luck India, you're sure going to need it.

    1. Re:Electric Vehicles are a fad by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      For the sake of argument, let's agree they're a fad.

      So... What do you propose take the place of combustion-driven vehicles?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:Electric Vehicles are a fad by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      idiots like that love to push H2, which 95% is created from Nat Gas and is actually the lowest efficiency of all vehicles. That is why that person posted as AC.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  12. Moving the exhaust by scsirob · · Score: 1

    That's not forward thinking, that is naïve. Replacing all cars by electric ones just means the energy is produced elsewhere. Like in coal powerplants. It just moves the exhaust elsewhere. The energy then needs to be transported (huge in comparison with regular household connections), then stored in batteries. Those batteries are not exactly clean to produce or recycle.

    Don't get me wrong, there's a place for electric cars, but tossing fossil fuel lock stock and barrel is incredibly expensive and frankly just naïve.

    --
    To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    1. Re:Moving the exhaust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not forward thinking, that is naïve. Replacing all cars by electric ones just means the energy is produced elsewhere. Like in coal powerplants. It just moves the exhaust elsewhere. The energy then needs to be transported (huge in comparison with regular household connections), then stored in batteries. Those batteries are not exactly clean to produce or recycle.

      Don't get me wrong, there's a place for electric cars, but tossing fossil fuel lock stock and barrel is incredibly expensive and frankly just naïve.

      No you are wrong. It's not being shifted elsewhere.

      "India's National Solar Mission was approved "in principal" last week by the Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change.
      The solar mega-project, aimed at expanding India's solar capacity from the current 3 megawatts (MW) to a reported 20 gigawatts (GW) by 2020 and 200 GW by 2050, will form the centerpiece of a National Climate Change Strategy and cost an estimated US$20 billion to implement.

      With worldwide installed solar-generation capacity totalling just 16.5 GW, and India's power generation capacity at 150 GW, the plan is notable for its scale and ambition."

      http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6220

      Couple that plan which the U.S. wants a piece of resulting in action at the WTO, blocking local procurement restrictions. We are talking about a government which is serious about the scale of what it wants done.

      And they are well on the way to doing it, see:
      http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/india--72-gw-of-utility-scale-solar-plausible-in-fy-2016-17_100022729/

      Poking fun at someone for lack of communication skills, in what's not their language, does not help understand the scale or undercurrent of changes happening there.

    2. Re:Moving the exhaust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's not forward thinking, that is naïve. Replacing all cars by electric ones just means the energy is produced elsewhere. Like in coal powerplants. It just moves the exhaust elsewhere. The energy then needs to be transported (huge in comparison with regular household connections), then stored in batteries. Those batteries are not exactly clean to produce or recycle.

      Don't get me wrong, there's a place for electric cars, but tossing fossil fuel lock stock and barrel is incredibly expensive and frankly just naïve.

      For U.S. maybe. It's got Texas, and fracking oil. Imagine a country needing three times the oil that U.S. requires, without any production of petroleum in the country.

      Now, imagine, all of the petroleum is being purchased at incredibly high prices, and all of the foreign exchange reserves you have are spent on oil. So you must keep exporting everything you make, to meet your oil import bill, instead of promoting consumption led growth in your own country.

      With that kind of an economic structure, replacing all gasoline cars with all electric cars makes imminent sense. And couple that with plans to generate 200GW of solar power, instead of the current 3GW of solar power. It's a radical solution for 1 Billion people, economically, environmentally and in terms of sheer market power. It's going to move the world, instead following the world.

    3. Re:Moving the exhaust by shilly · · Score: 1

      It just moves the exhaust elsewhere.

      Given respiratory disease rates and noise pollution, that "just" is a pretty extraordinary qualifier. A Delhi where cars are all electric would be a shit-ton quieter and less smelly and less bad for your health, even if the fuel supply wasn't decarbonised.

    4. Re: Moving the exhaust by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Why?
      Seems like a good solution to me.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    5. Re:Moving the exhaust by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It just moves the exhaust elsewhere

      Yes.
      Which is why they want to do it.

      Electric cars are not an energy saving measure. They are a "get the smog out of the city" measure.

    6. Re:Moving the exhaust by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Still, it's an advantage.

      First, the pollution is now in the cities - right under most people's noses. Moving it out of the cities will improve the air in the cities, the air most people breath in. So that's a win, even if the total amount of pollution remains the same. It is likely that the total amount of pollution can go down very quickly, when moving from millions of poorly maintained two-stroke engines to much better maintained and managed large power plants. Those power plants have not only a clear economic benefit in burning their fuel efficiently, they also can hire the people that can make this happen.

      Secondly, it is easy to clean the exhaust of a power plant. It costs, but it can be done very well as many modern power plants already prove. This way the total amount of pollution can be going down a lot. Add more renewables in the mix (India does have a lot of sunshine) and over time pollution can be reduced more.

      Sure there are other issues such as generating capacity and transport capacity, but I'm sure those will get tackled as well, when the need is really there.

  13. Good move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be even better if, instead of wasting time and resources in me-too pissing contests, the Indian government were to devote resources to bring basic services, like running water, electricity and sewage to the more than 500 million Indian citizens who lack them.

    1. Re:Good move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be even better if, instead of wasting time and resources in me-too pissing contests, the Indian government were to devote resources to bring basic services, like running water, electricity and sewage to the more than 500 million Indian citizens who lack them.

      Errr.....if you read the article, it is about devoting resources to bringing a basic service (electricity) to more than 500 million Indian citizens who lack them.

    2. Re:Good move by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Facilitating transportation is not a basic service?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:Good move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facilitating to defecate with dignity is even more basic.

  14. Easier to scrub? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Isn't it easier to scrub the nastier stuff from coal plants than it is to make the every shitty old engine isn't emitting? Sure CO2 emissions might be a wash, but I'm talking SOx and NOx and whatever else which are currently causing major air quality issues in the cities. It's also easier to switch those coal plants over to something cleaner like oil or gas, which is what China has been doing, in addition to aiming to the future and solar/wind.

  15. All for the environment by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 1


    But let's not forget current battery production methods being quite toxic...

    As long as existing tech is cheaper that electric India will not be 100% electric. So the thought is unrealistic at best.

    --
    A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
  16. Solar power cheaper than coal in India by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

    ... or so says their energy minister.

    Of course, their original plans for massive solar power plant got skuttled because the US threw a snit-fit in the WTO over India's "source in India first" plan.

    So yeah, as long as the US can gouge India on parts, suppressing development of local industry, they can have all the solar power we can sell them...

  17. LEDs by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    They worked out a big discount on LEDs, which should help them too.

  18. I think you misread the acronym... by tlambert · · Score: 3, Funny

    How about 100% indoor plumbing first?

    Toilets? Starvation?

    Worse. Government. Ever.

    North Korea has a higher GDP per capita!

    False.

    (India is 168th, Best Korea is 196th.)

    GDP doesn't stand for "Gross Domestic Product" in this context.

    It stands for "God Damn Plumbing".

    1. Re:I think you misread the acronym... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I think you tried to move the goalposts. FAIL.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:I think you misread the acronym... by tlambert · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the "whoosh".

    3. Re:I think you misread the acronym... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I think you tried to move the goalposts. FAIL.

      I think you missed the "whoosh".

      No, they're intentionally - and rightly, in my opinion - ignoring it to focus on the lie before them.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    4. Re:I think you misread the acronym... by tlambert · · Score: 1

      I think you tried to move the goalposts. FAIL.

      I think you missed the "whoosh".

      No, they're intentionally - and rightly, in my opinion - ignoring it to focus on the lie before them.

      I'm pretty sure what's lies in front of them, without indoor plumbing.

  19. Not serious by Kohath · · Score: 1

    Anyone who makes these types of 100% - anything goals is not serious. Just as an example, electric trucks don't deliver food to stores.

    1. Re:Not serious by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I see 100% electric trucks delivering food to Safeway here in California. I suspect the businesses (name brand bakeries, etc) got some tax breaks to justify the capital expense for the EV's, but the logistic or charging time and limited range probably work out very well for their particular business.
      UPS has a few EV trucks as well.

      In the early 20th century, many regions used electric milk trucks. Simple lead acid batteries, but effective when a driver only needs to go door to door at only a few miles per hour making frequent stops. So the idea of EV trucks is not particularly new or unproven.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:Not serious by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Not so long ago I got on a 100% electric minibus, one of a few on that route (the rest uses LPG). It was a trial, but it also means the technology is there and considered reliable enough to do real-world trials with it.

      These 16-passenger minibuses are not much smaller than the typical truck in India, which is used in the city but also for long-distance transport. It's not that much of a jump. The hardest part is probably going to be electrifying long-distance trucking due to the need of a really long range and fast recharges, both which are not strengths of electric.

  20. Tata motors going EV by mdsolar · · Score: 2

    Tata, India's largest car maker, is going in for electric vehicles. http://m.carandbike.com/news/t...

    1. Re:Tata motors going EV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Save the Tatas!

    2. Re:Tata motors going EV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tata is not India's largest car maker by a long shot. They are the largest who design their own cars from scratch, but Hyundai, Maruti (Suzuki) and Toyota sell far more cars.

  21. We do have good stuff by mdsolar · · Score: 2

    First Solar's CEO was quoted last year saying they will be below $1/watt fully installed by next year.

  22. Never say never by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    There is progress on electric trucks. http://insideevs.com/tevva-mot...

    1. Re:Never say never by Kohath · · Score: 1

      2030 isn't "never". Electric trucks aren't impossible, they just don't make much sense practically or economically. 2030 is in 14 years. Many trucks and other vehicles last a lot longer than that.

      Even assuming electric trucks become commonplace in the next 10 years, what are they going to say to the business owner who bought diesel trucks in 2020 or 2025 (because he needed trucks, not hand-wavy promises of some utopian future)? Fuck off? If people thought they might say that, no one would buy any trucks and everything that needs to be shipped by truck would start to get a bigger and bigger price premium or become unavailable. It would be very disruptive. 100% by 2030 is not serious.

  23. people don't understand the ramifications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What many people do not understand is that electricity costs will go through the roof if all vehicles go electric over night. It's simply not viable. I don't know what it costs to power a home in India, but here in the states it's about $200 combined gas and electric per month for me and that may double if we went all ev simply because of the massive power demand increase.
    This process has to take more time (and will) to be viable.
    I believe hydrogen is a much better option, it burns clean, it's available from almost anything organic, and would only require minimal retooling from auto manufacturers. Everybody is happy (except the oil companies because any dumb ass can produce his own hydrogen).

  24. The needful by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I was walking down the road the other day and there was this Indian in a Tesla, stopped at a red light.

    Damn thing sounded like a misfiring diesel. Then I realised he was talking on his mobile.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  25. By giving everybody Simputer by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 0

    Also everybody in India will get a Simputer, will be able to crap in toilets for dignity and to prevent pollution, and will be taught that rape is friggin barbaric.

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
  26. What about basic sanitation first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This from the country who still can't get basic sanitation available (toilets, clean water) for large swaths of the population.

  27. I worked in India for a few months by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    I helped commission a new building for a JV. The building work was still ongoing when I arrived and the contractor needed electricity to run his drill. Before I arrived he had sent "the boy" up a nearby power pole to wrap wires onto the distribution cables. I was just about to freak out at the recklessness when I saw the drill turning at about 20RPM. There can't have been much more than 12v available.

    I was told that the farmers get free electricity so they use it all for pumping water and there's little to none left at the end of the line. Of course, I suppose the farmers might one day switch the pump off and someone will get fried !

    Solar will help India a lot, but without a local grid free of farmers all the electricity will go straight to pumping water not to charging cars

    --
    Nullius in verba
    1. Re:I worked in India for a few months by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Solar generation is ideal for decentralised supplies. Get all farmers some solar cells and have them run their pumps off of that - optionally have it connected to the main grid as well.

  28. Combustion Engines Are Inefficient by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    because if the electricity comes from coal, it might not help with curtailing the pollution level.

    A coal plant runs at something like 42% efficiency.

    An ICE might be around 20%, half as efficient as a power plant.

    The whole chain of transmission, charging, battery and electric engine is still around 90% if not more efficiency.

    On top of that you have regenerating braking in electric vehicles.

    Then regarding air pollution: coal plants can be surprisingly clean, as german plants are e.g.
    On the other hand gasoline and diesel cars are very polluting on the first miles while the engine is warming up. Or produce stuff like NOx leading to Ozone and small dust particles which is a pain for your lungs.

    On top of that: charging cars can be distributed over day time, that means the "power plants" are not necessarily providing power for all cars at the same time. However during rush hours combustion engines in cars produce the pollution "all at the same time".

    Finally: with a smart grid you can use the car batteries to smooth excess power production, by loading them when power plants produce to much power and can not power down quickly. (Instead of letting go the extra power to waste, and have the "pollution" for nothing car batteries can charge from it).

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    1. Re:Combustion Engines Are Inefficient by legRoom · · Score: 1

      An ICE might be around 20%, half as efficient as a power plant.

      A modern automotive ICE can be way better than 20% efficient - the cylinder engine in the Honda Prius is 38.5% efficient.

      The whole chain of transmission, charging, battery and electric engine is still around 90% if not more efficiency.

      Each of those stages individually is about 90% efficient, meaning that the chain in aggregate is much worse than that.

      Grid distribution of power is something like 90% efficient (actually worse than that in India, due to their lousy infrastructure). Charge/discharge efficiency for large Lithium-Ion battery packs is about 85%. A high-powered electric motor + controller is about 90% efficient.

      90% of 85% of 90% of 42% = 29%, versus 38.5% for a good ICE

      Any economic/environmental benefits to the electric car are entirely due to other factors, such as regenerative braking and the greater range of power sources available to the grid (nuclear, hydro, solar, etc.).

    2. Re:Combustion Engines Are Inefficient by Ultimate+Statement · · Score: 1

      Interesting, but still, if you numbers are correct, this only applies to a Prius, which is a hybrid (half electric) which represents a very small percentage of all cars on the road, and there are not that many cars with such efficiency either. You are also not considering the PRODUCTION and TRANSPORTATION of fuels, which also amount for a large % in reduction of energy. As awareness for health and the environment grows, and given that all ICEs produce fumes toxic for humans, I can predict there will be a law in the future PROHIBITING them all. All cars needs electricity to run, but with modern technology just electricity. The rest is optional. Greetz angel'o'sphere.

    3. Re:Combustion Engines Are Inefficient by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Each of those stages individually is about 90% efficient, meaning that the chain in aggregate is much worse than that.

      No it is not. Most of the stuff involved is 99% efficient, so I simply averaged it to 90%.

      That link about the Prius Engine is nice! However keep in mind: that would require all new cars to use engines like this. Which they hopefully do in not to distant future.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:Combustion Engines Are Inefficient by legRoom · · Score: 1

      Interesting, but still, if you numbers are correct, this only applies to a Prius, which is a hybrid (half electric) which represents a very small percentage of all cars on the road,

      The 38.5% efficiency is for its internal combustion engine alone; the fact that the Prius joins that engine to a hybrid-electric drivetrain does not effect that number.

      and there are not that many cars with such efficiency either.

      I picked the Prius simply because it's the easiest thing to find precise numbers for. However, a little poking around on the web suggests that a more typical current generation gasoline engine might be 30% efficient - which is still neck-and-neck with coal-powered electrics. Diesel engines are much better, at 40+% efficient.

      You are also not considering the PRODUCTION and TRANSPORTATION of fuels, which also amount for a large % in reduction of energy.

      angel'o'sphere left a lot of things out of his original ad-hoc analysis; I followed suit in the interest of making an apples-to-apples comparison. A more complete analysis would consider:

      1) The efficiency of producing and transporting fuels - including the coal which ultimately powers the electric car in angel'o'sphere's original comparison, not just the gasoline or diesel for ICE cars.

      2) Mechanical inefficiencies in the drivetrain of both electric and ICE cars - this will favour the electrics on average, since they usually don't need such an elaborate transmission.

      3) The greatly reduced weight of ICE cars compared to comparable electrics (batteries are very heavy), which means that less energy is required to accelerate an ICE car in the first place.

      ...And a million other economic, environmental, and logistical factors, too, because energy efficiency isn't the be-all-end-all measure of technological, economic, or environmental superiority.

      As awareness for health and the environment grows, and given that all ICEs produce fumes toxic for humans, I can predict there will be a law in the future PROHIBITING them all.

      You do realize that the point of comparison in this discussion is COAL POWER, right?

      I highly doubt that we will see a blanket ban on gasoline (or event diesel) internal combustion engines prior to a ban on burning coal. While it is possible (given enough money) to prevent "toxic" emissions from any hydrocarbon fuel, it is far harder to do so for coal than gasoline, ethanol, or natural gas.

    5. Re:Combustion Engines Are Inefficient by legRoom · · Score: 1

      No it is not. Most of the stuff involved is 99% efficient, so I simply averaged it to 90%.

      Sources? Here are mine:

      1) In the USA, transmission and distribution losses are estimated at 6% by the EIA. However, India (the subject of the original post) has really bad infrastructure, in comparison. Their losses are estimated at about 30% by the World Energy Council. So, I was actually way too generous when I said "90% efficient" for this part.

      2) The Tesla Roadster is said to have a battery pack charge/discharge efficiency of 86% in an article from Stanford University, which claims to be drawing from a source published by Tesla itself.

      3) The National Electrical Manufacturers Association requires a minimum efficiency of about 92% for some large induction motors. However, I found an answer on the Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange site indicating that Tesla uses a slightly less efficient type of motor, and also that a ~97% efficient power controller is required, which brings the real efficiency down to ~88%.

      Using the exact numbers I sourced, above: 88% of 86% of 70% of 42% = 22%, which is even worse for a coal-powered electric car than what I originally posted (because I was intentionally rounding up a bit to allow for future improvements).

      That link about the Prius Engine is nice! However keep in mind: that would require all new cars to use engines like this. Which they hopefully do in not to distant future.

      The extremely aggressive CAFE standards recently set by the Obama administration are already pushing things hard in that direction in the USA. Admittedly, India probably won't be buying many ICE cars produced for the US market in the next decade - but then, they won't be buying fancy electrics like a Tesla, either.

    6. Re:Combustion Engines Are Inefficient by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      That Prius only reaches that very good efficiency as the engine can run at optimal load and optimal RPM all the time, running the generator, charging the batteries. A regular car or motorbike most of the time is either idling (0% efficiency) or running at sub-optimal loads and RPMs, both quickly lowering overall efficiency.

      Many vehicles in India use two-stroke engines and are poorly maintained. A total efficiency as low as 10% for those vehicles may very well be a realistic number.

    7. Re:Combustion Engines Are Inefficient by legRoom · · Score: 1

      That Prius only reaches that very good efficiency as the engine can run at optimal load and optimal RPM all the time, running the generator, charging the batteries.

      The 38.5% number is a measure of the peak thermodynamic efficiency of the engine alone; it says nothing about the usage patterns of the engine in the Prius.

      A regular car or motorbike most of the time is either idling (0% efficiency) or running at sub-optimal loads and RPMs, both quickly lowering overall efficiency.

      This is a good point. In theory, something like the Chevrolet Volt may be the best near-term solution, as it has a big enough battery to allow the engine to run almost exclusively at the optimal load, while still having good range like a regular ICE vehicle. Make it a plug-in hybrid if the grid in the area is decent (i.e., not India).

      Many vehicles in India use two-stroke engines and are poorly maintained. A total efficiency as low as 10% for those vehicles may very well be a realistic number.

      True. On the other hand, India has a really terrible electric grid too (30% losses, not 10%), and little money with which to fix the grid, buy modern four-stroke ICE vehicles, or buy cutting-edge electric vehicles (the only kind which can compete range-wise with an ICE currently). So anything they do is probably going to fall short of Western performance standards; trying to figure out which option falls least short is an interesting problem.

    8. Re:Combustion Engines Are Inefficient by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      For the car itself, I would be thinking of an electrical version of the Tata (the sub-USD1,000 car), something like that.

      Range: 100 km is enough for most people, realistically. That's a very long distance to commute in a city. Even in my rich city (Hong Kong), an average taxi is doing only about 250 km a day or so (that's some 150 miles). We have motorways, and taxis routinely are used for longer rides as well, not just short hops.

      Comfort: it's got a seat, why?

      Safety: who cares - this is India. OK sarcastic here, but probably pretty true, lives and safety matter less. No crumple zones. Anyway, speeds tend to be very low in the city (another advantage of electric over ICE).

      So with those requirements you can build a car the fraction of the cost of a Volt or a Tesla.

  29. So They plan to provide electricty to all nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Indians can be sure they'll all have electricty by 2030 :))

  30. Terrible, terrible idea by burtosis · · Score: 1

    India electric cars pollute CO2 at 20 mpg equivelant. I guess it would be good for particulates at street level, but electrics pollute greenhouse gasses 2-2.5x more than fuel efficient diesels or 2.5-3x more than hybrids. If they get off coal by 2030 it would be good, a terrible mistake otherwise.

  31. Maybe they should start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they should start with something slightly simpler... like getting fuckin sewage in that shit-filled country! Oh they gonna drive around in EVs and continue to shit in the streets.

  32. It does help with pollution - entire point by dbIII · · Score: 1

    If the pollution is coming out of the top of great big stacks (preferably after going through scrubbers) instead of on crowded streets where people are breathing then means bringing particulate pollution from vehicles down to levels that are not a worry.
    Carbon dioxide is not relevant to such an aim and would have to be solved in a different way.

  33. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A country known for electric grid issues with rolling blackout and brownouts is going to go all electric by 2030. Not saying it is impossible but it will be a very tough road.

  34. Please? by thexile · · Score: 0

    India do not even have enough toilets. Talk about electric cars. HAHA!

  35. In 2030 by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

    Most cars on the roads in India in 2030 will probably be cars that have already been built today. That's only 14 years from now. Why would everyone in a poor country junk their car within 14 years? Heck, my car is 18 years old and runs great.

    Completely changing the nature of cars on the road is a generational, or even multi-generational project.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
  36. hygiene first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice to know they are thinking about Ecars, but wouldn't be a LOT smarter to focus on cleaning that country up? Dont get me wrong the people are nice but it is such a mess. The # of ppl grew too fast and their infra cant keep up, so i would focus on that.

  37. Thorium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    India has the worlds largest deposits of thorium and is leading the research of thorium power plants.
    Best of luck guys!

  38. Sewage by bluegutang · · Score: 1

    If India wants to get rid of pollution, maybe they should start first with their sewage problem.

  39. Who pays? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would this restrict poor families from owning a car? Or make others pay for the cars that people can't afford? Would not surprise me if Obama is giving the country money to do this. "Here you go India, have some money I take from my tax payers, what do I care, I didn't work for it"

    All because most been tricked into the climate change hoax.

  40. nice thought, but my guess is that this is about by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    stopping imports of cars and oil, rather than about saving the world. As to their electricity, guaranteed to come from coal. The good news though, is that they run pollution controls, unlike China.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  41. If you think the landfills are bad now ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just wait for influx of unrecyclable toxic dead batteries.

    This of course will be the pollution that occurs at the end, as opposed to the huge amount of pollution created during the production of those same batteries.

  42. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't they aim for something like 100% availability of clean drinking water by 2030?

    Over 20% of communicable diseases are traced to water issues and 1,600 people die a DAY from diarrhea alone.

    http://water.org/country/india/

  43. leapfrog by DriveDog · · Score: 1

    So true about the coal-powered electric plants. However, utility-scale electric transmission is a "standard interface" that can allow both consumption and production to be moved to efficient and clean alternatives asynchronously and simultaneously. So with electric cars around, it would be far easier to move both fixed and mobile consumption to renewables than it would be otherwise.

  44. umm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a country where a good percentage of the population still openly craps in the middle of the street because they dont have access to running water or toilets.. they stone adulterers and "witches".. and they want to sell them electric cars?!!?!?! Id say they have much bigger problems to solve.. like basic sanitation and infrastructure.