Slashdot Mirror
India Aims To Make Every Car Electric By 2030 In Bid To Tackle Pollution (independent.co.uk)
India's energy minister has unveiled plans for every car sold in the country to be powered by electricity by the year 2030. "The move is intended to lower the cost of importing fuel and lower costs for running vehicles," reports The Independent. From the report: âoeWe are going to introduce electric vehicles in a very big way," coal and mines minister Piyush Goyal said at the Confederation of Indian Industry Annual Session 2017 in New Delhi. "We are going to make electric vehicles self-sufficient... The idea is that by 2030, not a single petrol or diesel car should be sold in the country." Mr Goyal said the electric car industry would need between two and three years of government assistance, but added that he expected the production of the vehicles to be "driven by demand and not subsidy" after that. "The cost of electric vehicles will start to pay for itself for consumers," he said according to the International Business Times. "We would love to see the electric vehicle industry run on its own," he added. An investigation by Greenpeace this year found that as many as 2.3 million deaths occur every year due to air pollution in the country. The report, entitled "Airpocalypse," claimed air pollution had become a "public health and economic crisis" for Indians. It said the number of deaths caused by air pollution was only "a fraction less" than the number of deaths from tobacco use, adding that 3 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was lost to the levels of toxic smog.
If only you were to put that much effort to provide running water, electricity and sanitation to the more than 600 million Indian citizens who lack it, the rest of the world would start taking you seriously.
With at least 200 million vehicles, if just 100 million of these become electric, I with about a quarter of them getting battery replacements, where will the spent batteries be kept?
How about pollution?
Folks, be prepared for a toxic mess over there.
Will India's electric infrastructure handle the additional load? Do they have enough generating capacity for when everyone plugs in their car at night? Finally, will they simply offset the burning of oil with burning coal at power plants? The article was sorely lacking in any substantial information about the plan.
Electric cars are fine and dandy, but we still need to produce electricity to power them. Where will that come from? Solar and wind would be the best source as they pollute the least; nuclear is a good option if you're using more modern plant designs. Natural gas might actually be worse in terms of CO2 emissions. Coal would be the worst case scenario; the smoke contains all sorts of pollutants not emitted by modern gasoline engines.
Finding God in a Dog
Natural gas worse than what, gasoline? No way, natural gas is CH4, gasoline has a lot more carbon than that.
The main issue is cost. As long as battery car costs more than gas car, it will be difficult to persuade them to buy electric. Second major issue access to charging outlets. Most people park on the street or in apartment car parking spaces. So unless price comes down a lot electric cars will not gain traction there. But, if the imminent inevitable battery technology break through comes through, then they will switch to electric in a hurry. They will find ways to have metered outlets in car parking spaces and even the streets. Third issue is the frequent power cuts and brown outs.
In fact Tesla's wall battery for residential uses will be more attractive to them. Almost all the homes have a couple of truck lead-acid batteries fully charged to run the fridge, a couple of lights, and the TV during the powercuts. Now a days I see ads for "inverter air conditioners". Air conditioners designed to run on AC power generated by the inverter from a 12 v battery. The wave form is a crudely chopped square wave, and it is brutal on the motors. But these aircon motors are designed to handle it.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Electric cars are fine and dandy, but we still need to produce electricity to power them. Where will that come from? Solar and wind would be the best source as they pollute the least; nuclear is a good option if you're using more modern plant designs. Natural gas might actually be worse in terms of CO2 emissions. Coal would be the worst case scenario; the smoke contains all sorts of pollutants not emitted by modern gasoline engines.
Precisely spot on. Couldn't resist posting that guess what the majority of electricity in India is produced by? coal is 60% of all electricity in India. This actually makes co2 pollution worse than efficient gas engines, or hybrids. Not that it isn't the right move, but they need to couple it with a serious push in green energy or the only thing they will be helping is particulates and smog in the cities, co2 emissions could worsen.
I think that the thousands of people dying from infections they caught from the designated shitting streets are a bigger problem than the few who may die by car-based pollution.
Then again it might not be as glamorous for the government to announce as making every car electric.
And no this is not racism, out-door defecating is indeed a huge problem in India:
http://www.planetcustodian.com...
http://theplanetd.com/india-is...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/heal...
Here you go...
http://electrics10.webs.com/
https://youtu.be/_LV8zqJ9YOQ
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
India seems like it would be perfect for a solar revolution. Almost the entire nation has enough sunlight to produce between 5.0-6.0 kWh/m^2 and enough of a population to make a grass roots effort actually worth something.
The energy from burning fossil fuels comes from combining hydrocarbons (chains of carbon and hydrogen) with oxygen in the air to form CO2 and H2O (primarily). Both CO2 and H2O are at a lower energy state than the original hydrocarbon, and thus their formation gives off energy.
Natural gas (CH4) gives you 1 CO2 + 2 H2O. 2 water for each carbon dioxide molecule generated.
Gasoline consists mostly of alkenes and cycloalkenes.
So gasoline only generates 1.25 or fewer water molecules for each carbon dioxide molecule, compared to natural gas at 2 water molecule for each carbon dioxide molecule.
Natural gas produces the most water per CO2 atom of any hydrocarbon, meaning burning it generates the most energy per CO2 atom emitted of any hydrocarbon. Or put another way, for a given amount of energy generated, natural gas does it with the least CO2 emissions of any hydrocarbon (because a greater portion of its energy comes from forming water). Environmentalists just try to badmouth it because they wanted us to switch to renewables, and instead we switched to a cleaner fossil fuel.
Methane (natural gas) is actually about 10x more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So if you're not gonna burn natural gas to generate energy, you're better off just burning it to convert it into carbon dioxide. Before oil prices rose above about $30/bbl, it wasn't worth it to capture the methane which came up the wells with the petroleum (methane requires high pressure or cryogenic storage). So we were just burning a lot of it without trying to capture its energy. At least now we're using that energy.
India doesn't have a complete grid, much less a grid strong enough to recharge a bunch of cars. Solar and battery would work, if they could afford it... or indoor plumbing. There are many issues preventing this from happening but I'm glad they are at least trying.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
India has nuclear power, too. And electric cars (especially with large batteries) are good at smoothing over variable renewables since drivers can charge when power is cheapest (just like people fill up their cars where gas is cheapest).
And even coal (if burned far from the city and with good scrubbers) beats an asthma-inducing and smog-filled city. A coal power plant also can be run very efficiently. If you include the energy cost needed to refine gasoline, then a good, supercritical steam, multi-stage coal power plant charging an electric car may even have fewer CO2 emissions than a conventional gasoline powered vehicle.
But India is also close to the equator, which means more sunshine and less seasonal variation in sunlight (northern Germany and the UK are actually terrible for solar for this reason).
So, yes, it's been pointed out that a great number, maybe the majority, of the population don't have running water or decent sanitation. But any solution can be abandoned by sufficiently enlarging the scope of the problem. Cities in India have a pollution problem that is significantly worse than in the US. That particular problem is worth solving, even though the problems of water and sanitation also need solving.
The possible win I see in this sort of conversion, besides reducing air pollution, is that it makes having a reliable electrical infrastructure more urgent, so maybe that problem will be solved also. And if they solve it with point source solutions like solar panels, those are naturally adaptable for smaller communities that are currently off the grid, which would be another win.
Or, it could all be a scam to fill the pockets of a few officials. We'll just have to see.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
If you're going electric, go in style!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
No, it does not.
Car engines have an efficiency of 20% or less.
A coal power plant is at 45%.
Charging electric cars is close to 100%
So: using coal plants to charge electric cars basically reduces emissions by 50%.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The US grid is old as well and it needs work.
Environmentalists just try to badmouth it because they wanted us to switch to renewables, and instead we switched to a cleaner fossil fuel.
Environmentalists "just" badmouth it because it's releasing sequestered carbon, and they're fracking to get more of it. Gee, is that all?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Charging electric cars is close to 100%
It's more like 90%, and then the motor is about 95% efficient at using the power. That's still pretty fantastic, but there continue to be significant losses which must be accounted for.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And electric cars (especially with large batteries) are good at smoothing over variable renewables since drivers can charge when power is cheapest (just like people fill up their cars where gas is cheapest).
Plus if you design the motor to run on the same frequency and voltage as the mains, or at least design the motor controller to be capable of outputting it, you can have the car itself supply power back to the grid to help smooth out the dips.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Stylish is overrated:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And as your example rightly points out, you need to think big. India's LED project has sold 500m bulbs. Not bad going.
I meant to write that both should be taken seriously.
India should be taken seriously despite problems just as the USA should be taken seriously despite the "rust belt" being abandoned etc.
Coal would be the worst case scenario; the smoke contains all sorts of pollutants not emitted by modern gasoline engines.
I'm not sure how many more times it needs to be said, but one coal plant is far preferable to the equivalent energy generated in many thousands of small inefficient engines. Extra bonus points for the coal plant not being in the city centre.
Switching from diesel to 100% coal powered ICE is still a net win for people, but the reality is not going to be 100% coal powered so it's only really a question of how much better it can get, not if it will be better.
>you're better off just burning it [wikipedia.org] to convert it into carbon dioxide
That is only true of methane already in the atmosphere or about to go into it. Now in some cases this applies. In Sweden a glacier being melted by global warming is now unleashing vast swathes of formerly ice-trapped methane, the Swedes have (quite wisely) decided to burn this methane in a powerplant rather than let it get into the atmosphere.
On the other hand the methane trapped where fracking goes to get it - would pretty much have been sequestered permanently short of a massive (as in volcano level) geological event. There is no environmental benefit to burning that stuff.
And of course, mining is always environmentally destructive - so don't ignore the damage done just getting it out. Oklahoma went from no earthquakes ever to an earthquake-a-day-keeps-the-boogeyman-away in a decade thanks to the damage done by Fracking....
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Such an ambitious undertaking and yet the majority of the population doesn't even have a indoor toilet. The masses still need to poop in the streets or on the railroad tracks. They local governments still hire poop scrappers to walk around the town to pick up human waste.
Electric engines are around 99% efficient.
Same for charging batteries, that is why I wrote 'close to'.
The losses are ofc in the transmission and tires etc. But those are the same regardless of engine type.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Electric engines are around 99% efficient. Same for charging batteries, that is why I wrote 'close to'.
The losses are ofc in the transmission and tires etc. But those are the same regardless of engine type.
Electric motors are only efficient when lightly loaded. Pmdc motors used in some EVs are around 90-93% at peak efficiency, 50% efficient at peak power, and drop to 0% efficiency when stopped/stalled - that is when they accelerate the vehicle most strongly. An induction motor, used in EVs, is slightly more complicated, but they tend to be more efficient across a larger rpm range. However they are still around 50% efficient at peak power and have poor efficiency at low speed high torque. This isn't counting any other losses like the motor controller electronics, mechanical drivetrain, etc.
.99x.96x.935 is 89% which is the realistic number to use when stating charge efficiency. Note 89% is pretty idealized, it's possible to get 70% while not realistic to get above 94% under a perfect and unlikely case.
Battery charging itself can approach 99% under perfect conditions, but the charger is only around 95-97% and you must include transmission line losses which average 2.2% to 13.3% by state and typically run around 6-7%.
I never heard that an electric engine had different efficiencies at different rpm's.
And honestly: why should that be the case?
Chargers are also close to 99% efficiency ... transmission losses don't really make sense to count in. You pay what the meter displays at your house. No one cares how much loss you had before, that is up to the grid operator.
And: oil is transported in pipelines, usually. And they have transmission losses, too. That is how pipelines work. They have pumps every few dozen km, those pumps usually are run by burning oil or gas.
Looks like you are mixing up torque with efficiency :) Anyway the point of my original post was: an EV is significantly more efficient than a ICE vehicle.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Yes, but still easier to control emissions from a handful of coal plants rather than millions of tailpipes.
The global Warming Scientists who have been right since roughly 1973?
No charger is 99% efficient. You have losses in the switching circuitry, battery management and safety circuits, motor controller pass through, the batteries themselves, etc. This user group forum reports real world situations where the efficiency is as low as 54%. Line losses matter because the whole reason for this thread on EV in the first place is about lowering pollution CO2, which is dependent on line losses. If you read my original link, you will find in India today (well a couple of years ago when the study was done but basically same as today) that electric vehicles pollute more co2 than gas ones due to the reasons I've listed.
When the electric motor has applied power, but the output rotaton is zero, efficiently is by definition zero. Thus all powered motors of any kind have zero efficiency at stall. Here is an example of a engineering document explaining how basic electric motor formulas work. Though these are for smaller motors used in machinery, they are basically the same/similar for all types of electric motors used in cars of all kinds.
I have a masters in mechanical engineering and have designed systems that include electric motors for 10 years.