Slashdot Mirror
China's E-Buses Dent Oil Demand More Than Electric Cars Do (bloomberg.com)
China's fleet of electric buses appear to be denting oil demand more than electric cars. "By the end of this year, a cumulative 270,000 barrels a day of diesel demand will have been displaced by electric buses, most of it in China," reports Bloomberg, citing a new report published by BloombergNEF. "That's more than three times the displacement by all the world's passenger electric vehicles (a market where Tesla has a share of about 12 percent)." From the report: Despite rapid growth, the impact on the oil market from electric vehicles remains relatively small. Collectively, buses and electric vehicles account for about 3 percent of oil demand growth since 2011, and 0.3 percent of current global consumption, according to BloombergNEF figures and data from the International Energy Agency. Buses matter more because of their size and constant use. For every 1,000 electric buses on the road, 500 barrels of diesel are displaced each day, BloombergNEF estimates. By comparison, 1,000 battery electric vehicles remove just 15 barrels of oil demand.
Still, the EV market's impact on oil consumption is only going to grow. By 2040, electric vehicles could displace much as 6.4 million barrels a day of demand, while fuel efficiency improvements will erase another 7.5 million barrels a day, according to BloombergNEF's May 2018 long-term EV outlook.
Still, the EV market's impact on oil consumption is only going to grow. By 2040, electric vehicles could displace much as 6.4 million barrels a day of demand, while fuel efficiency improvements will erase another 7.5 million barrels a day, according to BloombergNEF's May 2018 long-term EV outlook.
No dangerous batteries, no need to poison the planed when batteries crap out, no need to strip mine for the rare earth elements in the batteries
good for them.
By 2040, electric vehicles could displace much as 6.4 million barrels a day of demand, while fuel efficiency improvements will erase another 7.5 million barrels a day, according to BloombergNEF's May 2018 long-term EV outlook.
So what influence will this have at that point and into the future on the value of the US dollar, or that portion of the USD's value as the exchange currency for oil?
Gas or diesel buses are, themselves, better than the equivalent number of cars, although I wonder if that considers average ridership on buses. They may be better than 20 cars, but not 2 for an almost empty bus.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
What's the point when the only thing that moves the needle is getting some dirty buses in China off the road?
I'm glad to see linear scaling still works, even in a backwards autocratic ethnostate cabal like China...
Demand for power plant coal is up some - which is easier to control pollution actually .
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
But then, that's what Republican denialist faggots do best - deny something exists, implausibly and stupidly.
When do you charge them back up?
As far as I know there is no electric car that can drive for a whole day without charging.
Makes sense - a bus gets typically 6 miles per diesel gallon, 5 for gasoline, compared to a car's average of 25 mpg, and the duty cycles of busses is typically 25% or more, vs consumer-owned cars that are typically around 5% utilization, so busses burn about 5x as many gallons per mile driven, and are driven about 5x as much of the day, so each bus converted to an EV would equate to 25 cars converts to EVs, so electrifying busses is a very efficient way to reduce gas consumption. And I bet fleet owners like it, too - EVs have much lower operating costs and lower maintenance costs, which are a big deal for fleets.
On the flip side, globally there are over 900 million cars on the road, vs perhaps 100 thousand busses, so there's a lot more fuel consumed by cars than busses, so while each car has less impact, they outnumber busses by 9,000:1, so converting all of them to EVs would have a lot more impact.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Battery tech isn't standing still, Einstein-san. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium%E2%80%93air_battery
Conventional diesel buses are already much more efficient than cars.
A bus emits approximately 1/6 the CO2 per passenger kilometer as does a single-occupant ICE car.
From that perspective, electrifying cars should give more ghg reductions, in a population where most people are using cars.
In China, the car use is probably not that high yet, as a proportion of population, so it makes sense that busses are having a bigger oil displacement there. That is not replicable to other car-centric places like USA.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
.. or e-dollar
Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment.
This is the true reality of the world. China is the EV leader because it is not tied to the fantasy of AI and self-driving as pre-requisite for emissions reduction. The solution that can be and has been implemented now is to use these EV busses with trained drivers. Then dozens of passengers have greater security and can do anything for leisure or productivity while riding to their destinations.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/29/natural-gas-killed-coal-now-renewables-and-batteries-are-taking-over
Chucksucker you pathetic stuttering lying faggot, lol.
Don't know about China, my large US metro area has well less than 10% recovery rate for riders meaning that 90% of the cost of the bus is subsidized by non bus riders.
Actually, the world's pollution has been significantly moved by insulation, LEDs bulbs, and pollution controls, even water contamination.
MPG is actually the inverse of fuel consumption. That is, the bigger MPG gets, the less fuel is consumed. This has the effect of exaggerating people's perception of the effect of high-MPG vehicles on fuel consumption. Most people are surprised to learn that upgrading from a 14 MPG SUV to a 20 MPG SUV saves more fuel than upgrading from a 25 MPG sedan to a 50 MPG hybrid. How can a +6 MPG improvement save more fuel than a +25 MPG improvement? Because MPG is the inverse of fuel consumption, meaning a +x MPG delta doesn't represent the same fuel savings throughout the entire MPG range. Say you drive 100 miles.
14 MPG SUV = 7.14 gallons
20 MPG SUV = 5.0 gallons
2.14 gallons saved per 100 miles
25 MPG sedan = 4.0 gallons
50 MPG hybrid = 2.0 gallons
2.0 gallons saved per 100 miles.
So +6 MPG @ 14 MPG results in more fuel savings than +25 MPG @ 25 MPG. A +x MPG improvement represents more fuel savings at lower MPG than it does higher MPG. The rest of the world measures fuel consumption in liters per 100 km to avoid this problem. That's a direct measure of fuel consumption, not an inverse.
This means econoboxes are actually the worst vehicle to convert to a hybrid. They already use very little fuel, so the potential fuel savings by converting them to a hybrid is even smaller. And you're spending a lot of money on a hybrid drivetrain for a very small fuel savings. The hybrid SUVs that environmentalists scoffed at are actually the best personal vehicles for converting into hybrids. Likewise, you get the biggest fuel savings when you convert pickup trucks, buses, and tractor trailers to hybrids or electric. Musk understood this, which is why he produced an electric semi-trailer truck. There are roughly 2 million semi-trucks in the U.S. vs 250 million cars. Yet the semi-trucks consume nearly as much fuel as the cars.
(The same problem affects hard drives and SSDs. MB/s is actually the inverse of how we perceive drive speed. We think of speed in terms of how long we have to wait for the drive to complete an operation. So those multi-GB/s sequential speeds that NVMe SSDs can hit actually make very little difference. They're so fast the operation is completed in the blink of an eye. It's actually the smallest MB/s speeds which make the biggest difference. If your NMVe SSD can only manage 30 MB/s 4k reads, even a small number of small files which need to be read will easily make you wait for a longer time than hundreds of MB of sequential data. If you want a good SSD, ignore the sequential speeds, get something with fast 4k speeds.)
That's now money that they can spend somewhere else instead of on oil imports. Meanwhile we're cutting back on support of renewables and clean energy initiatives here in the US in favor of deregulating coal. This is why we're going to be chasing China's lead.
Yes! Unfortunately, we only implemented those things when govt stepped in and used laws to give people a nudge. Yes, LED lighting would save people money, but governments had to ban incandescents to get people to use them. The same may be true of internal combustion engines. The govt should probably start by banning super small ICEs, like in model airplanes. Then later ban larger ones, like those in weed wackers, chain saws, and lawn mowers. Then in a few more years ban non-electric mopeds, then motorcycles, then cars, etc. In this way, the electric motor and battery tech could be slowly rolled out and improved until everything is electric. And economies of scale will bring the cost of everything down.
By some objective measures. I'm sure they can tell lies right up there with the Russians in the meantime.
Coal, water, solar, wind, nuclear? Displacing one, usually means generating up for the other.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/29/natural-gas-killed-coal-now-renewables-and-batteries-are-taking-over
Nothing in the referenced articles note whether the buses are battery operated or use overhead wires for the electricity delivery. The latter situation might be more efficient as the buses wouldn't need to be take out of service to charge the on board batteries or exchange them. Batteries also add weight to the buses and have a limited lifetime thus the cost of using them vs. overhead cables would increase cost.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Some electric trucks are made so they're battery can be removed and a fresh one put in. Wow..
Intriguing question, with my hometown of San Francisco (900K folks) having
a multiplicity of delivery types, all sourced from 100% GHG-free
power from Yosemite-area hydro.
We have quaint cable cars, the EM motive force then converted to mechanical force.
We have light rail and traditional trolley streetcars, both sourced with overhead wires.
We have surface-only buses which started to be petroleum diesel until 2007,
then B20 biodiesel until 2015, now renewable plant "green" diesel,
supplemented with hybrid batteries for regen, and now with bigger batts
for diesel-free "green zones". Note: These will all shift to pure BEV buses
starting 2025 when the other buses wear out. So the question becomes -- when this
transmogrification to battery-electric happens, will the overhead trolley
wires be torn down? I think that would be very natural due to maintenance
requirements.
P.S. Then there is also high-speed BART, now competing with Tesla EVs
which are growing like weeds in this town. In short, SF is blessed this way,
so take that, coal country!
It's been a long time since I visited San Francisco, but, if I remember correctly, many, if not most, of the buses were electric using overhead wiring. They were pretty quiet and there was no smoke coming from a non existent tail pipe. Not sure the input energy source for the cable cars, but I'm guessing electricity. Cable cars are not likely an important transportation source, but they're nice for tourists.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
It's been a long time since I visited San Francisco, but, if I remember correctly, many, if not most, of the buses were electric using overhead wiring.
SF has the second-most trolley buses in service in the western hemisphere (behind Mexico City), but they're less than a majority. They have approximately 300 trolley buses, and 500 diesels.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Batteries also add weight to the buses and have a limited lifetime thus the cost of using them vs. overhead cables would increase cost.
That depends on routes, and number of buses. The catenary wire system has to be built and maintained. Trains can pick up the catenary wires themselves with a simple scissor lift system, but buses have to be able to move side to side, so the contactor arms have to be connected to the wires manually. I'm sure you could make that system robotic, but at the moment that's not how it's done. (How much would that cost, how reliable could you make it, etc.) It therefore really only makes sense to use trolleybuses where there are many buses making many trips. Modern trolleybuses do have onboard battery, but it's only intended for use in emergencies.
For trains, you can reasonably use a hybrid catenary/battery system — plugging in when the trains are in the yard, and charging from the overhead lines as system capacity allows, operating from the battery in between segments where you have overhead power.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Batteries cost less than wires.
Also batteries are less ugly.
aaaaaaa
Look it up.
Per person America uses more coal powered electricity than China.
Hint: because America uses so much more electricity per person.
There is a reason your CO2 footprint is twice that of a Chinese person.
Search engines are a thing now. https://www.statista.com/stati... California by itself has 100k busses... https://www.bloomberg.com/news...
You use twice the CO2 as a Chinese person. Why not clean up your own house first.
I think you can take it they mean battery operated otherwise they'd not be refer to cars as part of the discussion. Batteries will be recycled and yes, they are heavy - its all been factored into the equations. No need to take them out of service to charge as they all return to the depot at some point during the day especially when the driver has to have lunch and as the battery will not be fully discharged at that point, it won't take long to put enough charge in to finish the day. Once you get the idea that EVs are not run from full to empty like you do with ICE, then it makes sense i.e. put it on charge when you get out of the car (if you can). There are also some countries putting charging plates at each bus stop so it get a charge while passengers do their thing.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
LEDs did not save energy globally, people just ended up using more of them.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
What's that in English? Seeing as the word "dent" appears right after the word "e-buses" and is therefore likely to be taken to mean 'physically crash into and damage'. Cretinous Americans.
By the way, there is no such thing as 'catastrophic man-made global warming'.
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
They're BEVs, not trolley cars.
Clean up your own backyard first LynnwoodTosser.
Try again LynnwoodLoser.
Some really crappy non-efficient diesel buses to begin with.
Maybe we need to have that little talk - you know: about where electricity comes from.
If the electricity comes from a diesel, or worse yet, coal plant, then I doubt there is any environmental benefit.
Makes sense - a bus gets typically 6 miles per diesel gallon, 5 for gasoline, compared to a car's average of 25 mpg, and the duty cycles of busses is typically 25% or more, vs consumer-owned cars that are typically around 5% utilization, so busses burn about 5x as many gallons per mile driven, and are driven about 5x as much of the day, so each bus converted to an EV would equate to 25 cars converts to EVs, so electrifying busses is a very efficient way to reduce gas consumption. And I bet fleet owners like it, too - EVs have much lower operating costs and lower maintenance costs, which are a big deal for fleets.
On the flip side, globally there are over 900 million cars on the road, vs perhaps 100 thousand busses, so there's a lot more fuel consumed by cars than busses, so while each car has less impact, they outnumber busses by 9,000:1, so converting all of them to EVs would have a lot more impact.
The problem is, whereas communities may be thoughtful and conscientious; individuals are selfish and less thoughtful. It's easier to get cities to flip to electric than people. It has to happen eventually, and the environment will be better for it- but people suck!
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Even a small drop will lower prices significantly because it's the barrel that costs $60 to pump that sets the price, not the billions of barrels that cost $15 to pump.
This sets up an interesting feedback loop since electric cars are an *awesome* deal at $4 gasoline and $0.11/kwh electricity but not so great at $2 gasoline and $0.11/kwh (much less the $0.28/kwh it is in some countries).
So plug in electric vehicles (PUV) lower the cost of gasoline thereby making themselves less attractive.
Of course as internal combustion engines (ICE) lose their network effect, they will become more expensive. Service stations will be less profitable with fewer ICE cars on the road. And I think within 10 years,you'll be looking at some insane ranges for electric cars (like 400-500 miles) which mostly will charge overnight at homes and hotels, and at work, and while shopping. As they become less profitable, gasoline stations will need to charge more per gallon to cover their monthly base costs.
OTH, at least one electric vehicle company (Audi?) wants to put recharging on a subscription basis with a base cost per charge that is ridiculously high that makes their electric cars much more expensive (about $750 per year) to operate.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Oh come the fuck on! Most people are not driving the Dakkar Rally and I highly doubt you even are. You drive the entire length of Britain from top to bottom on a regular basis and you aren't a lorry driver? GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE!