China's e-buses dent oil demand more than electric cars do • Hacker News Board

Re: China's e-buses dent oil demand more than electric cars do

#111

Post by tomnm » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 4:57 AM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #99

thewhitetulip wrote: post #84

By this logic, we should "forget" all the go green initiatives because China (and Africa) are building a "Green Wall" to stop their respective deserts from widening. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/china-great-gree... I say this is mainly about China because Africa has modified their green wall project and instead of planting billion trees from East coast to West coast, they are helping communities to thr…

The trees planted in the Gobi in 2008 are already mostly dead because they couldn’t commit enough water resources to maintain the ones they carelessly selected. As a result, the Beijing dust storms that were gone since 2009 started coming back in 2015. Whenever the Chinese government does something, don’t assume it will be sustainable by default.

Source?

Re: China's e-buses dent oil demand more than electric cars do

#112

Post by Yaggo » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 4:57 AM UTC

throwaway5752 wrote: post #66

austincheney wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The entire worldwide shipping industry accounts for about 3% of humanity’s CO2 emissions. To my knowledge personally owned vehicles account for a similar percentage of total CO2 output, so that number while small is a red herring. People tend to generate more CO2 per capita as a result of air conditioning than from the vehicles they drive.

You are very incorrect on most of what you've posted here, but this is embarrassing since you could verify this with basic math. An air conditioner typically consumes in the neighborhood of 4kW, less than half the day, less than half the year. So, being generous, 6000kWh annually for air conditioning. Gasoline has the equivalent of 34kWh/gallon, which implies air conditioning uses the equivalent of 176 gallons of gas…

> which implies air conditioning uses the equivalent of 176 gallons of gas per year.

Yes, cars do produce more CO2 than air conditioning, but in the context of CO2 emissions, you can't just compare "equivalent of gas gallons".

First, not all electricity is generated from fossil fuels (63% in the US, much less e.g. in many parts of Europe).

Second, to produce 6000 kWh of electricity from fossil fuels, you have to burn much more than the theoritical amount, because the efficiency of conversion is much lower than 100% (although in cold climates you may use combined heat & electricity production).

In the end these are irrelevant details, as we must stop burning fossil fuels anyway. Every part of the chain is important, and the argument "but x produces even more CO2 than y, so I keep using y" is of course stupid.

Re: China's e-buses dent oil demand more than electric cars do

#113

Post by ryacko » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 5:01 AM UTC

est31 wrote: post #107

nneonneo wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming OP’s numbers are right, it’s actually a factor of 50, not 10. Somewhat less close to possible.

If you cover your ship in solar panels and can save 2% of energy costs, it would mean a huge win nevertheless, as oil is expensive.

A fair amount of waste comes from idling in port. There are still issues with loading and unloading containers if you cover the ship with panels.

Re: China's e-buses dent oil demand more than electric cars do

#114

Post by mikekchar » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 5:04 AM UTC

fabianhjr wrote: post #92

evolve2k wrote: post #61

This points out a new opportunity. Why stop at China for electric busses (yes they are probably manufacturing them locally)? Cities are seeming increasingly more able to be proactive than countries. Encourage local cities to one by one electrify the bus network and this effect goes global. It’s obvious tangible action that citizens can demand and mayors can visibly deliver. Game for those playing at home, do a search…

> Cities are seeming increasingly more able to be proactive than countries. > Encourage local cities to one by one electrify the bus network and this effect goes global. It’s obvious tangible action that citizens can demand and mayors can visibly deliver. This is known as Libertarian Municipalism. ( https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Murray_Bookchin#/Libertarian_mun... ) A small book on the matter: http://new-compass.net/si…

Cool. I'm glad this idea has a name. I've often thought that higher level politics are really untouchable by the average person because: candidates tend to be chosen by large parties either through appointment or proxy voting, changes made made by the politician are hard to measure because they are often made in places where the voter doesn't reside, policy is determined by the party (and enforced by a "whip") meaning that voters are forced to vote for specific parties rather than the best candidate, etc, etc. Municipal level politics usually has far fewer roadblocks and is much more visible to the average person. Using that to leverage larger changes seems like a doable process.

Re: China's e-buses dent oil demand more than electric cars do

#115

Post by Gibbon1 » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 5:08 AM UTC

dustcoin wrote: post #17

austincheney wrote: post #2

Then just imagine if shipping tankers became electrified. The world's 6 largest shipping tankers produce more CO2 than all the world's personal vehicles combined.

This is false information that is commonly repeated. The ships produce more of a particular pollutant, sulfur dioxide (SO2), not CO2. Personal vehicles produce barely any SO2 (gasoline contains no sulfur, diesel contains a small amount) so it isn't surprising a few container ships, which burn sulfur-heavy bunker fuel, produce more.

I always want to think of sulfur in HFO are contributing to the total heating value because the stuff used to be 3% sulfur. Realistically it's probably 1%. Sulfur only has about 1/3 the energy content as HFO.

But they are phasing out high sulfur HFO in 2020 I think ships are restricted to 0.5% sulfur.

Re: China's e-buses dent oil demand more than electric cars do

#116

Post by est31 » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 5:12 AM UTC

ryacko wrote: post #113

est31 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you cover your ship in solar panels and can save 2% of energy costs, it would mean a huge win nevertheless, as oil is expensive.

A fair amount of waste comes from idling in port. There are still issues with loading and unloading containers if you cover the ship with panels.

If a ship's in port, there is no need for using the on-ship engines at all. You could just connect it to the land based grid, which, optimally, uses renewables. Hamburg harbour has project to do this precisely, and it seems Cuxhaven has one too.

Re: China's e-buses dent oil demand more than electric cars do

#117

Post by ehmish » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 5:12 AM UTC

tomnm wrote: post #111

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trees planted in the Gobi in 2008 are already mostly dead because they couldn’t commit enough water resources to maintain the ones they carelessly selected. As a result, the Beijing dust storms that were gone since 2009 started coming back in 2015. Whenever the Chinese government does something, don’t assume it will be sustainable by default.

Source?

It's mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-North_Shelter_Forest_Pro..., but the cited reference to it is in "The Epoch Times", which from what I've seen has quite an ideological bent against china, so I'd take it with a grain of salt

Re: China's e-buses dent oil demand more than electric cars do

#118

Post by Flollop » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 5:12 AM UTC

tomnm wrote: post #111

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trees planted in the Gobi in 2008 are already mostly dead because they couldn’t commit enough water resources to maintain the ones they carelessly selected. As a result, the Beijing dust storms that were gone since 2009 started coming back in 2015. Whenever the Chinese government does something, don’t assume it will be sustainable by default.

Source?

https://e360.yale.edu/features/chinas_reforestation_programs...

Not only that, there are concerns around lack of biodiversity in the trees being planted: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160907125303.h...

Re: China's e-buses dent oil demand more than electric cars do

#119

Post by mikekchar » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 5:19 AM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #105

thewhitetulip wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, at the start they'll die without human intervention, sure. But wait for 30yrs, let the land be revived and let nature take her course. I am pretty sure that we'll see lush green forest near the Gobi desert and the desert might also be pushed back. I dislike the dictatorship in China but this effort is unparalleled.

Trees don’t make water come on it’s own. A lot of the planting is intrinsically unsustainable. That is the problem with top down authoritarian directives, execution is lacking. Follow through is lacking as the government declares success after they sign the order and then forget about it after patting themselves on the back.

While this is true, forests do hold a lot of water. One of the problems with dry places is not so much that there is no water, but that the water is inconsistent and only available for a short period of time. Forests act like a sponge and hold water for long periods of time, which can literally transform ecosystems.

That said, I know literally nothing about the Gobi desert ecosystem and whether planting a forest will have the desired effect. Interestingly (to me at least), right at the time that the Edo period in Japan was starting, Japan had cut down most of its trees. One of the effects was that the runoff from mountains was much faster and carried less mineral content. This, in turn, reduced the ability for algae to grow in the shallow regions of the sea around Japan, leading to a very real possibility of mass starvation. Somehow somebody realised this and convinced the Shogun to put a moratorium on logging. Despite the really huge hardship this had on the people, it's likely to have saved Japan. By the 18th century Japan had developed fairly advanced silviculture. Some historians in Japan consider this to be a practical miracle given the very limited knowledge that people had about ecology in the Edo period.

I'm hoping that our cultures will enter a new period where we start to understand that this kinds of "ecological engineering" is necessary for the health of our societies. Whether or not the planting of trees in the Gobi desert is effective or not (I have no idea), the idea that we need to do these kinds of things is very promising and I hope that whatever successes and failures there are will be fed back into a system of refinement for the next try.

Re: China's e-buses dent oil demand more than electric cars do

#120

Post by seanmcdirmid » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 5:19 AM UTC

tomnm wrote: post #111

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trees planted in the Gobi in 2008 are already mostly dead because they couldn’t commit enough water resources to maintain the ones they carelessly selected. As a result, the Beijing dust storms that were gone since 2009 started coming back in 2015. Whenever the Chinese government does something, don’t assume it will be sustainable by default.

Source?

It actually says as much in the article linked by grand parent, but I also remember reading about it a few years ago in china daily or globaltimes (probably the latter), so it has been brought up in the Chinese press as well. Anecdotally as well: I was living in Beijing during the entire time period and noticed the dust storms going away and then coming back.

Fun story: Beijing kids are all required to plant trees on school organized trips (which they must also pay to plant). So they go to places in the hinterland that are designated for tree planting, and plant their trees. After each school group leaves, the trees are promptly dug out so they can be planted by the next group of kids.