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

#201

Post by fulafel » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 1:14 PM UTC

jseliger wrote: post #55

natch wrote: post #25

Now they need to get off coal as the source of much of that electricity. I’m not saying they won’t though... I’m pretty sure they are onboard with both cleaning up their environment, and limiting their CO2 emissions.

China is actually running nuclear AP1000 reactors: https://sg.news.yahoo.com/nuclear-shares-soar-china-plans-11... . It seems serious about nuclear power, unlike the U.S.

The new reactor completions are tails of the nuclear craze years ago, but it seems that the current attitude to nuclear starts is not so excited: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-...

Central quote:

"The 2011 meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant shocked Chinese officials and made a strong impression on many Chinese citizens. A government survey in August 2017 found that only 40% of the public supported nuclear power development."

"The bigger problem is financial. Reactors built with extra safety features and more robust cooling systems to avoid a Fukushima-like disaster are expensive, while the costs of wind and solar power continue to plummet: they are now 20% cheaper than electricity from new nuclear plants in China, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Moreover, high construction costs make nuclear a risky investment."

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

#202

Post by growlist » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 1:16 PM UTC

mcv wrote: post #187

growlist wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically if we don't control immigration, the developed world will look like the developing world, and then there will be no more developed world to help out. I think for some this is the intended endgame.

There's no evidence of this. Uncontrolled immigration is what made America great. If there's a problem it causes, it's that it creates a brain drain from the developing world to the developed world; it's often the more talented and enterprising people who leave (though that varies wildly among specific emigrating groups).

> Uncontrolled immigration is what made America great

A massive claim. Care to support it?

As far as I was aware, much of America's success is a simple accident of history, notably: having a massive virtually unoccupied continent with enormous unexploited natural resources, a single unified market with single currency, having no land border with a hostile foreign entity capable of posing a genuine threat, and taking advantage of (or as some argue deliberately creating the circumstances for) the rest of the world being smashed by two world wars.

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

#203

Post by adrianN » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 1:18 PM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #177

jseliger wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is actually running nuclear AP1000 reactors: https://sg.news.yahoo.com/nuclear-shares-soar-china-plans-11... . It seems serious about nuclear power, unlike the U.S.

The US' main problem with nuclear waste is that they still don't have a place to stash it; waste is building up at the nuclear plants and it's becoming a huge risk. Whereas China can just dig a storage facility in the desert or something; they can disregard locals' complaints easily thanks to being a totalitarian state. I mean so is the US but it's an ineffective one.

The US could build breeder reactors and use the "waste" as fuel.

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

#204

Post by adrianN » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 1:24 PM UTC

artificialidiot wrote: post #159

gibybo wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If the price were to include a carbon tax, it would likely be at least ten times higher and we would very quickly get rid of our beloved gas guzzlers. Wouldn't you expect a carbon tax to be similar in price to the cost to get the carbon back out of the air? CO2 released per barrel of oil (when converted to various fuels and burned) appears to be around 300-450 kg [1][2], but we can round up to 500 kg to be conservat…

The thing is, if you wait long enough, CO2 will be removed by the plant life anyway so removing it is "free". However if you reflect the price of the removal process which is as _fast_ as it is emitted to the consumer, someone gonna pay through the nose...

"Long enough" is unfortunately very long because a large part of the fossile CO2 we emit will remain in the atmosphere until it is sequestered back underground by geological processes. These take thousands of years.

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

#205

Post by vonmoltke » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 1:30 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #174

artificialidiot wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, if you wait long enough, CO2 will be removed by the plant life anyway so removing it is "free". However if you reflect the price of the removal process which is as _fast_ as it is emitted to the consumer, someone gonna pay through the nose...

Plants release carbon when they rot or are otherwise eaten. So they're only a temporary carbon store.

Three points on this:

- Increasing total plant biomass increases the amount if carbon trapped in that portion of the cycle at any given time

- When plants decay or are eaten, some of the carbon compounds created are solids. Carbon itself is not the problem, carbon-based gases are.

- Some portion of plant biomass is harvested by humans for durable purposes, such as wood and textiles. These uses hold carbon for much longer.

I don't know what the total affect of these is, but they shouldn't be ignored.

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

#206

Post by dalbasal » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 1:30 PM UTC

dzhiurgis wrote: post #74

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…

Problem is cities want to super-customise their buses kicking the cost probably 3x

More than they want to customize ICE buses?

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

#207

Post by epanchin » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 1:32 PM UTC

teknologist wrote: post #151

I see a lot of news of these "green" vehicles being used in China but few seem to be questioning where that electricity comes from. Coal power is still a massive thing in China.

Pollution in cities causes huge health issues. Displacing that pollution is a big priority.

Centralising electricity generation makes it easier to switch to renewables later on. Also, higher grid usage means more investment. (China is already 24% renewable, about twice the USA.)

No-one living in a city is going to question why they’re switching diesel buses to remotely coal generated electricity.

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

#208

Post by mcv » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 1:34 PM UTC

growlist wrote: post #202

mcv wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no evidence of this. Uncontrolled immigration is what made America great. If there's a problem it causes, it's that it creates a brain drain from the developing world to the developed world; it's often the more talented and enterprising people who leave (though that varies wildly among specific emigrating groups).

> Uncontrolled immigration is what made America great A massive claim. Care to support it? As far as I was aware, much of America's success is a simple accident of history, notably: having a massive virtually unoccupied continent with enormous unexploited natural resources, a single unified market with single currency, having no land border with a hostile foreign entity capable of posing a genuine threat, and taking…

Yeah, but without immigration during the 19th and early 20th century, the US wouldn't have anyone to work on those resources and the continent would still be virtually unoccupied. The US would have been as empty as Siberia.

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

#209

Post by zaroth » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 1:35 PM UTC

nneonneo wrote: post #96

zaroth wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is actually way closer to possible than I thought it would be. Of course, that stil only lets you run under power during the day!

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

Using the same density as they achieved in an open field where land is cheap, they could cover 2% of their cost.

Using the latest solar tech in a space-conscious deployment I would assume you could probably 2x that at least. So we’re in the realm of 5% of energy cost.

Give the technology another 10 years and where would we be? Unfortunately panels are already astoundingly efficient going from about 15% in the 60s to 20-25% today. In the lab we can approach 50% so there’s probably one more doubling.

To cover 10% of the energy cost of moving that much cargo just from the sun is mind boggling to me.

It makes me wonder if a different ship design which would scale down to have more surface area per volume, driving the solar power factor up, could actually work economically.

Since the trend has just been bigger and bigger super-freighters this would be an interesting shift.

Is a Tesla cargo ship in our future?

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

#210

Post by nathan_long » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 1:39 PM UTC

gibybo wrote: post #82

jwr wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The price of oil is unrealistic, because it does not reflect the terrible damage to our planet. In other words, the current price can be so low because we are "borrowing" the planet from our children and grandchildren. We get cheap oil because they will not have a planet to live on. If the price were to include a carbon tax, it would likely be at least ten times higher and we would very quickly get rid of our beloved…

>If the price were to include a carbon tax, it would likely be at least ten times higher and we would very quickly get rid of our beloved gas guzzlers. Wouldn't you expect a carbon tax to be similar in price to the cost to get the carbon back out of the air? CO2 released per barrel of oil (when converted to various fuels and burned) appears to be around 300-450 kg [1][2], but we can round up to 500 kg to be conservat…

> Wouldn't you expect a carbon tax to be similar in price to the cost to get the carbon back out of the air?

If the goal of the tax is to fund carbon removal and if that removal can be done immediately after emission without any damage being done to the environment, then yes. Otherwise you'd want to factor in the damage done.

If someone injected you with snake venom and argued that they should only be fined the amount it costs you for antivenom without consideration of the damage to your body, you would not accept that.