Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 270 posts

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

#231

Post by mikeash »

austincheney wrote: post #23
mikeash wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not true. They produce more sulphur dioxide, a pollutant that cars don’t emit much of in general, and which the heavy fuel used by ships generates in abundance. Somehow the story morphed from “a few ships emit more of this specific pollutant than all cars” to “more pollution” to “more CO2.” The entire worldwide shipping industry accounts for about 3% of humanity’s CO2 emissions.

> 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.

It's quite believable that passenger cars also account for something the neighborhood of 3% of total CO2 emissions. My point was not to say that shipping is completely irrelevant, it's to point out that it is not so grossly overpowering as your original comment suggested. The idea that a handful of ships match the CO2 emissions of all cars is completely divorced from reality.

If you want to find the exact number that cars account for, I'm sure you can find it. Just don't use whatever source you got that initial CO2 claim from.

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

#232

Post by mikeash »

austincheney wrote: post #95
desdiv wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's simply not true. It started out as a factoid, but got jumbled into nonsense by a game of telephone: 1. True: 16 of the world’s largest ships produce as much _sulfur_ pollution as all the world’s cars.[1] 2. False: "How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world", headline from Daily Mail.[2] 3. False: "world's 6 largest shipping tankers produce more CO2 than all the world's personal vehicles…

> Separate studies suggest that maritime carbon dioxide emissions are not only higher than previously thought, but could rise by as much as 75% in the next 15 to 20 years if world trade continues to grow and no action is taken. The figures from the oil giant BP, which owns 50 tankers, and researchers at the Institute for Physics and Atmosphere in Wessling, Germany reveal that annual emissions from shipping range betw…

Your statement was not that the maritime transportation sector is roughly equal to the US passenger vehicle fleet. Your statement was that "The world's 6 largest shipping tankers produce more CO2 than all the world's personal vehicles combined." Those two statements are several orders of magnitude apart, and the second one more than qualifies as "completely wrong."

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

#233

Post by mikeash »

Someone1234 wrote: post #27
mikeash wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has lost several, as have the Soviets and Russians.

You're right[0]. Terrifying. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_navy#Accidents_involvi...

If you must dump an operating nuclear reactor somewhere with no supervision, at least the deep ocean is a pretty good place to do it. I mean, far better not to do it at all, but it could be worse....

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

#235

Post by throwaway5752 »

austincheney wrote: post #218
throwaway5752 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Developed countries with high car ownership and countries with very small populations and very large hydrocarbon extraction industries.

That isn't accurate either. The country that outputs the highest CO2 per capita is Qatar. Qatar left OPEC within the last year because their oil extraction is so low. Qatar's primary hydrocarbon extraction is LNG (liquefied natural gas) which is a low CO2 emitter relative to oil refinement. Also, most the countries here have a higher than average population density compared to the global average due to a small geogra…

Trinidad & Tobago, Australia, and Turkmenistan are high in addition to Qatar. What they all have in common is they are high LNG exporters, which involves liquifaction trains. LNG liquifaction trains are extremely CO2 intensive, along with heavy oil refining (see Curacao, Aruba, et al per capita CO2)

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

#236

Post by mikeash »

arcticbull wrote: post #49
mikeash wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has lost several, as have the Soviets and Russians.

92 lost nuclear warheads including one near Seattle/Vancouver, one near New York and one near Miami ( https://genecurtis.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/lost-nuclear-bom... )

It's worth noting that, as long as they don't explode (or get stolen), a lost nuclear warhead is pretty benign. They contain a relatively small amount (a few dozen pounds) of low-activity nuclear material and it all tends to stay together.

A reactor contains way more material, probably several tons at least. If it's been operating, it contains lots of nasty, highly-radioactive fission and decay products. Reactors also like to go all melty and sometimes (non-nuclear) explodey when they fail, although I suspect that's less of a factor when it's underwater.

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

#237

Post by growlist »

mcv wrote: post #223
growlist wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So then you admit that immigration was just one part of the puzzle? Or are you asserting that you could take those same immigrants, transplant them anywhere in the world, and have the same outcome?

I'm pointing out that immigration helped rather than hurt the US. The claim that it makes countries poor or underdeveloped is wrong.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

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

#238

Post by Brakenshire »

bbojan wrote: post #222
fulafel wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Actually just yesterday China announced the plan to build 4 more reactors: https://www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/3002379/nucl...

That's interesting! It's still quite a minor programme though, tending towards something like 10% of electricity supply.

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

#239

Post by Brakenshire »

m0zg wrote: post #129

What's the advantage compared to a tram or trolley bus? I don't get it.

Trams are horribly, horribly expensive. You can spend hundreds of millions on a line which could be provided at a tenth of the price by a bus lane and some buses. And the bus lane is more flexible because you can use it as a spine for services branching off at either end.

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

#240

Post by danmaz74 »

bobthepanda wrote: post #200
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hills are the primary use case for electric buses already (electric has much better torque), and have been for a very long time. The only thing is now instead of using overhead lines, batteries can be used instead.

The problem is not the torque, it’s energy consumption while climbing a hill. Notes on observed increased energy consumption while on hills during Hong Kong trials: https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201812/12/P2018121200670... Trolleybuses are great for hills because they are constantly drawing power from the grid. It’s why Seattle has committed to trolleybus expansion for its hilly network.

Regenerative braking could help recover a big part of the energy spent to climb the hill up.
Post reply on HN