5 ms·

While electric buses are almost certainly an emissions win compared to the no doubt primitive and dirty Chinese diesel buses, I doubt it is it fair to call them

While electric buses are almost certainly an emissions win compared to the no doubt primitive and dirty Chinese diesel buses, I doubt it is it fair to call them zero-emission? China burns a lot of coal for electrical power.

erikpukinskis 9y ago
Yep, it’s not zero emissions it’s like 75% less emissions (or whatever you get from adding the generator efficiency plus regenerative braking plus renewable sources.)
nashashmi 9y ago
Fair point but consolidating pollution emitters to a single point instead of scattering them across public roads is a good thing.
lopmotr 9y ago
I think the main point for China is to move the pollution outside the city streets where it directly affects more people. That's nothing to do with CO2 or global warming but to do with people's health, which is obviously super important.
paxys 9y ago
Yup, but it is still beneficial because power generation can be gradually made cleaner without affecting the rest of the infrastructure.
Avshalom 9y ago
In addition to the possibility of cleaner power in the future; simply moving the emissions from tailpipes on the street to plants 100km from Beijing or Lagos or Mexico City... Still increases overall life expectancy.
ChuckMcM 9y ago
That is picking nits :-) Not only is China rapidly building nuclear power plants, containing the emissions of one plant burning coal is easier than containing the emissions of the 10,000 buses that plant provides power to operate. There is also a benefit to China converting from oil (something imported[1]) to coal (something available locally[2]). [1] https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Chinas-Becomes-Worlds-Next-Top-Oil-Importer.html https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Chinas-Becomes-Worlds-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China
- craftyguy 9y ago
  > That is picking nits No, actually it's not. The source of electricity matters, and just because something doesn't directly emit pollutants does not mean its power is derived without emitting pollutants.
  - Taniwha 9y ago
    I flew across China last month ... Lots of open cast coal mines, each with a power station next to it .... But they're planning ahead, those power stations are surrounded by thousands of windmills, more than I could count leveraging the power distribution network
  - Gibbon1 9y ago
    A thing that is pointed out is the life of a vehicle, especially a bus might be 15-30 years. During that time the grid will become a lot cleaner. Where with a diesel bus emissions wise you're all in. There is also the long tailpipe, diesel buses produce toxic emissions where people are, coal fired power plants produce emissions elsewhere. (not necessarily, but likely)
  - ChuckMcM 9y ago
    I don't disagree the source of electricity does matter. But who is to say where the electron coming out of the plug came from? Perhaps it came from one of their existing nuclear plants[1] ? For me, when you get to the point where you can construct two valid statements that both are supported by available information, yet one disproves a statement and the other proves it, you have reached the point of 'nits'. In this case : "They are not zero emission because electricity can come from a coal fired plant." "The are zero emission because electricity can come from a nuclear power plant." Pedants could go a different way, they could say "the bus is zero emission but the infrastructure isn't." We saw a lot of that with solar panels where people would argue that the energy to smelt the aluminum to make the frames and furnaces to grow the silicon ingots far exceeded any amount of energy that the solar cells themselves would provide. But one has to wonder, what is the point of arguing at that level when, as the article states, the pollution where the buses are deployed is significantly less? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
icc97 9y ago
Every time we talk about EVs someone tries to make this point. Yes you can call them zero emission because they themselves produce zero emissions. This means in the city which is where the most people and the biggest problem with smog is, there are zero emissions. One further reason that the HN crowd should understand is that it decouples energy generation from it's usage. So once you have clean energy generation you can turn off the coal and no one driving EVs will notice.
dagss 9y ago
Not zero but... consider that just the oil refinery alone uses about the same energy to make gasoline to drive one mile, as an EV uses directly to drive one mile. EVs are hugely more energy efficient overall, which helps even if what energy requirement is left comes from burning coal.

erikpukinskis 9y ago

Yep, it’s not zero emissions it’s like 75% less emissions (or whatever you get from adding the generator efficiency plus regenerative braking plus renewable sources.)

nashashmi 9y ago

Fair point but consolidating pollution emitters to a single point instead of scattering them across public roads is a good thing.

lopmotr 9y ago

I think the main point for China is to move the pollution outside the city streets where it directly affects more people. That's nothing to do with CO2 or global warming but to do with people's health, which is obviously super important.

paxys 9y ago

Yup, but it is still beneficial because power generation can be gradually made cleaner without affecting the rest of the infrastructure.

Avshalom 9y ago

In addition to the possibility of cleaner power in the future; simply moving the emissions from tailpipes on the street to plants 100km from Beijing or Lagos or Mexico City... Still increases overall life expectancy.

ChuckMcM 9y ago

That is picking nits :-) Not only is China rapidly building nuclear power plants, containing the emissions of one plant burning coal is easier than containing the emissions of the 10,000 buses that plant provides power to operate. There is also a benefit to China converting from oil (something imported[1]) to coal (something available locally[2]). [1] https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Chinas-Becomes-Worlds-Next-Top-Oil-Importer.html https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Chinas-Becomes-Worlds-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China

craftyguy 9y ago
> That is picking nits No, actually it's not. The source of electricity matters, and just because something doesn't directly emit pollutants does not mean its power is derived without emitting pollutants.
- Taniwha 9y ago
  I flew across China last month ... Lots of open cast coal mines, each with a power station next to it .... But they're planning ahead, those power stations are surrounded by thousands of windmills, more than I could count leveraging the power distribution network
- Gibbon1 9y ago
  A thing that is pointed out is the life of a vehicle, especially a bus might be 15-30 years. During that time the grid will become a lot cleaner. Where with a diesel bus emissions wise you're all in. There is also the long tailpipe, diesel buses produce toxic emissions where people are, coal fired power plants produce emissions elsewhere. (not necessarily, but likely)
- ChuckMcM 9y ago
  I don't disagree the source of electricity does matter. But who is to say where the electron coming out of the plug came from? Perhaps it came from one of their existing nuclear plants[1] ? For me, when you get to the point where you can construct two valid statements that both are supported by available information, yet one disproves a statement and the other proves it, you have reached the point of 'nits'. In this case : "They are not zero emission because electricity can come from a coal fired plant." "The are zero emission because electricity can come from a nuclear power plant." Pedants could go a different way, they could say "the bus is zero emission but the infrastructure isn't." We saw a lot of that with solar panels where people would argue that the energy to smelt the aluminum to make the frames and furnaces to grow the silicon ingots far exceeded any amount of energy that the solar cells themselves would provide. But one has to wonder, what is the point of arguing at that level when, as the article states, the pollution where the buses are deployed is significantly less? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China

icc97 9y ago

Every time we talk about EVs someone tries to make this point. Yes you can call them zero emission because they themselves produce zero emissions. This means in the city which is where the most people and the biggest problem with smog is, there are zero emissions. One further reason that the HN crowd should understand is that it decouples energy generation from it's usage. So once you have clean energy generation you can turn off the coal and no one driving EVs will notice.

dagss 9y ago

Not zero but... consider that just the oil refinery alone uses about the same energy to make gasoline to drive one mile, as an EV uses directly to drive one mile. EVs are hugely more energy efficient overall, which helps even if what energy requirement is left comes from burning coal.