12 ms·
Electrification of surface transport is the most obvious way to improve air quality in dense cities. This needs to be a priority.
by Reason077 8y ago
Electrification of surface transport is the most obvious way to improve air quality in dense cities. This needs to be a priority.
- michaelbuckbee 8y agoChina is putting ~10k electric buses a month on the road: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/04/china-is-adding-a-london-sized-electric-bus-fleet-every-five-weeks/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/04/china-is-adding-a-lon...
- baud147258 8y agoAnd they are still using coal to produce electricity.
- radium3d 8y agoThis World Resources Institute graph^1 shows intense growth in solar electricity generation in China so they are at least moving away from fossil fuel electricity generation at a rapid pace and fossil fuel electricity generation is plateauing^0 [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China#/media/File:Electricity_Production_in_China.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China#/m... [1] https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/08/distributed-solar-pv-china-growth-and-challenges https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/08/distributed-solar-pv-china-...
- adventured 8y agoChina is in fact not moving away from fossil fuels, they're aggressively expanding their fossil fuel use. They're adding a minority of renewable energy into the mix of their new energy demand, while building a very large number of new coal plants. They're very openly lying about their environmental efforts. They're also aggressively using their state companies to build coal plants external of their borders. This is the same tactic they use on trade. They're hyper protectionist about access to their economy, and then claim they're free traders. "China's leading role in financing a wave of new coal plants across Asia is drawing fresh scrutiny as the world’s top climate scientists weigh calling for much deeper cuts in emissions. China, India, Japan and the Philippines rank among the biggest investors in the 1,380 coal plants under construction or development worldwide, according to a study by the German pressure group Urgewald released Thursday." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-04/china-s-funding-for-coal-draws-scrutiny-as-climate-concern-grows https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-04/china-s-f... "The research, carried out by green campaigners CoalSwarm, suggests that 259 gigawatts of new capacity are under development in China. The authors say this is the same capacity to produce electricity as the entire US coal fleet. The report says that at present China has 993 gigawatts of coal power capacity, but the approved new plants would increase this by 25%." https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45640706 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45640706 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-companies-coal-plants-climate-change.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-comp... https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/6/6/17427030/coal-plants-map-china-india-us-eu https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/6/6/17427030... https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/06/china-is-massively-betting-on-coal-outside-its-shores--even-as-investment-falls-globally.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/06/china-is-massively-betting-o...
- yorwba 8y ago> fossil fuel electricity generation is plateauing^0 The graph you linked mostly shows exponential growth, with a slowdown in the last measured year. But similar kinks are visible twice before, with growth continuing at the same pace afterwards. I wouldn't call that "plateauing".
- radium3d 8y agoWell, there is another factor, the actual push to renewable energy sources and the fact that the cost of the next trillion watts of renewable energy will cost half the first https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-02/green-energy-capacity-passes-a-trillion-watts https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-02/green-ene...
- aqme28 8y agoThat's a separate problem. If/when they switch to renewable plants, then they'll already have an electric bus fleet to take advantage of that.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- nerdponx 8y agoFrom a pollution perspective, is it better to have 1 coal plant generating electricity for an electric bus fleet, or to have a fleet of buses that run on hybrid-electric diesel or CNG?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Reason077 8y agoDiesel busses stink and pollute no matter what - even the modern hybrid ones. I can tell you that as a Londoner! Natural gas might be better, but for whatever reason it’s never taken off here. Seems like electric is the way things are going.
- WhompingWindows 8y agoIt's not a simple calculation. It depends whose numbers you use for the calculation. First off, do you only care about CO2, or are you interested in other by products of coal consumption like NOx? Which kind of coal plant, how efficient is it? What kind of coal is in use? Then, on the consumption side, it depends on your electric busses' efficiency, leakage of CNG into methane emissions, honestly there are too many specific parameters left unspecified in your question.
- Gibbon1 8y agoAn electric bus doesn't produce particulates and NOx right where people live and work. So it has the least effect on local air pollution. CNG is at least way better than diesel. If you have to use fossil fuels a combined cycle natural gas plant generating electricity and electric buses is your best option. That said I tend to discount arguments that compare things to coal since coal just needs to go away.
- Bartweiss 8y agoThis is probably still a positive change on several levels. Plants can be remediated better than vehicles, electrification delinks generation from use to ease later greening, and for particulate pollution (unlike CO2) moving emissions away from population centers is meaningful. That said... yes. Electrification is a massive improvement in the US, Canada, and Western Europe, but much less useful in Russia, China, and much of SE Asia. Adding to that, pushing pollution sources away from cities reinforces the demographic crisis China has had brewing for a long time, with everything from lead to lack of iodine creating serious permanent health issues in rural regions.
- Taniwha 8y agoI flew across China earlier this year, and saw thousands and thousands of windmills that weren't there a few years ago, many had been built around open cast coal mines (and power plants), obviously they're planning on replacing the coal with wind and reusing the sunk-cost transmission lines
- i88y6 8y agoJust like the US
- Symmetry 8y agoIf the new power is generated in coal plants that might actually be a net minus, at least in particulates and SO2 terms. EDIT: I'm referencing this: A series of studies by Tsinghua University, whose alumni includes the incumbent president, showed electric vehicles charged in China produce two to five times as much particulate matter and chemicals that contribute to smog versus gas-engine cars. Hybrid vehicles fare little better. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-coal-powered-china-electric-car-surge-fuels-fear-of-worsening-smog/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-coal-powered-c...
- swebs 8y agoHow so? A car's ICE is much less efficient than a power plant.
- olivermarks 8y agoPlanting a lot more trees will have a major impact on pollution reduction. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18215002 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18215002 Half the plastics on the planet were made in the last 13 years https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/07/plastic-age/533955/?fbclid=IwAR1ECQUKm07faBnDLM_9sfcZaR20HGqP_xnK8npknAYiZyeq1okVd-SyjoQ&single_page=true https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/07/plastic-... EV transport is currently limited and unless solar, wind or hydro is used electricity has to be generated somewhere.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y agoHow is that an argument? You can plant tree, reduce plastics production AND switch to EV. For some reason, every time the case for the electrification of transport is presented, other legitimate, complementary causes are put forward as opposable. As if reducing emissions was a zero-sum game…
- olivermarks 8y agoWasn't really an argument against EV's, just an observation that plastics production is a major use of oil and a pollutant (EV's are mostly plastic and alloys for example) at all levels, while the tree planting reality will have a massive positive impact on pollution and seems to be getting overlooked as it is not commercially attractive to big industrialists.
- jesstaa 8y agohuman powered transport like walking or cycling works great in dense cities, it's more space efficient so it scales better too.
- wowzap 8y agoIs there actually proof that it "works great"? Asking for myself every time I try to cross the street in downtown Manhattan and have to look for a cyclist on the sidewalk, going against traffic, blowing through a red light, or fighting with another cyclist.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y agoA city that was never designed for bikes is hell for bikes, so you end up with only the most reckless bikers on the road. I commute with a bike every day in Paris, France. The infrastructure isn't great but it's OK, and it's improving. The thing is: I'm a big, strong guy who can legally outrun most cars and motorbikes in such a big, dense city. I can fight my way in traffic, mostly because the law authorizes bikes to go both ways in most streets, to run red lights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop, to ride between traffic lanes, etc. Most people are terrified to ride here so you only have the most reckless persons on bikes, including me. Although I'm respect the law (which does not make riding safe because no one wants to be anywhere near a big bus/truck, or between vehicles, or stuck in a diesel tailpipe…), I end up riding dangerously making people think that biking is only for reckless guys. The worst is that, the more I respect the law, the more drivers get angry at me for taking to much space or slowing traffic down. So you move as quick and close as possible to vehicles and pedestrians. That's absurd but that how it is. It's an infrastructure problem. The more you give space to bikes, the more reckless bikers can finally ride prudently, or prudent people dare to ride (making reckless bikers a tiny minority). It's the same with cars: what would happen if the infrastructure made car driving dangerous? You would only have road hogs and people would just hate cars.
- justinator 8y agoI think I rode a taxi in Paris once or twice, but never a private car - and none of our friends had private cars, either. I assumed parking was a nightmare, and expensive. The narrow medieval roads didn't help, either. Many of the streets around our apartment were closed to cars (at least on Sunday). Being a cyclist, I thought I found a slice of heaven. I thought about being an urban planner when I got back to the States.
- tarboreus 8y agoIf by "electrification" you mean "switch to public transportation," I agree with you. If by electrification you mean "burn dinosaurs four miles away," then I don't agree with you.
- tfha 8y agoBurning dinosaurs 40 miles away will improve air quality in cities, even if it's the same amount of pollution, the bulk is away from dense population
- sgc 8y agoIt's also much, much easier to filter the output from one plant instead of 40,000 cars. Even if the same amount of pollution were produced (it wouldn't be), nowhere near the same amount would be released into the air. But we definitely need to improve power plant emission standards as we move to electric.
- black6 8y agoThe solution to pollution is dilution!
- rayiner 8y agoIn economic terms, the biggest impact from air pollution is particulate matter in densely populated areas, not CO2. Burning dinosaurs four miles away (more accurately, 40+) has a huge positive impact, because the worst of the particulate matter falls to the ground by then.
- flybrand 8y agoAs someone who works in filtration - one of the primary ways to reduce pollution - stationary sources are easier to filter. Vehicles have limited under the hood space and are distributed.
- Gibbon1 8y agoYeah you can use electrostatic scrubbers and wet scrubbers on stationary plants. Can't do that with a car.
- stellar678 8y agoStudies have actually shown that electric cars produce more than 90% as much particulate-matter air pollution as fossil fuel cars. The reason for this is two-fold: 1. Modern gasoline cars produce very clean exhaust. 2. Most of the particulate pollution comes from wear on tires, brake and the road surface. And electric cars, being heavier than average, produce more wear on tires and road surface. Electrification is part of the puzzle, but we also need to get people out of giant, heavy vehicles into right-sized vehicles for their trip. (And the majority of trips are less than 5 miles!) -- Edit for the people asking for sources: The lit review suggesting EVs have >90% as much particulate emissions as internal-combustion: http://www.soliftec.com/NonExhaust%20PMs.pdf http://www.soliftec.com/NonExhaust%20PMs.pdf Another review that acknowledges these numbers vary depending on rainy vs dry climate, use of snow tires, etc... https://www.kau.edu.sa/Files/188/Researches/65862_37290.pdf https://www.kau.edu.sa/Files/188/Researches/65862_37290.pdf
- justinator 8y agoDo you have a link to the studies you're referencing? I don't not believe you, but I'd love to share them. Living in CO, there is a problem with electric cars, (somewhat) as the electric is usually produced by coal, so the pollution is simply moved away from the source (although potentially lowered - but not by much if you compare it to a gas-powered econo vehicle)
- gurumeditations 8y agoIs the particulate pollution just as grave as emissions pollution or a completely separate issue?
- wonderwonder 8y agoTransportation just passed power generation as the major polluter in 2016. Mainly because of the switch from coal to natural gas. If coal comes back on line expect the positions to switch again rapidly. I agree with your statement but getting rid of coal power plants would have the added benefit of reducing the production of coal ash, a source of particulate matter and heavy metal pollution. Both would be major living standard improvement. https://www.vox.com/2016/6/13/11911798/emissions-electricity-versus-transportation https://www.vox.com/2016/6/13/11911798/emissions-electricity...
- nickik 8y agoUsing alcohole fuel would have been a very reasonable solution, specially if you care about air quality amd not carbon. China is using 100% methanol and other lesser methanol fuel that are produced from coal. But in other places you could use gas. This would also be faster then full electrification. The US missed out massivly. The gas boom could have lead to very cheap and relativly clean fuel. It would also be great to have that infrastructure because you can also do fuel cells with the same infrastructure.
- jakewins 8y agoSource for this? My understanding is that there is solid full-life-cycle analysis showing CO2 reduction from ethanol (35% lower on average), but a total mixed bag when it comes to hydrocarbons and various other air pollutants - some better, some worse: https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/flexible_fuel_emissions.html https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/flexible_fuel_emissions...
- nickik 8y agoEthanol is a different matter again. I was talking about methanol produced by fossil fuels. With these fuel it very much depends on a lot of factors. However a overall police towards use of fuel alcohol would overall be very benefical. Both in terms of emission and in terms of price competition.
- 75dvtwin 8y agoI would argue that priority has to be 'de-urbanization' itself. Pollution is just one problem that will be solved by de-urbanization.
- lev99 8y agoHow will pollution be solved by de-urbanization? Urban citizens have better access to low carbon transportation (Walking, Biking, Mass Transit). Urban citizens are easier to reach in many last mile problems. Power lines can be shared by more users. Less network cable needs to be laid per user. Fewer miles of water pipes are required. Apartments common in urban areas are more fuel efficient for heating/cooling than stand alone houses commonly seen in suburbs and rural areas.
- erikpukinskis 8y agoIf you think of pollution not as an issue with the total quantity, but instead spikes of concentrated, it makes sense.