[psbali]

Originally Posted by ambandla

While Lithium mining is a concern, there is a straightforward way to get around this 'electricity from coal' point. Get solar charger installed. Even if these EVs use electricity generated by coal power plants, it is far less significant compared to amount of energy used to suck oil from earth, transport oil, refine it, then again transport it to different parts of the world. Here is a video that shows how dirty this whole process is:


So, do I support EVs over ICE powered vehicles? No. I vouch for Hydrogen Fuel cell vehicles and I am planning to extend the life of my 10 year old Etios till Hydrogen Fuel cell vehicles become mainstream and skip entire Lithium battery EVs.

The Toyota Mirai is getting very good reviews in USA and unlike a Lithium based EV that requires hours to charge, with this one, you just have to refill Hydrogen fuel in the tank like how you fill a petrol tank. Refueling takes minutes and is lot more viable.
Process of extracting Hydrogen is not as dirty as crude oil extraction or Lithium extraction. The resulting energy from fusing H2 and O is so clean that the byproduct is water. The heat generated from this process is converted into electricity and can be used to either charge a battery or power the electric motor.

I have deliberately quoted the entire post.

Creating a hydrogen fuel infrastructure is going to be equally polluting as everything will be created from scratch.

Imagine the requirement of extra land, resultant excavation and pollution generated in manufacturing special hydrogen storing and dispensing equipment.

In case of EVs the infra is a 15 amp plug point or a fast charger at a petrol station which requires a really small space to operate and can be scaled up really fast. If we go beyond petrol pumps some of the tata owned companies have a fast charger installed in a very ltd space but the same cannot be replicated in case of hydrogen.

Even if fuel cell vehicles are introduced the solar power adoption will not go down as we require electricity in any case.

EV infra is an add on and complements existing set up whereas all petrol pumps cannot be easily converted into hydrogen dispensing pumps and frankly there is no appetite for new investment.

Imho the race for alternative fuel was over the day Tata Motors launched Nexon EV. The fate will be sealed forever the day Maruti launches their cost effective EV.

With that in mind I am sure there is still a case for hydrogen powered electricity generation.

[chinkara]

Originally Posted by raktim

While most of the lead acetate batteries being used in fossil fuel cars are being recycled, recycling lithium ion batteries used in EV is not yet viable due to regulations and lack of appealing market opportunity. So presently while EVs may be greener these are not surely cleaner. However, it is very likely that with time attractive recycling schemes will be figured out.

Sorry, but this is absolutely not true. A lot of activity is happening to recycle lithium batteries (even those of your laptop). Today most laptops are disposed by organizations/employers to certified recyclers who recycle the elements. It simply makes sense from an economics point of view. If you have disposed off your personal laptop, chances are you have sent it to an e-waste collector who is integrated to the recycle reverse supply chain. I have to sign off on e-waste disposal in my organization, so I am quite aware of this. They even give you a recycling certificate

Like everything else, in India also there is some e-waste which goes to the dump (happens with lead acid also) but it is improving with greater awareness.

The same holds true for vehicles. Responsible e2W manufacturers have reverse logistics tie-ups where dealers send the used battery back to miners like Attero, Exigo (even Tata Chemicals is setting up a plant) etc. who purify and recycle the elements.

[vinu_h]

Originally Posted by brt_mhn

The two biggest complaints against EVs are as follows:
1) In a country like India, all the electricity used to run them comes from coal.

Recall viewing a video of Elon Musk's where he said "Large scale electricity generation facilities are far more efficient in converting fossil fuel as against an ICE on the road". Not able to find that video now. That's one man's POV and sounds right to me.

[chinkara]

Originally Posted by vinu_h

Recall viewing a video of Elon Musk's where he said "Large scale electricity generation facilities are far more efficient in converting fossil fuel as against an ICE on the road". Not able to find that video now. That's one man's POV and sounds right to me.

Thermal efficiency of coal fired plants is around 40%. Gas fired plants 60%.

The most efficient ICE is around 37-38%.

But, we are talking about greenhouse gases and pollution here. So particulate matter is probably higher in coal.

[raktim]

Originally Posted by chinkara

Sorry, but this is absolutely not true. A lot of activity is happening to recycle lithium batteries....

Exactly. This is the same I tried to point out that with time effective recycling schemes for Li ion batteries will come up. However, presently the percentage of Li ion batteries being recycled is less than even 10%, I believe.

[chinkara]

Originally Posted by raktim

Exactly. This is the same I tried to point out that with time effective recycling schemes for Li ion batteries will come up. However, presently the percentage of Li ion batteries being recycled is less than even 10%, I believe.

Difficult to get hard data on this, but I would be surprised if it was 10%. Most organizations (IT or even other organizations such as ours) use responsible disposal. Considering that 60-70% of devices are corporate owned and they have a lower life (disposed in 3-5 years as opposed to personal devices which are often retained for more than 5 years) I would be surprised if recycling rate was less than 50%.

It can sure be better, but it is significantly there, not just starting out.

[lordrayden]

This is a very nice video from AutoTrader UK, that is based on a study done by Volvo comparing the ICE and EV versions of the same car (XC40) manufactured in the same plant. I found it very interesting and gives very a good picture since its comparing like-for-like with the only difference being the electric drive-train vs the IC drive-train.

Though its not India-based, I feel the worst case energy supply split that he talks about probably most closely applies to India. That means an EV has to be run for 90000 miles (~1,44,800 kms) before it becomes "greener" than its ICE counterpart.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOyzLSBCBWo&t=474s

[slango97]

Please note the difference between renewables share in capacity vs actual generation. Overall, we have a 38% capacity share of renewables, but approx 75% of power generated is from thermal power plants.

BEVs currently may not offer a significant CO2 emissions advantage, but the grid is getting cleaner and cleaner. Also, we have to look at the local effects of ICE cars, due to NOx and CO and SOx. BEVs don't emit any of these and can greatly reduce urban pollution levels.

Hydrogen cars do not make sense from a technical PoV, since you need a lot of electricity to produce hydrogen in the first place. So you're spending electricity to produce a fuel which is only going to again produce electricity through the fuel cell in the car. Why not use electricity directly? Battery technologies are also improving rapidly, with the likes of LFP and even sodium ion gaining popularity. Hydrogen for cars is not an idea that will last long. Only for heavy duty vehicles it makes sense, since weight of batteries is a problem.

[shortbread]

Originally Posted by alpha1

You need to realize that "environment friendly" has never been the guiding principles of human "progress".

True, especially in the GoI's perspective.

The push to electrification is primarily to reduce the burden of imported crude. This continues to be a massive drain on the Indian economy.

[.sushilkumar]

Originally Posted by GTO

Think of it as a tail-pipe that is 100 km in length and drops the smoke outside the city, or the sewage pipes of your home that take the junk elsewhere.

Instead of having garbage all over your house, don't you keep it in one fixed spot?

We need to think for those at the end of that tail pipe worth 100Km's as well. It cannot be that cities dump their own garbage in others bin & keep eyes shut in classic ostrich analogy.

TBH, Only place where these cars do not pollute is "exhaust gases". That get filled by the huge amount of coal burned to generate that electricity. EV's are just a new product like any ICE car meant to make money for certain few & govt via taxes. Stopping pollution is just the "right" way to market them & make money off them.

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by .sushilkumar

That get filled by the huge amount of coal burned to generate that electricity.

Simple question. How is the Petrol in your car refined? I heard it uses 1.3kwh of electricity to refine 1L of Petrol, if this is TRUE where does this electricity come from? I do not see any renewables next to any refinery(I grew up next to a HPCL refinery, which BTW keeps on emiting some dirty fumes, and had a blast killing several people and me draining in acidic rain while running away from it), if this electricity comes from the grid, is it from the same coal? I am not even touching drilling, wars, oil spills, Dictators and other problems.

I am not claiming EVs are entirely clean, it has a path to cleaner environment. The latest ICCT report says walking/cycling > public EV Transport > personal EVs, there is no place for ICE.

[ads11]

With EVs I think a couple of points are clear:

• The carbon footprint of the manufacture of EVs, in particular their batteries, is significant, making their production more carbon intensive than ICE vehicles.
  
• Over the life of the vehicle however, EVs are by far and away cleaner than ICE.
  
• Indeed the emissions just get relocated now to the electricity grid. This can have an immediate benefit in making dense urban areas cleaner in terms of pollution.
  
• But, in countries where power generation is primarily through thermal powerplants (fossil fuel powered), this potentially shifts the emissions load from urban centres to rural ones. However this ignores the fact that by centralising the emissions load on the power grid, it creates the low hanging fruit of clearing a lot of this emissions load by broad scale transition to renewable electricity generation. It's a lot easier to transition at grid scale as the benefits are multifold considering the investment required will have corollary impacts on many more sectors down the power line. Basically instead of trying to tackle emissions from a multitude of tail pipes, you end up with one very big exhaust pipe as has been highlighted by other members. It's a lot easier when there's just one big node to target.
  
• We're seeing this happen already, where switching to wind & solar (the latter quite often possible at the private consumer level), can help alleviate your power load quite considerably.

In the Indian context it's abundantly clear that a large scale transition to EVs risks worsening our already considerable carbon footprint due to the primary power generation via coal. That being said, on balance I think India stands to gain a lot. Thankfully one of the domestic manufacturing sectors that is strong is auto. Sure it'll take considerable investment to transition Indian auto manufacturing to EVs but given scale is tenable simply from the domestic market in the medium term, it's only a matter of time OEMs make the switch. The health benefits from reducing the atrocious urban air pollution issue, reducing healthcare costs and likely improving productivity will be an enormous boon. With good planning an integrated grid comprising large scale solar and wind farms combined with a few nuclear powerplants for baseload energy (and transitioning all coal power plants to natural gas ones that can be used to fill the gaps in the grid) can go a massive massive way towards tackling the issue that's rightly been raised about more fumes belched out by the current overtasked coal powered Indian electricity grid.

Let's not kid ourselves, in a capitalist society the only way to achieve progress is to couch it in terms of an economic gain. So it's a bit unkind to simply paint the energy transition as some scheme to simply generate more money. I think India does have an opportunity to utilise its current demographic dividend through large scale public works programmes (given the overwhelming majority the PM has, theoretically there shouldn't be legislative roadblocks), for a new kind of job in terms of constructing these new renewable power grids. Again another important economic point brought up by members is the fact that a considerable budgetary drain is on energy imports - electrifying our transport network and electricity grid could help save a healthy chunk of that, money that could go towards other sectors. Granted India will continue to be reliant on coal given how cheap it is and its abundance locally but once you start counting the costs in terms of adverse climate change effects (which unfortunately always adversely affect areas in the Global South), our hands are tied. I fully understand the frustration of many that historical emissions by the Global North has landed us in this mess in the first place, why should India handicap its path to national development? But I think it's better to look at it as the glass half full. India has such a great opportunity to avoid the mistakes made by those other developed countries on their path to getting to where they are now, we can jump ahead and take advantage of the opportunities that come with the energy transition.

Disclaimer: I'm an avowed petrolhead, formerly a petroleum geoscientist now working in the renewables sector with offshore windfarms. I'd like to think I have a balanced take but you might think otherwise - happy to discuss more if anyone has specific questions!

[banana]

Originally Posted by .sushilkumar

Stopping pollution is just the "right" way to market them & make money off them.

Couldn't agree more. If we think it through, we should be demanding better, cleaner, less polluting public transport system which is more reachable and more dependable. The only reason why some people drive from major city one to major city two is because public transport is inconvenient, infrequent or non-existent.

People plan and make a lot of effort to get so many minutes or hours of time on their cycles. Why not make cities more cycle friendly. Have conveniently placed cycle stands. Anyone who is happy with power to two feet can enjoy the short trip without thinking too much about how much damage they are doing to the environment.

I know this is too much to ask. Cycles don't cost much. It will be unfair to the governments and oil cos if we start buying bicycles. Moreover, it may not be easy for me to wear out parts of my bicycle the same way I wear out some parts of other automobiles. I can also opt for adding more pounds to the bike and my body weight by going the electric route . Whenever required, just load it to the imaginary idealistic public transport system and start cycling in another part of the country.

[chinchu.c]

Speaking of the 'thinking' and 'feeling' part of the topic: There is something called Compensatory Green Belief' which is researched in psychology. CGBs are beliefs that the negative effects of some energy-inefficient or unsustainable behaviors or choices can be compensated for by engaging in energy-efficient or sustainable practices. This could explain the tendency for the sellers, promoters, and buyers of EVs to generally believe in the capacity of EVs to 'save Earth', especially since the majority of discussions around them have been shaped in a particular direction.

[ramnaresh_2000]

Emissions caused before the cars even leave the factory

MG Astor: ~7 metric tonnes
MG ZS EV: ~12 metric tonnes (higher due to mining activities for batteries)

Difference= 5 metric tonnes


Emissions caused due to using the car

ICE: 0.000277 metric tonnes per km
EV: 0.000135 metric tonnes per km

Therefore, difference per km = 0.000142 metric tonnes/km

To hit break-even point, you'll need to drive exactly 35,211.26 km

Thank you so much for sharing this information. I was actually checking online for this information. 35k kms seems very reasonable to achieve break-even in my opinion. Really surprised to see emissions caused by EV are not even less than half of ICE emissions. Can someone please share some light here.

In my personal opinion, I would definitely go for an EV in the next 5-6 years. There are more cleaner ways to generate electricity via solar and nuclear, so future is green for sure. I just hope the electricity boards in India catch up and explore alternatives for generating greener energy.

As far as battery recycling is considered, many technologies and companies in Germany already working on it. I had seen many videos where existing EV batteries were changed using parts from damaged vehicles etc. So low cost alternatives are also available.