[Shresth_EV]

Originally Posted by banana

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.

Agreed. City bus electrification is quite slow if I say so. It could be so much faster if only municipals realised how much they’d save in servicing and running costs.

E rickshaws are actually quite popular in Lucknow and I’m sure in many more parts of India. It’s harder to catch a regular auto now, the e rickshaws are that ubiquitous.

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.

A lot of travel for majority of Indians is in fact via public means. Cars dwarf before the railways and busses for intercity travel. Flights are only held back by cost, but even that has increased of late, especially if one considered the last two decades.

The travel is by car when the spot is inconvenient such as an ancestral village not so well connected by rail or simply the fact that one desires to have a road trip, both of which are niche.

95% cars are used within city — as another user claimed, a lot of cars don’t really break even 10K on the odo annually.

I can't help but think the irony is that once upon a time cycling was the primary form of mobility in the subcontinent and SE Asia and no one would've batted an eyelid about the prospect but now when an ideal solution to a lot of urban issues would be a return to most people cycling, societies in these countries have gone a full 180°.

Adding to the excellently framed, but slightly disheartening reality check, offered by @chinkara, it’s also a matter of the societal setup.

Let’s see who is actually using cycles.
A person from lower economic strata is forced to use a bicycle for lack of options and means. It’s not like they’d be averse to the idea of more comfort if given the opportunity. The number of people who’d actually willingly use it is small.

People would use cycles but only for recreation, not actual travel. Let’s even take automobile ads for example. I’ve seen online configurators and promo material for cars, offering bike racks.

To do what? Go for mountain biking. Again, the fact of matter is, why would anyone go through the hard way if there’s a path of roses? Here, this is a matter of recreation. How about the ad suggest not buying a car and using the bike inside city? Blasphemy.

And here I’m talking about European ads where the cycling culture actually exists. Not even India where there are several issues as already highlighted.

I have seen how doodles would poke fun at people cycling at gym for cardio but going to the gym in car — I’m sure all have seen such a version. It’s very different to cycle in a controlled environment with AC, no traffic trying to overrun you, and no mortal danger to life with the dozen potholes every yard and a hundred tailpipes all around.

It’s not selfish to chose what is best for oneself in such a case. Call them foolish to spend money going to gym for cardio instead of cycling, but what would you do? I’d personally not prefer cycling in such a case. It has to be a cycles only zone to motivate me, I’ll be blunt.

Meaningful change will only be possible when coupled with efficient, and cleaner (doesn't even have to be cleanest given the sheer scale in India), large scale public transportation networks (road and rail). India has such a culture of rail travel, it baffles me slightly that the govt isn't leaning harder on this particular angle to drive the cleaner mobility revolution in the country, especially when there's such an easy way to leverage large scale public employment through govt led railway improvement schemes.

Indian Railways has seen a staggering shift to electric locomotives, and I even saw an article some time ago about old diesels being refurbished to use electricity. WAGC3 was the name iirc.

Metro has also grown to a lot more cities than the initial 4 “metro cities” I had was taught about back in school.

Almost all but few existing lines have been electrified, some zones even 100% electrified, including new lines like Dedicated Freight Corridor being made to accommodate double stack containers — extra high catenary wire.

There’s been considerable and commendable progress in railways.

[chinkara]

Originally Posted by banana

I personally like this thing about Mumbai. A good amount of the commute happens in local. It is more reliable, more time efficient.

I agree but it is also deteriorating there. I realized 2 things in recent trips to Mumbai (I used to stay there long back):
1. The number of 2 wheelers have increased exponentially and with it (but not just because of it) traffic indiscipline.
2. The trains have not increased proportionately with population. My wife and I used to travel by train and we both felt that we might not have been able to do so now. In early 2000s only Virar locals were impossible to board, now even Andheri and Borivali locals are. So, it looks like many people have started driving to South Mumbai / Parel from Chembur / Borivali / Navi Mumbai, further increasing congestion and indiscipline.

Hope metro solves the problem to a great degree.

[chinkara]

Originally Posted by Shresth_EV

There’s been considerable and commendable progress in railways.

Agree, but in urban commute public infrastructure still lags far behind demand. Unless we plan infra for 2030 now, we'll always fall short.
Take the simple case of Mumbai suburban railways. There have been talks about double decker coaches and increasing frequency of trains with track upgradation since before I left Mumbai in 2006. Now even if we do it, it will not be enough.

[maddy42]

Originally Posted by chinkara

Agree, but in urban commute public infrastructure still lags far behind demand. Unless we plan infra for 2030 now, we'll always fall short.
Take the simple case of Mumbai suburban railways. There have been talks about double decker coaches and increasing frequency of trains with track upgradation since before I left Mumbai in 2006. Now even if we do it, it will not be enough.

Urban buses being 100% electrified may be some distance away. I believe alternatives like CNG or Hydrogen may be more feasible solutions based on the announcements made by Reliance in the indian scenario of green hydrogen.

Scooters will be the first to achieve more then 50% sales over gasoline models followed by cars.

We do have a issue with our base production being supported by coal in most states which may take a while to change. This years heat wave was a wake up call that Global warming is a real issue and water could be a major shortage in the subcontinent even causing wars.

[shrey220]

Originally Posted by brt_mhn

Emissions caused before the cars even leave the factory

You haven't considered the CO2 emissions caused during the extraction and transportation of fuel, which is way way higher and cleverly hidden by the big fuel giants. The extraction rigs used for extraction itself run 24×7, gulping big amounts of fuel.

Once these things are considered, EVs start making more and more sense.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by shrey220

You haven't considered the CO2 emissions caused during the extraction and transportation of fuel, which is way way higher and cleverly hidden by the big fuel giants. The extraction rigs used for extraction itself run 24×7, gulping big amounts of fuel.

Once these things are considered, EVs start making more and more sense.

On the topic of rigs, yep - they do consume a fair amount of energy to be electrically self sustaining. In the grander scheme of things it's not as big an issue as gas flaring, which to laymen understandably is one of the dumbest excesses of the modern hydrocarbon industry. That being said there's obviously embargoes against flaring now (though enforcement is pitiful) and with gas becoming increasingly important and financially worthwhile, it's starting to be used and sold. In fact sensible heads have prevailed in terms of using this obvious otherwise wasted by product to generate energy, with some proposals for offshore rigs to use the hot water they draw up being used to generate electricity and heat via geothermal power systems on board.

But your general point is very true - a considerable part of the carbon footprint comes from the transport of hydrocarbons across vast distances to energy hungry markets. It's why a big debate happening now is over the fact that organisations like the World Bank blocking fiscal support for hydrocarbon exploration in developing countries designed mainly to support their domestic needs - there are many in the climate community who feel that this is not only again a sad relic of the Global North exercising its power but also counter intuitive to being pragmatic about ways to combat climate change. It's obviously a super tricky issue but take a giant market like India - if hypothetically a significant discovery was made in India's EEZ that would provide a major chunk of domestic demand, with the associated minimal transportation tail involved, it would in essence be cleaner than shipping it from the ME for eg.

[shamanths3]

Seems Autocar has copied most of the content not sure from where, but seems eerily similar to most of the content from our author here. But again without any place for a debate. Seems it's complete one sided.

https://www.autocarindia.com/auto-bl...otprint-425744

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by shamanths3

Seems Autocar has copied most of the content not sure from where, but seems eerily similar to most of the content from our author here. But again without any place for a debate.

"Is it being driven by battery makers?"
His article is driven by Fossil industry and Toyota, who we know have trillions of wealth unlike the battery makers. The reason the paid media has only good things to say about recent Toyota launches.

#Petrolmedia

[The Rationalist]

This Autocar write up screams paid news disguised as an objective article. Happy that I stopped buying this trash a decade back! Who approves such garbage?

[ramotra3]

In short term, EVs are not so 'green' mainly because of current battery manufacturing producing CO2 emissions. But in long term, they are way greener than ICEs and most of end-of-life batteries can be recycled. In India, battery recycling is nowhere compared to other countries. Other than batteries, other aspects of EVs and ICE vehicles are similar in carbon emissions.
Here, a video by Jerryrigeverything. He owns a Rivian R1T pickup truck. He compared it to a Ford F-150 ICE truck.
Also, is there a official categorisation of power generation source in terms if hydro, coal, solar, wind etc. state-wise or district-wise in India in public domain?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcLoimQD6qE

[wocanak]

Let us do this calculation for Indian context, using Nexon and Nexon EV.

• Additional CO2 emission for 30.2 kWh battery production @ ~140Kg per kWh is ~4.2 tonnes. This is on the higher side, other estimates are half of this and we not taking into account the reductions from not making ICE parts and starting Nexon EV with a deficit of 4.2 tonnes of CO2.
• With high coal electricity production mix in India, 1 kWh production emits 700g. At 125wh per km, this is 87.5 gCO2 per km
• Well to wheel CO2 emission for 1 litre of petrol is 3.2kg. At 15 km/litre mileage, this is ~212.5 gCO2 per km.
• With reduction of ~125g CO2 per km, Nexon EV needs to run for 33,600 km or less than 3 years to break even.
• With a life time of 1,60,000 km it will save ~16 tonnes of CO2 emission, i.e. 34 tonnes Vs 18 tonnes

This is based on the 2017 figures cited in the below article, since then CO2 per kWh batter production has come down and CO2 per kWh power production in India has also come down. At end of life, even after 3000 cycles (i.e. 6 to 7.5 Lakh kms) the battery is expected to have 80% capacity, so it can definitely be used for other purposes.

We can quibble and argue with the figures, but there is no doubt that EVs reduce emission substantially over their lifetime currently and will only get better as battery production and grid mix improve. This is not even counting the reduction in pollution in cities and reduction in harmful CO/NO emissions.

Global perspective on CO2 emissions of electric vehicles
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...e1#erlabf8e1t1

[shankar.balan]

First off let me openly admit that I am not an EV fan.
Nor am I a fan of what seems to be an increasingly draconian series of legislations hitting the common tax paying citizen.

I see absolutely no reason why we are being forced to convert to this so called ‘sustainable’ and ‘clean’ energy.
I also fail to understand why all the blame for pollution falls on petrol or diesel powered vehicles. Especially the privately owned, lovingly maintained vehicles, which may each clock no more than 5000 to 10000 kms per annum.
It makes no sense at all to condemn outright ALL petrol and diesel vehicles in an all encompassing, blanket manner!

Now to segue over to my points on EV’s.
EV’s are not the much touted cure-all/ panacea to the worldwide sunshine and greenery. They are definitely extremely polluting, when you consider how batteries are made, the metals and minerals that are mined in far away places completely off the beaten track. This piece does not come to light at all when it comes to the impact analysis of environmental damage, habitat damage and other types of fall-out.
We must also consider how power is inefficiently generated, especially in the developing world, by using various fossil fuels.
There remain the following other questions;
a. battery replacement costs which are presently ridiculous and in turn cause more pollution.
b. charging times which are crazily long which cause more electricity consumption.
c. no one ever talks about safe battery disposal. Is there indeed proper provision for the same? Is it completely Pollution free? Are we not just storing things up for a later date while being nice and sanctimonious about the environment now?
d. and is this whole game of planned obsolescence really environmentally friendly? Scrapping all our old cars. Forcing everyone to buy new cars - well is it that manufacturing new cars is more environmentally friendly than just looking after and maintaining and running one’s older cars which anyway don’t do much mileage as described above?

Repair and use vs Use, throw and replace. Which is better?

I submit that there is absolutely no concerted and holistic thinking on this subject, which can be accepted as 100% credible proof.

With the above points in mind, I would say let’s not delude ourselves that EV’s are the best way forward for the planet.

It would be incredibly short sighted and in my view, definitely incorrect to conclude so.

[Geta]

First and foremost, I was never a fan of this new EV trend. I still have the impression that the public is being fooled into joining the EV bandwagon by ridiculously taxing the ICE engines and the fuel and by subsidising the EVs. As in any "revenue neutral" budget, the carrots can not dangle perennially and in 3-5 years EVs too need to be taxed at similar rates as the ICE vehicles or the direct taxes will need to be increased, no two ways about this.

The tax holiday along with subsidised electricity for domestic consumers is making the EV proposition attractive today. But that day is not far when huge investments will need to be done in the electricity infrastructure to allow about 50 lacs to 1 crore vehicles to charge simultaneously across the country during night time. Hence separate meters may need to be installed for charging the vehicles and a higher slab rate of say Rs 15 per kWh may be charged (against the subsidised Rs 6-8/kWh for domestic consumers, as the norm today)

Also, we we are not saving any Forex by switching over to EVs. The Forex spent on importing the battery packs may actually be higher than the Forex needed for petroleum imports.

Hence all these days I was batting for hybrid cars and not proper EVs, as I felt, with reduced GST slabs and subsidies, hybrids make more sense than EVs.

That said, there is an elephant in the room. All these years, I have been assuming that the ICEs were having an efficiency of about 50%. Now when I look at the real world fuel efficiency of the EVs, it is a revelation.

1 kWh = 3400 BTU (British thermal units)
1 liter of petrol = 32500 BTU
Hence, the energy content of 1 liter of petrol = 10 units (kWh) of electricity (roughly)

Let us take two similar sized cars, one EV and another a Hybrid, for comparison.

Toyota Hyryder Hybrid claims a ARAI certified fuel efficiency of 28 km per liter of petrol (32500 BTU). I assume it will give at least 22 kmpl (city+ highway 50:50) in real world.

MG ZS EV, which is of similar size to the Hyryder and priced similarly, gives a mileage of 7 km /kWh (3400 BTU)

Hence an EV is 300% as efficient as a hybrid petrol car of similar size! (Or a hybrid is just 30% as efficient as an EV) In other words, if the same 1 liter petrol is burned in an ideal condition to charge the EV battery, rather than getting used in the hybrid vehicle, it can propel the same vehicle for 70 km!!!!

We will have a strong case for the hybrids if only they are at least 50% as efficient as the EVs. Otherwise, no point.

To think of it, we were using the same 1 liter petrol to propel similar sized cars for 10 kmpl all these years (efficiency of only 10-15 %)

The ICE king is dead. Long live the EV king!!!

Disclaimer: 1) I am assuming that Petrol/Diesel when burnt at ideal conditions to generate electricity, will have an efficiency of at least 60-70%. If not, it is better to scrape the EV program once for all, and start subsidising hybrid vehicles.

2) Either way, the era of ICE engines (non-hybrid ones) is over.

[whitewing]

Originally Posted by brt_mhn

...
1) In a country like India, all the electricity used to run them comes from coal.
2) The mining of alkali metals used in batteries cause significant harm to the environment.
3) The initial amount of CO2 produced during the production of an EV is much higher than that of an ICE.
...
...
...
Limitations of study:
1) Most of the data used comes from the USA due to lack of sufficient information in India

Please see this paper published in Nature https://rdcu.be/cWhR1, this is conducted in India.
This was discussed in another thread as well => cross posting here https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/elect...ml#post5408824 (All the basics about Electric Cars)

The gist is that the source of the grid electricity matters - and matters a lot!
Ex: If one uses an grid powered Tata tigor(ev) say, in Mumbai, this would end up generating 16% MORE greenhouse emissions compared to a Tigor - diesel. It may seem counter intuitive, but those are the facts presented in a peer reviewed paper.
I don't mean to say that EVs are bad, just pointing out that a blanket statement that ICE is bad EVs is not universally true. Details matter.

Originally Posted by wocanak

We can quibble and argue with the figures, but there is no doubt that EVs reduce emission substantially over their lifetime currently and will only get better as battery production and grid mix improve. This is not even counting the reduction in pollution in cities and reduction in harmful CO/NO emissions.

Given India's power generation projections, we will take another decade or more even to hit 50% from renewables.

Hope there is more urgency in getting the grid cleaned up sooner.

[wocanak]

Originally Posted by whitewing

Please see this paper published in Nature https://rdcu.be/cWhR1, this is conducted in India.
This was discussed in another thread as well => cross posting here https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/elect...ml#post5408824 (All the basics about Electric Cars)

The gist is that the source of the grid electricity matters - and matters a lot!
Ex: If one uses an grid powered Tata tigor(ev) say, in Mumbai, this would end up generating 16% MORE greenhouse emissions compared to a Tigor - diesel. It may seem counter intuitive, but those are the facts presented in a peer reviewed paper.
I don't mean to say that EVs are bad, just pointing out that a blanket statement that ICE is bad EVs is not universally true. Details matter.

Given India's power generation projections, we will take another decade or more even to hit 50% from renewables.

Hope there is more urgency in getting the grid cleaned up sooner.

Thanks for the reference, I had not looked at this paper closely. You are right about the grid and there is a long way to go.

But the assumptions also make a big difference, as stated in the paper itself. I tried to see where my assumptions and theirs differ.

In Figure 2a, for Nexon Gasoline they give ~220gCO2/km, what I used is 212gC02/km this is similar. Good that there is convergence between different sources on this. In same figure, for Nexon EV the they give ~195 to 210 gCO2/km. I don't understand how they got this from the data they have given in the paper itself.

In page 10, below figure 9 they say:

The average electricity mix in India resulted in carbon intensity (CI e ) of 927 and 676 gCO2eq/kWh for 2018/19 and 2029/2030.

Also page 11:

Vehicle production and end-of-life recycling (Evp & Eeol)
...
Thus, the overall emissions for the vehicle life cycle were 5–6 ton CO2eq.

From this the "Life Cycle GHG gCO2/km" is = 927/(1000wh/140wh) for running gCO2/km + 6 ton/2 Lakh for production. This comes to 160, not sure how Table 2a shows 195 to 210.

After couple of hours, I have given up on figuring out how they got this. If anyone can explain, I would be grateful for the help.

The reference I cited gave 700 gCO2/kWh for India 2017 grid mix and 4.2 ton CO2eq for battery production and I used 125wh (instead of their ARAI 100 degraded to 140). So I got 700/(1000wh/125wh) + 4.2 ton/ 1.6 Lakh, this gives ~113 gCO2/km. Hence I said its ~50% less than 212 gCO2/km for Nexon Gasoline.

6 ton vs 4.2 ton CO2 emission for battery production, is not a big difference when amortized over 1.6 or 2 Lakhs.

Main figure we need is gCO2/kWh for India electricity production, then the gCO2/km for BEV can be reliably calculated. Does anyone have any reliable reference for this?