[Gotcha]

Imagine an Indian city like Bangalore with 50% EVs by 2030. Wouldn't the pollution decrease atleast within the city and reduce respiratory disorders?

Although mining and thermal power plants will still pollute along with spent batteries, it's almost like suburbanization of emissions in the short term until more cleaner mobility becomes mainstream.

[DarthVeda]

Originally Posted by COMMUTER

An individual can't go toe-to-toe with the online propoganda by the EV mafia but, inspite of the dubious studies, it has been clearly understood by all that EV supply relies on the cruel mining processes of Africa, inhuman labor of China(sole supplier of world's EV battery supply) and the increased shipping using most polluting shipping containers with the sole notion of benefitting China.

It's time we ignore the online propaganda and focus on making shipping green, instead of calling for increased shipping pollution.

Let's agree that we should stop using things which are produced by Inhuman labour. Cobalt is used in refining of Crude, are you planning to stop using ICE vehicle tomorrow? Labour in china, please throw away your mobile and almost all electronics stuff has one or the other component coming there.
Shipping container? I wonder how crude gets to rest of world from Middle east?

[fhdowntheline]

Nowadays I get very suspicious of anything academic that sounds too good to be true. You never know who is behind it for propaganda purposes. Various interest groups and governments have pushed their version of truth for so long down people's throats it is difficult to have an unbiased opinion. The reality will be discovered much later unfortunately.

[RadixLecti]

Originally Posted by COMMUTER

An individual can't go toe-to-toe with the online propoganda by the EV mafia but, inspite of the dubious studies, it has been clearly understood by all that EV supply relies on the cruel mining processes of Africa, inhuman labor of China(sole supplier of world's EV battery supply) and the increased shipping using most polluting shipping containers with the sole notion of benefitting China.

It's time we ignore the online propaganda and focus on making shipping green, instead of calling for increased shipping pollution.

I've been a sailor for nearly two decades. I regularly monitor and measure my vessel's engine performance, and send reports back to my employer.

While we do use residual fuel, we consistently achieve thermal efficiencies which no road transport mode can. 50 to 60 percent overall plant efficiency is common on vessels with waste heat recovery equipment.This is because of the large size, low operating speed, and long stroke length of the engines used in nearly all merchant vessels.

While my industry, like every other transport sector, needs to improve on emissions, I would really like to know where you acquired this mistaken belief that marine transport is the 'most polluting' form of transport. You post something to this effect every few days.

80% of the world's cargo is transported by sea, and shipping accounts for 2-3% of global CO2 emissions.

[COMMUTER]

Originally Posted by RadixLecti

I've been a sailor for nearly two decades. I regularly monitor and measure my vessel's engine performance, and send reports back to my employer.

While we do use residual fuel, we consistently achieve thermal efficiencies which no road transport mode can. 50 to 60 percent overall plant efficiency is common on vessels with waste heat recovery equipment.This is because of the large size, low operating speed, and long stroke length of the engines used in nearly all merchant vessels.

While my industry, like every other transport sector, needs to improve on emissions, I would really like to know where you acquired this mistaken belief that marine transport is the 'most polluting' form of transport. You post something to this effect every few days.

80% of the world's cargo is transported by sea, and shipping accounts for 2-3% of global CO2 emissions.

I am saying that, if the folks are radical about rooting our pollutions, they must have started with the ships using bunker fuels in their eight story tall engines first.

Originally Posted by DarthVeda

Let's agree that we should stop using things which are produced by Inhuman labour. Cobalt is used in refining of Crude, are you planning to stop using ICE vehicle tomorrow? Labour in china, please throw away your mobile and almost all electronics stuff has one or the other component coming there.
Shipping container? I wonder how crude gets to rest of world from Middle east?

I do agree that we should focus on indigenous production of all things imported from china and we can atlease stem the flow of wealth to the country that currently hold 37,000 sq kms of our land and is contesting for more. This must stop especially after the EV has been proven to be more polluting to the environment.

[Shresth_EV]

Originally Posted by COMMUTER

I am saying that, if the folks are radical about rooting our pollutions, they must have started with the ships using bunker fuels in their eight story tall engines first.

We are not talking about absolute pollution here, we’re talking about relative pollution. It’s not exactly news that an engine with more displacement than entire fuel tanks of multiple cars will pollute more as a unit than a single car.

But what we need to see here is gCO2/km/ton of payload. Does a ship pollute more than a car? Sure does. But it also carries much more than a car does. Shipping has one of the lowest emissions per unit payload among all transport. Only rail comes second in land transport.

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

You never know who is behind it for propaganda purposes. Various interest groups and governments have pushed their version of truth for so long down people's throats it is difficult to have an unbiased opinion.

It’s given away as soon as one sees who publishes, sponsors or does the study. There are multiple studies sponsored by companies like AramCo, BP etc which claim EVs are bad for environment. Nobody seems to raise eyebrows on them apparently.

Conflict of interest is always there. That is why independent studies such as ICCT and IEA are more reliable.

[RadixLecti]

Originally Posted by COMMUTER

I am saying that, if the folks are radical about rooting our pollutions, they must have started with the ships using bunker fuels in their eight story tall engines first.

The fact that the engines are 'eight storeys tall', as you put it, is part of the reason why they are more thermally efficient than any car engine.

As I mentioned before, shipping accounts for 2-3% (10.6% of 24%) of global CO2 emissions. Road transport accounts for about 18% (74.5% of 24%). Where do you think the greatest impact in emissions reduction will come from? A 25% reduction in road transport emissions would have a greater effect than converting all ships on earth to sailing vessels.



Source


None of this is to let my industry off the hook. It does benefit from the fact that most of the pollution occurs outside national territories, so the general public will never be as engaged with the topic as with pollution from cars in crowded city centres.

Let me also point out that my industry is more of a culprit when it comes to SOx and NOx emissions. It is still not the worst.

Shipping accounts for around three percent of all man-made CO2 emissions, 15 percent for nitrogen oxide and 13 percent for sulphur dioxide.

Source

Additionally, only about 5% of processed crude oil (source)ends up as bunker fuel for ships. I will not even bother to pull out the statistic for road transport, as it should be obvious that it is greater.

My point is that all fossil fuel based human activity needs to transition, and personal vehicles are among the largest sources of pollution.

[AROO7]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

I was happy to see this article, @Rahulnagaraj published few positive EV stories after a series of only negative EV stories, I understand negative stories get more views.

Yet so many comments against EVs, not surprising.

Exactly as the study points out EVs are better for our surrounding environment which is all we should focus on. Since you have already covered the Lithium mining part I will focus on the point that the EVs are charged on electricity produced by coal or fossil fuel powered plants. Here also the benefits are that at least the pollution will be at one place which can be very well managed compared to managing tailpipe emission from millions and billions of cars. It's as simple as macro versus micro.

[venom_op]

Originally Posted by AROO7

Exactly as the study points out EVs are better for our surrounding environment which is all we should focus on. Since you have already covered the Lithium mining part I will focus on the point that the EVs are charged on electricity produced by coal or fossil fuel powered plants. Here also the benefits are that at least the pollution will be at one place which can be very well managed compared to managing tailpipe emission from millions and billions of cars. It's as simple as macro versus micro.

Happy to say that my EVs are powered by the Solar roof I have on my house. I can happily say that I am doing my part for my surrounding environment.

[2legit2quit]

Originally Posted by COMMUTER

Further, this institute is providing "gender-affirming healthcare',which means they castrate boys and men and call them women! This makes it obvious that they don't even know who women are in the first place! A study from such a dubious university can be safely swatted aside as the work of the Chinese battery mafia.

Off Topic but such blatant ignorance and transphobia should not have a place on a public platform. Please keep your arguments (however conspiratorial they may be) related to the topic at hand

[COMMUTER]

Originally Posted by 2legit2quit

Off Topic but such blatant ignorance and transphobia should not have a place on a public platform. Please keep your arguments (however conspiratorial they may be) related to the topic at hand

This is a rational and considerate forum with no emotion-based bias.


The part you have quoted above are rational and objective observations on lack of credentials of common sense on the institution that conducted the study that is being discussed above.

If you feel the need to discuss further on this topic, please open a separate thread and post your validation for the particular aspect being alluded to in the above message. We have been open in discussing every aspects of lives of fellow enthusiasts in relevant threads.

Please avoid unnecessary virtue signalling by plastering others with terms which you hadn't been able to attribute objective definitions to in the first place.

I welcome you to DM me for a cordial conversation over my observations as the further discussion in this direction will not be relevant to the topic discussed here.

[RadixLecti]

This is a rational and considerate forum with no emotion-based bias

If so, then please respond to the facts that I have placed at your disposal. The signature you now use is yet more misinformation.



It is not possible for a container ship, or any ship, to emit 440,000,000 tonnes of CO2 per year. I believe you are saying this in good faith, but anyone who has given you these numbers is also misguided or is lying.

I sail on some of the largest ships in the world as a senior engineer. On a daily basis I actually deal with their engines, I monitor their fuel consumption, I am involved in ordering the bunker fuel, and in taking on the fuel when it is delivered. I know how much we order and how much we consume.

I am going to give you some figures in the hope that this will change your mind.

At full speed the vessels I sail on burn 250 tonnes of fuel oil per day. We would destroy the engines if we ran continuously at this speed. We also adjust speed to the demands of the service, which frequently requires much, much lower speeds. However I will assume that we always run at full speed to give my side of the argument the worst case scenario. I will also assume that we run 365 days a year (not possible, the vessel has to dock or operating it is pointless - but again, giving your side every advantage).

That gives a yearly fuel consumption of 365 x 250 = 91,250 tonnes of fuel oil.

Now, about 85-86% of the weight of fuel oil comes from carbon. Source

And here’s an academic paper saying that it’s 85%, which I will use.



So that gives 0.85 x 91,250 = 77,563 tonnes of carbon burned per year.

This is where the CO2 emissions come from. Due to atomic masses of 12 and 16 for carbon and oxygen respectively, 12 tonnes (or any other unit of mass you like) of carbon combines with 32 tonnes of oxygen to give 44 tonnes of CO2.

So 1 tonne of carbon creates 44/12 = 3.667 tonnes of CO2.

Going back to our number of tonnes of carbon burned per year by one ship, that gives us 77,563 x 3.667 = 284,424 tonnes of CO2 in a year.
Orders of magnitude less than your claim of 440,000,000 tonnes.

The impossibility of 440,000,000 tonnes per ship per year can also be calculated from the fact that total CO2 emissions from transportation are about 8 Gt (8,000,000,000 tonnes)

.

Even if all of this was from ships, if each ship emitted 440,000,000 tonnes then that would give us 8,000,000,000/440,000,000 = 18.18 ships in the entire world.
Given that 0.84 Gt was emitted by shipping in 2021, (source) that gives fewer than two ships in whole world. Surely you can see that you are mistaken?


Please note that my scenario above is a completely unrealistic one. In reality, we order about 7,000 tonnes of fuel per quarter, which is 28,000 tonnes a year. Doing the same calculations as above that is 88,301 tonnes of CO2 per year.

Is this more than a car? Yes of course. But as mentioned before, there is no comparison to be made without considering the sheer weight of cargo transported by a ship.

As another member pointed out, of all fossil fuel burning modes of transport, shipping is the least polluting.


And as I have mentioned before, road transport is three quarters of all transport emissions. Shipping is about a tenth. Where would you start to reduce emissions? I would start everywhere.

[sumannandy]

I don't think we have the right data to prove anything.

I used to drive a diesel vehicle with about 8 km per litre mileage. In last 2 months I have driven 10000 kms in an ev. For EV, assuming average range of 300 kms for 40 kw battery, I would have consumed 33 x 40 units. If I had taken the diesel vehicle I would have required 1250 litres of diesel.

What is the pollution for production of 1250 litres of diesel + transportation of the diesel to the respective places where I consumed + emission for driving 10000 kms?

What is the pollution for generation of 1320 kw of electricity + transportation through grid + emission(?). Emission is zero.

Rest nobody knows.

We talk about disposal of batteries, but that may happen only after 5 lakh kms. In an ICE vehicle it would have undergone 15 times oil change, change of battery for 5-6 times etc.

[COMMUTER]

Originally Posted by RadixLecti

If so, then please respond to the facts that I have placed at your disposal. The signature you now use is yet more misinformation.

Attachment 2417732

It is not possible for a container ship, or any ship, to emit 440,000,000 tonnes of CO2 per year.

This is the link to support the fact.

Link

Just 15 of the biggest super tankers pollute more than all the 750 odd million cars in the world put together. There are over 5,000 ships plying the oceans.

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by RadixLecti

And as I have mentioned before, road transport is three quarters of all transport emissions. Shipping is about a tenth. Where would you start to reduce emissions? I would start everywhere.

Thank you for such a detailed post and your insights, learnt something more about shipping. Not only cars emit more, they are easy to electrify and reduce pollution than decarbonzing large ships.

Unfortunately your efforts and time are wasted here, just forget about this discussion and have a peaceful sleep.