[Bhatt]

The panel's report has made it to the Indian Express -

https://indianexpress.com/article/ex...ained-8599373/

[anoopGTkrish]

Originally Posted by furyrider

Okay, so EVs are equally polluting as ICEs, it's just that they pollute somewhere else. I think the emphasis should be on pollution. What difference does it make if the pollution happens in the city or somewhere else? The planet is still getting polluted. It's the same logic as stubble burning. Some farmer burns stubble in his field and Delhi has to suffer every year. But nope, we should blame ICEs instead.

This is not entirely true. I worked as a power plant engineer during the early days of my career. Controlling the emissions from a power plant is easier than trying to control emissions from millions of vehicles scattered across the globe. At power plants we have a multitude of methods to control emissions and in many cases these control methods used to generate additional revenue streams like selling fly ash and gypsum to other industries. There's also the thermal and mechanical inefficiencies that gets multiplied by many folds with small engines of various capacities and designs which is easier to control in a power plant setting.

I'm more concerned about the overall carbon footprint across an EVs manufacturing and imminent death. Manufacturing an EV technically would use more resources, energy and fossil fuels for mining the raw materials for building the batteries. What happens to Li ion batteries at the end of their lifecycle is also a major concern. This is more so considering the relatively long life of petrol and diesel engines.

[venkyhere]

There are three basic realities which we must accept :

1. The political class and bureaucracy have very limited knowledge of science, engineering, technology and math. "IAS"/"civil service" is not a qualification that enables the engineer's mindset.

2. Even if there are exceptions to 1, they will be a small minority who will be quashed by powers above, because political power/bureaucracy DOES NOT run on the basis of meritocracy, it runs on the basis of seniority and clout.

3. The might of lobbying - the auto industry will always come up with 'energy studies' and 'pollution reports' that favour more manufacturing & more sales in the future, because that's their fundamental bottom line. Governments across the world have been fooled by this 'fake marketing', 'lobbying' & 'doomsday scare mongering' about using petrol and diesel.

So it's not just a problem with energy policies from the GoI, but pertaining to almost all countries across the world. Fossil fuel has been turned into a villain, owing to the subversion tactics employed by battery manufacturers and EV makers - the success of multi trillion market cap by an EV maker is a testament to this.

It would be naive to believe all the 'charts' and 'graphs' that show 'quick break even within 5/6/7 yrs' in terms of life cycle energy expenditure (manufacturing energy + running energy) are all speaking the truth. Statistics can be bent to achieve a narrative.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

My personal take :

The only "free" energy source is fossil fuel, solar and nuclear fuel (others like wind/geothermal/tidal etc are not as efficiency "tappable" as the above three are). What I mean by that - even to 'tap' these energy sources, we need to spend some energy upfront to create the mechanism to exract/process into usable form. On those stakes, nuclear is the most efficient and solar is the least efficient (energy tapped : energy spent for tapping), fossil fuels are nicely in the middle.

Let's take a step back and think what is the ultimate source of energy on earth (may be in the universe even) ?
Gravity.

That's what packed biological matter into crude oil, that's what triggers fusion reaction in the sun/stars, that is what formed the 'elements' that were created when earth formed. So all three sources of 'most efficient energy' available to us - fossil, solar, nuclear => all were created by gravity. We really don't know what gravity actually is as of today. This is the only real source of 'energy'. For everything else, more energy has to be 'spent' to extract it (maybe tidal is an exception). That is entropy.

There is NO WAY making a battery, charging it, and then using it for transportation, is more efficient than using an engine or turbine running off fossil fuel. In effect, we are not saving the earth or environment from anything. Unless the entire population on earth uses nuclear/solar to generate electricity, BATTERY VEHICLES ARE CONSUMING MORE FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY than fossil fuel saved by abandoning IC engine/turbine.

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by venkyhere

There are two basic realities which we must accept :

Sorry, did not understand a bit, is this some kind of conspiracy theory?
Looks like you have reached the conclusion which you wanted.

Why are we building large nuclear plants spending billions of money? Usually most nuclear plants are scheduled to be built in 5 years but take 10-15 years, which increase cost overrun, making nuclear energy costlier than solar and Wind.

There are numerous studies stating why BEVs will take over, why BEVs are better for environment, yet we cook up some conspiracy to reach a conclusion BEVs don't work.

[venkyhere]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

Sorry, did not understand a bit, is this some kind of conspiracy theory?
Looks like you have reached the conclusion which you wanted.

Show me one scientific study that shows that a 10 yr old BS4 diesel car pollutes more in the 11th-15th years, than the pollution created in manufacturing and running a petrol/EV over the same duration ? (people owning cars beyond 15 yrs is rare, so 15yrs is a pessimistic enough estimate), Still NGT advised it, Delhi govt executed the advise as 'ban'. They are looking only at 'smoke', not life cycle 'pollution', and it's not because of ignorance. From my experience in life, I tend to be suspicious by nature, and honestly suspect that MSIL must have heavily lobbied for this, because they couldn't come up with their own BS6 diesel.

[revvharder]

Originally Posted by venkyhere

Show me one scientific study that shows that a 10 yr old BS4 diesel car pollutes more in the 11th-15th years, than the pollution created in manufacturing and running a petrol/EV over the same duration ? (people owning cars beyond 15 yrs is rare, so 15yrs is a pessimistic enough estimate), Still NGT advised it, Delhi govt executed the advise as 'ban'. They are looking only at 'smoke', not life cycle 'pollution', and it's not because of ignorance. From my experience in life, I tend to be suspicious by nature, and honestly suspect that MSIL must have heavily lobbied for this, because they couldn't come up with their own BS6 diesel.

Plus the Taxes fill the coffers which pay the salaries and miscellaneous expenses of these Babus and mantris while they keep on digging a perfectly constructed road and one should see the amount of dust that gets kicked up due to this and they don't even the repair these roads back and if somehow they build up a road they will dig it back, i remember a recent incident in Najafgarh where the road built one day and the next day the workers had come to dig it up again because they forgot to lay a pipe or wire and they would not have repaired it after their work so the locals rounded them and the contractor and beat them up.

[aaggoswami]

Diesel CARS are made villain, not other vehicles that are operating with diesel fuel. Why so ? My 2012 Innova diesel with around 104,000 kms. would be less polluting than many newer abused Tata Ace, for example, that comes regularly in my society to collect garbage. It would be really nice if biggest polluters using diesel fuel are first targeted to be banned than cars which I assume are generally well maintained atleast in private ownership. Petrol engine would not be as efficient unless its hybrid using expensive materials in battery pack. Even then, on highway cruising diesel would be efficient. Banning diesel cars will mean more petrol is consumed and this would increase the crude we are importing. Clearly the bigger diesel cars are being targeted. Why LCV and HCV are not being made electric ? No concrete answer would exist, this rule is to push new car sales and would end up increasing the crude bill. Would love to retain my Innova as I am sure the car is excellent condition to serve me for another 10 years. Its beyond my senses why diesel is the bad fuel. Large ships are biggest diesel polluters, but its not regulated and the world ended up with concept of slow cruise to increase efficiency than to shift to greener fuel. EV aren't the solution for sure considering the carbon footprint. Correct me if I am wrong, but there doesn't seem to be such a ban in any other developing nation. A nation where not each state is having electricity surplus. XUV700 petrol vs diesel, which car would use more fuel ? Is there any concept of carbon footprint to produce each litre of petrol and diesel ? And can that be factored in to arrive at a prudent conclusion ? Those who have diesel cars, enjoy the torque, while you still can.

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by venkyhere

Show me one scientific study that shows that a 10 yr old BS4 diesel car pollutes more in the 11th-15th years, than the pollution created in manufacturing and running a petrol/EV over the same duration ? (people owning cars beyond 15 yrs is rare, so 15yrs is a pessimistic enough estimate), Still NGT advised it, Delhi govt executed the advise as 'ban'. They are looking only at 'smoke', not life cycle 'pollution', and it's not because of ignorance. From my experience in life, I tend to be suspicious by nature, and honestly suspect that MSIL must have heavily lobbied for this, because they couldn't come up with their own BS6 diesel.

I am not talking about knee jerk reactions of govt, neither do I support sudden bans.

I am talking about how you concluded with the below statement, how you concluded nuclear is beneficial without any technical reason but some conspiracy like theory.

There is NO WAY making a battery, charging it, and then using it for transportation, is more efficient than using an engine or turbine running off fossil fuel.

[Grand Tourer]

I feel this video sheds some light on the report and recommendations.

The presenter clearly explains what the report is all about, what are the changes needed as well as the transition plan. Hope this helps

https://youtu.be/LCNtCnzLXLc

[SaiSW]

Yeah, I don't see this knee jerk reaction moving anywhere past the on-paper stage, else risk being sued into oblivion in the Supreme Court.

[low_rider]

What about the diesel gensets which power all the offices, malls, hospitals, commercial establishments, housing societies, etc.? Are they also going to shift to Petrol/CNG gensets?

I am fine with diesel/petrol/CNG or any other type of ban, but give adequate time to the guy who has invested quite some money in a new vehicle. Atleast the 10 year time limit for existing vehicles should be adhered to. For new vehicles, Govt can stop the registration.

On a related note - when you refine the crude, you get various components (petrol, diesel, etc.). In case of a total diesel ban, most of the diesel will go waste. Means the refiner has to extract his profit from the remaining components. Won't that hike the price of petrol?

[UD17]

Originally Posted by low_rider

What about the diesel gensets which power all the offices, malls, hospitals, commercial establishments, housing societies, etc.? Are they also going to shift to Petrol/CNG gensets?

CNG gensets are already in application. My office has one running on CNG, the biggest (& costliest) pain is the logistical arrangement to refill.

Petrol genset, i can not imagine due to the Genset appetite.

With so many sustainability targets for manufacturing companies, there us no option other than to take every small step which reduce consumption of resources.

Regarding your points for refining, I agree that it will push the cost of other byproducts. The diesel is small fraction (as compared to Gasoline) out of 1 unit of crude, But there could be some countries who would continue to use diesel. Although Indian refiners had to compete for those export opportunities, again the margin on diesel export could tank and push the cost differential to other byproducts (mainly petrol).

[venkyhere]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

I am talking about how you concluded with the below statement, how you concluded nuclear is beneficial without any technical reason but some conspiracy like theory.

1. Fossil fuel : uranium/plutonium, let's say the energy cost for extracting, refining it etc is 1:10. In one case the energy is coming from breaking chemical bonds while in the other case the energy is coming from the nucleus (unlike a runaway nuclear reaction, where the ratio of protons effusing out grows exponentially, with control rods, the protons are reduced to a steady flow, leading to a controlled nuclear fission). The ratio of energy that eventually gets released from a chemical reaction with oxygen occurring inside the IC engine to the energy that gets released from controlled nuclear fission would somewhere be many orders of magnitude higher , say 20 : 20000.

We must understand that we humans are not extracting 'free' energy. Gravity already did the work whether the energy is coming from nuclear, fossil or solar. Same applies to other sources like tidal, geothermal, wind etc etc.


2. making cars involves energy spent in manufacturing :
a) steel, plastic, aluminium, wiring, tyres etc etc which come as raw material , that already have an energy cost in their manufacture
b) running the assembly line, power tools, welding etc etc
c) transporting to dealer

The above is common for any vehicle, IC engined or hybrid or EV.

However, in case of hybrid & EV, there is :
d) mining, extraction, refining, transporting, next stage refining, transporting to final battery manufacturing location, transporting to car factory
In case of EV, there is additional :
e) extremely energy expensive rare metal extraction and refining to make the reluctance motors



3. Running a car involves energy usage

for IC engine cars and hybrids :
a) mining, extraction, transportation, refining, transportation to pump in case of petrol/diesel
b) lost energy from the conversion efficiency of IC engine, whatever the number be

for EVs :
c) mining, extraction, transportation, refining, transportation of ADDITIONAL coal/natural gas/naphtha to power plant
d) installation of charging network (which again involves copper, it's mining, refining, manufacturing etc)
e) transportation losses involved in moving the ADDITIONAL electricity from power plant to charging stations
f) lost energy from the conversion efficiency of battery drive, whatever that number be




Overall energy cost

2a+2b+2c+3a+3b => IC engined cars
2a+2b+2c+2d+3a+3b => hybrid cars
2a+2b+2c+2d+2e+3c+3d+3e+3f => EVs

Notwithstanding the fact that 3f is far smaller than 3b, the only way EVs have a chance to fight the energy cost is "3c" , and the smallest diminished form of it is a nuclear power plant. Other than that, no matter what 'life cycle energy studies' are shown by large corporations and hedgers, as part of their 'lobbying' to subvert the minds of decision makers at govt levels across the world, it simply doesn't cut it.

In fact, I will openly go out on a limb and claim that 90% of such studies/reports/whitepapers which show that an EV car 'breaks even' the energy cost game with an IC engine car, in 5/6/7 years with 10k/year running, its' plain BS.


Hope alteast now, it doesn't look like I am peddling conspiracy

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by venkyhere

Overall energy cost

2a+2b+2c+3a+3b => IC engined cars
2a+2b+2c+2d+3a+3b => hybrid cars
2a+2b+2c+2d+2e+3c+3d+3e+3f => EVs

That's the difference between actual research and back of napkin calculations.

ICE cars also need: 3c+3e
3c: Use electricity to pump oil from oil wells, refining oil needs lots of electricity.
3e: Transmission losses between power generation and oil refinery plant.

Without electricity how do you achieve extracting, refining of oil?

3a and 3b are one of the dirtiest processes, so all steps are not equal. Also think about oil spills, wars for securing oil assets and health costs for inhaling all those particulates and NOx.

2d: Batteries are 95% recyclable with profit, all those ICE steps are not recyclable.
https://insideevs.com/news/564366/jb...profitability/

2e: Motors without permanent magnets will be coming to market soon, we have the tech, Tesla already announced their 2025 model car will not have permanent magnets.

[venkyhere]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

ICE cars also need: 3c+3e
3c: Use electricity to pump oil from oil wells, refining oil needs lots of electricity.
3e: Transmission losses between power generation and oil refinery plant.

Without electricity how do you achieve extracting, refining of oil?

Please note 3a. That includes what you mention here.
Also, re-read the word 'ADDITIONAL' in my post.

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

3a and 3b are one of the dirtiest processes, so all steps are not equal. Also think about oil spills, wars for securing oil assets and health costs for inhaling all those particulates and NOx.

3c is filthy. The 'ore' travels to China (china has a monopoly over 'battery mines'), gets refined and manufactured, then travels to EV factories in Europe, via ships.

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

That's the difference between actual research and back of napkin calculations.

If you are ready to 'trust' the energy-cycle-reserach that is funded by EV makers and their investors, wish you goodluck. If history has taught us anything, it is that 'technology' is driven by 'funding' which in turn is driven by vested interests. Policy is made by lobbyists purely to profit a few. It will be naive to think that the world makes 'progress' based on 'whats good for humanity'. The developed west (US/EU) pumped up enough CO2 over the past 200 years and caused 'climate change' , and now are driving energy policy in Asia and Africa via subversion, whilst their population is still burning fossil fuel for 'central heating' - the energy expenditure for that alone, is more than what some small countries use entirely. Westerners, Japanese use so much 'plastic' per capita (for example supermarkets have 'peeled' bananas and oranges in plastic carry away boxes - the irony is laughable) that its several fold compared to countries in Africa. Re-cycling is the BS excuse the give, but what's never mentioned is the use more fossil fuel energy inorder to do it.

Entropy only moves in one direction. Only gravity can reverse it. Claiming that technology can circumvent it (and try to convince us with some doctored statistics), is a lie. We cannot get any more efficient than using what gravity has 'freely' done for us.

Reduce the use of fossil fuels, carpool, take a bus/train, wear a jacket or use a blanket instead of heating the entire house - these are the realistic steps to make our energy last longer. Making Lithium polymer batteries and putting them in cars is not the way.