[sgiitk]

Originally Posted by mayankjha1806

Electric cars are not the future, as the manufacturer is making one to believe, they are not less polluting in fact they pollute more for the the amount of electricity they consume. On another thread where future fuel technologies were discussed, i posted Hydrogen fuel cell cars are the way in the future as we have abundance of hydrogen, it emits water (which is non polluting)

I worked on Hydrogen energy in the end of the 1970's. The Hydrogen Economy was 'round the corner', it Still is. So i definitely do not buy the logic.

I personally think EVs for local commutes, and even long distance runs are now the future. EV technology has come a long way - both in terms of more efficient motors and also cells.

[volkman10]

The debate surrounding the impact the rise of electric vehicles will have on the environment is likely to heat up in the years ahead, as more and more automakers announce plans to launch EVs by the hundreds.

Here is an insight citing data obtained from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the report says large scale EV use “will increase overall emissions of sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and particulates” when compared with ICE cars and petroleum refineries combined.

Link

[srishiva]

The above report mostly talks about the subsidies and other public funding required for e-vehicle infrastructure. It accepts that with increase use of renewable energy, pollution would be reduced. If such a report would be made in countries where majority of the electric power is generated using nuclear technology, how encouraging could that be ?The main problem is storage when using wind and solar power. I have not seen the cost analysis for hydrogen as a storage medium versus solar or wind power.

Atleast for India, we should see more adoption of e-mobility for 2 wheelers that could be charged easily with renewable power since the demand would not be that high

[Puntoo]

EVs release more toxic particles into atmosphere and are worse for environment than their fossil fuel-powered counterparts, according to a study. The study found that brakes and tyres on EVs release 1,850 times more particle pollution.

News Link: https://www.ndtv.com/feature/electri...-study-5185055

[linuxworld]

The latest contentious argument seems to be based on a study that says tyre wear in EVs is faster due to the car's weight. However, plenty of videos show healthy tyre conditions in their EV cars despite driving for a good number of kilometers. A popular Noida based guy who drove his Nexon 160000 km was seen to be saying the tires are still looking good and he still can drive a few thousand kilometers. Maybe other EV owners in this forum can confirm if they noticed significant tyre degradation during their car lifetime.

The concern lies in tyre wear, with Emission Analytics pointing out that EVs' heavier weight causes tires to deteriorate faster, releasing harmful chemicals into the air.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by linuxworld

A popular Noida based guy who drove his Nexon 160000 km was seen to be saying the tires are still looking good and he still can drive a few thousand kilometers.

He drove 1.6 lakh kms in one of set of tyres? How is that even possible? My Grand Vitara is in its 5th set at 1.73L kms. Did he add an extra zero by mistake?

[linuxworld]

Originally Posted by Samurai

He drove 1.6 lakh kms in one of set of tyres? How is that even possible? My Grand Vitara is in its 5th set at 1.73L kms. Did he add an extra zero by mistake?

Here is the YouTube video. The relevant tyre condition section is 20.25 minutes onwards.

https://youtu.be/X51Cr80baUY?si=vKV6S44IZ2N4o-qP

[Maky]

Originally Posted by Samurai

He drove 1.6 lakh kms in one of set of tyres? How is that even possible? My Grand Vitara is in its 5th set at 1.73L kms. Did he add an extra zero by mistake?

On my old Swift I did 50k across 9 years. I believe I was told to change it around the 4-5th year mark regardless of mileage covered. These being the from factory Bridgestone shoes that came with the car.
I did not notice any issues nor the see the tyre harden at the 5 year mark so I continued on. This included short highway runs as well. I still wonder If I got lucky or is the 4-5 year tyre change recommendation unnecessary.

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by pareshraheja

I beg to dis-agree. Working in the power plant industry, I can tell you that more than 50 % of power produced in the world (expect Middle East) depends on coal for power generation. About 30 % depends on biomass and the rest is combination of nuclear, wind, solar, hydel and oil&gas.

I am not quite sure where you are getting your data from. Cursory google search and it turns out Coal is only 15.8% of the total electricity production for all of Europe and this is 2022 and only 16.2% of all electricity production in USA.

Originally Posted by pareshraheja

Further, the major chunk of power generated in the middle east is on gas turbines with a closed cycle. The best efficiency possible on gas turbine based power plant is 70%.

And 70% efficiency is more than any ICE vehicle of any kind.

Originally Posted by pareshraheja

The others which include pulverized coal fired and biomass fired have an efficiency of about 50%.

This is still better than any ICE vehicle.

Originally Posted by pareshraheja

To make matters worse, power transportation is another area of loss. So, for ex: if I need to travel 100 km in a gasoline car, I may burn 6 to 8 litres of fuel with a total cycle efficiency of 45% but in-case of an electric car, to travel the same distant I am consuming power which has been generated through some power plant. To average it out, 60 % of the 100 km traveled has come from a power plant which is either coal fired or oil&gas fired and the balance is a combination of other sources plus the losses due to power transportation.
So to equate the power consumed in electric cars to litres for 100 km, it will consume about 10 litres.

Cheers

I dont think you can generalise 45% efficiency for ICE engines. The World's most efficient thermal engine is from Toyota and it is just 40% efficient. I am sure the efficiency is worse in real life but even if we take it on face value, it doesn't support your argument/disagreement.
https://www.thedrive.com/tech/18919/...0-liter-engine

And I am not at all sure how you came up with the 10 liter number. An EV is twice as more efficient as an ICE vehicle even if it is powered by electricity that has come from non renewable sources. Can you elaborate on your calculation?

P.S. I work in the future energy space in Australia. And more than 60% of all EV owners in Australia have solar panels at home and that includes myself. That is literally zero emissions. My car is charged almost exclusively via solar at home.

P.P.S Did not realise that the post in question is from 2012! Please delete this post if the mods feel so. Thanks.

[pareshraheja]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

P.P.S Did not realise that the post in question is from 2012! Please delete this post if the mods feel so. Thanks.

Well, even I was wondering when did I post those numbers..

The numbers have certainly improved wrt the split between renewable and non-renewable numbers in the last 12 years.

The snippet from Wikipedia is as below:

"Principal sources of US electricity in 2019 were: natural gas (38%), coal (23%), nuclear (20%), other renewables (11%), and hydro (7%).[3] Over the decade 2004–2014, the largest increases in electrical generation came from natural gas (2014 generation was 412 TWh greater than 2004), wind (increase of 168 TWh) and solar (increased 18 TWh). Over the same decade, annual generation from coal decreased 393 TWh, and from petroleum decreased 90 TWh.[4]"

Most certainly Europe may be at par or even better but, do you think the numbers will be similar for developing nations of Africa, South America and Asia?

Surely, my numbers on efficiency of ICE engines may be too generic but can your numbers for Australian homes (Solar) be applied to developing nations?

The debate here is not whether my numbers are more accurate or yours.

The point is that EV powered vehicles cannot be generalized to be better on the environment when compared to ICE.

In my opinion, it is region specific. Having Solar in 60% of homes is just fantastic to hear but, in a country like India, where frankly its over populated and space is a constraint, implementation of Solar panels is a big challenge in Metros.

To add spice to the debate: there is a new research which honestly I had no prior knowledge is the concept of higher weights of EV's and hence more wear and tear on brakes and hence higher particulate emission than ICE cars.

https://www.firstpost.com/tech/evs-m...-13745754.html

Another thing which is again a matter to consider is the life of the current batteries that are largely being used and re-cycling of the same. In comparison, re-cycling of ICE vehicles is already in a matured state while re-cycling technology for batteries with minimal harm to environment is work in progress

Cheers

[antz.bin]

Originally Posted by pareshraheja

To add spice to the debate: there is a new research which honestly I had no prior knowledge is the concept of higher weights of EV's and hence more wear and tear on brakes and hence higher particulate emission than ICE cars.

Using the spices to make tadka

New research claims that most EVs don't even need Disc brakes since requirement of friction brakes is much lower on EVs than on ICE cars, especially ATs (that prefer to upshift instead of providing engine braking as soon as you lift off the throttle).

EVs have enough regen braking to be able to take care of all but the most extreme emergency stopping situations. The friction brakes can augment regen braking only when required in emergency scenarios. There is no need for all 4 disc brakes on most EVs, drum rear brakes are enough. Drums are sealed so the brake dust does not pollute the environment and furthermore, drum brakes are cheaper to manufacture so that further reduces costs and environmental impact and manufacturing CO2 emissions.

[pareshraheja]

Originally Posted by antz.bin

Using the spices to make tadka

EVs have enough regen braking to be able to take care of all but the most extreme emergency stopping situations. The friction brakes can augment regen braking only when required in emergency scenarios. There is no need for all 4 disc brakes on most EVs, drum rear brakes are enough. Drums are sealed so the brake dust does not pollute the environment and furthermore, drum brakes are cheaper to manufacture so that further reduces costs and environmental impact and manufacturing CO2 emissions.

Hehe, on a lighter note - with the kind of pinpointed debate you are focusing on, you should point your gun towards these researchers and make them sweat a little. Well you know more 'tadka' means more likelihood of sweating!

On the positive note, its good that the wheel of innovation is moving with not just one solution of pure EV's but the like of Ethanol blending in ICE, hybrids (for EV range anxieties), Green Hydrogen, etc.

Cheers

[pgsagar]

Originally Posted by pareshraheja

To add spice to the debate: there is a new research which honestly I had no prior knowledge is the concept of higher weights of EV's and hence more wear and tear on brakes and hence higher particulate emission than ICE cars.

Cheers

EVs' contact-less braking, courtesy regen, is another big plus, among other EV merits. One can do single pedal drive in traffic with almost zero application of brake. I tried this. Saves brakes from wear and puts some charge (however miniscule) back in your main battery. Kinda like a little money-back purchase. At 3rd regen setting in Nexon, some invisible force reigns in the car as soon as your foot comes off A-pedal.

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by pareshraheja

"Principal sources of US electricity in 2019 were: natural gas (38%), coal (23%), nuclear (20%), other renewables (11%), and hydro (7%).[3] Over the decade 2004–2014, the largest increases in electrical generation came from natural gas (2014 generation was 412 TWh greater than 2004), wind (increase of 168 TWh) and solar (increased 18 TWh). Over the same decade, annual generation from coal decreased 393 TWh, and from petroleum decreased 90 TWh.[4]"

Am I missing something here? Why are you quoting numbers from 2019? The grid is getting greener everyday. China for example is five years early on their committed promise to solar capacity in 2030.

Originally Posted by pareshraheja

Most certainly Europe may be at par or even better but, do you think the numbers will be similar for developing nations of Africa, South America and Asia?

Sub saharan Africa is not the largest emitter of green house gases in the world - first world developed economies and industrial nations are.

Originally Posted by pareshraheja

Surely, my numbers on efficiency of ICE engines may be too generic but can your numbers for Australian homes (Solar) be applied to developing nations?

And how does that make a difference if the grid is getting greener everyday even for developing nations such as India? In anycase the EV penetration in India is still very low at the moment - most other large car markets are over 5%, the inflection point for adoption. Markets like China are over 25%, so is most of Europe, Norway is already at 82%. Even Australia which is seen has a laggard had 10% of all sales last month being EV's.

Originally Posted by pareshraheja

The debate here is not whether my numbers are more accurate or yours.

The point is that EV powered vehicles cannot be generalized to be better on the environment when compared to ICE.

There is no debate here. Even if the grid was mostly powered by non renewable energy, EV's will still come out on top. With the proliferation of green energy, as things stand today, there is no comparison what so ever. The batteries in EV's are more than 90% -recyclable as well even if you consider life time emissions.

Originally Posted by pareshraheja

In my opinion, it is region specific. Having Solar in 60% of homes is just fantastic to hear but, in a country like India, where frankly its over populated and space is a constraint, implementation of Solar panels is a big challenge in Metros.

It is the opposite infact. India is one of the sunniest places on the planet - we should have pushed solar on rooftops a long time back. If I had my way every roof top in Delhi will be covered in solar, my home town.

Originally Posted by pareshraheja

To add spice to the debate: there is a new research which honestly I had no prior knowledge is the concept of higher weights of EV's and hence more
wear and tear on brakes and hence higher particulate emission than ICE cars.
https://www.firstpost.com/tech/evs-m...-13745754.html

This is the most patently obtuse absurd thing I have ever read. I drive 90kms each day to work and I dont use friction brakes even once most days in my commute. Regen does all of the work. Infact the brakes on a Tesla supposedly last the life of the car. How many ICE cars can you say that about?

Originally Posted by pareshraheja

Another thing which is again a matter to consider is the life of the current batteries that are largely being used and re-cycling of the same. In comparison, re-cycling of ICE vehicles is already in a matured state while re-cycling technology for batteries with minimal harm to environment is work in progress
Cheers

Did not know you can you recycle petrol?