
China's e-buses dent oil demand more than electric cars do - jseliger
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-19/forget-tesla-it-s-china-s-e-buses-that-are-denting-oil-demand
======
thewhitetulip
By this logic, we should "forget" all the go green initiatives because China
(and Africa) are building a "Green Wall" to stop their respective deserts from
widening.

[https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/china-great-
gree...](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/china-great-green-wall-
gobi-tengger-desertification/)

I say this is mainly about China because Africa has modified their green wall
project and instead of planting billion trees from East coast to West coast,
they are helping communities to thrive by planting trees and reviving land.

China is crazy in this sense, there is a thick patch of shrubs that now border
the Gobi desert and mainland China. By 2030 it'll be the largest manmade
plantation on Earth.

edit: 66 billion trees planted so far!

~~~
m0zg
> 66 billion trees planted so far

News in 10-20 years: massive wildfires decimate Africa. It's pointless and
dangerous to have more trees than the waterbed can support. California re-
learns this lesson nearly every year.

~~~
Sabinus
I assume there were many more trees in the same watershed before man chopped
them down for pasture and cities.

~~~
jaegerpicker
Sure, but there was a lot more available water in the watershed then also.
Agriculture in a lot of ways has been the biggest ecological disaster this
planet has ever seen. Man has redirected and pushed water out of nearly every
watershed on the planet vastly changing what biome a area can support. I say
that fully aware of the benefits that Agriculture has allowed human society, I
wouldn't change it if I could in the past but I deeply hope we figure out a
way to co-exist with nature in a less destructive way.

~~~
magduf
We need to switch to just growing our plant food indoors, using hydroponics.
It's much more efficient with water than outdoor irrigation, and can be done
vertically so it doesn't take up so much land.

------
evolve2k
This points out a new opportunity. Why stop at China for electric busses (yes
they are probably manufacturing them locally)?

Cities are seeming increasingly more able to be proactive than countries.

Encourage local cities to one by one electrify the bus network and this effect
goes global. It’s obvious tangible action that citizens can demand and mayors
can visibly deliver.

Game for those playing at home, do a search on what make of buses are used in
your home city. Search for if that manufacturer is trialing electric buses.
Interested to see what you find.

~~~
bobthepanda
Initial indicators seem to be that they're not ready for prime time.

Albuquerque returned BYD buses because of problems with range not performing
as advertised. [https://www.abqjournal.com/1246094/abq-rejecting-all-byd-
art...](https://www.abqjournal.com/1246094/abq-rejecting-all-byd-art-buses-
switching-to-non-electric.html)

Battery-electrics still have major issues with range; buses cannot last a full
day on a single charge, and midday charging takes too long. And if it gets
cold or the route has hills, you're completely out of luck.
[https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/01/electric-
bus-...](https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/01/electric-bus-battery-
recharge-new-flyer-byd-proterra-beb/577954/)

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Hills are the primary use case for electric buses already (electric has much
better torque), and have been for a very long time. The only thing is now
instead of using overhead lines, batteries can be used instead.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>Hills are the primary use case for electric buses already (electric has much
better torque)

A typical fairly modern city bus is geared to top out at low highway speed.
Having the maximum amount of acceleration is possible for a vehicle that is
pulling in and out of traffic all day which is why they are geared so low.
Buses will happily roast the tires from a stop (an impressive sight, I highly
recommend) if not electronically prevented from doing so peak power is
basically available as fast as the transmission can shift down a gear or two.

Acceleration in practice is primarily limited by the cargo's propensity to
complain and secondarily by the coefficient of friction between the tires and
the ground. Regardless of EV vs ICE these limitations are going to result in
electronic controls that prevent the driver from getting an instant response
when the hammer the throttle it

Maybe on a long, hill climb near top speed you'd run out of power but that's a
peak power limitation issue and EVs will have it too. Commercial people movers
are only ever lacking for power when they are intentionally spec'd out that
way.

The "muh torque" circle jerk really isn't an advantage of EVs except when
you're intentionally making a lopsided comparison (Model S vs Civic). Besides,
as much as I'd love to see a bus twist and lift up a front tire leaving a stop
I assure you the average person does not want to be subject to that kind of
acceleration so both the EV bus and the ICE bus are going to get an electronic
nanny between the go pedal and the power source.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Have you seen Seattle hills before? Yes, you can service them with diesel if
you have to, but ride times suffer, and it’s a very crappy ride. San Francisco
uses trolley buses for similar hill routes as well, as does almost every city
with hills outside of the USA. This has been known well before EVs became a
thing, since the 1940s at least. Since battery tech wasn’t good enough, they
were powered by overhead lines instead.

------
spongeb00b
Electric buses seem to be fairly common in UK city centres. I first saw one in
London about 4 years ago - it was surreal when walking past a typical red
double decker at a bus stop and it just glided away with the faintest whirr.

I’m all for buses and taxis turning electric to reduce the diesel fumes in
cities.

~~~
tialaramex
Gliding away silently is often a hybrid. London does own electric buses, but
mostly it has hybrids (and lots of conventional diesel buses).

If you were on the bus its engine probably started a minute later, it's still
an improvement, and I assume that environmentally not spewing fumes at bus
stops helps a little with local air quality, but it's not usually an electric
bus.

~~~
Blackbeard_
Yeah, right on.

To put some numbers behind that it seems only ~1% of London's buses are
electric whereas about a third are hybrid.

[http://content.tfl.gov.uk/bus-fleet-
audit-31-march-2018.pdf](http://content.tfl.gov.uk/bus-fleet-
audit-31-march-2018.pdf)

------
clomond
Not all that surprising when you consider the utilization % of any typical bus
versus car. Given a bus may be driving on at least 1 maybe two shifts, means
it is driving around 12-16 hours typically per day. (50-75% utilization).

Most cars as personal vehicles(unless they are in a ride hailing service or
taxis) will have a typical utilization closer to 2-8% of the time as they
drive for maybe 1 or 2 hours a day.

I have similarly found many oil "demand models" not using "electric miles
traveled" as a key metric and rather using something more simple like "# of
vehicles replaced". Utilization is important, but often ignored or not thought
about.

------
natch
Now they need to get off coal as the source of much of that electricity. I’m
not saying they won’t though... I’m pretty sure they are onboard with both
cleaning up their environment, and limiting their CO2 emissions.

~~~
jseliger
China is actually running nuclear AP1000 reactors:
[https://sg.news.yahoo.com/nuclear-shares-soar-china-
plans-11...](https://sg.news.yahoo.com/nuclear-shares-soar-china-
plans-112747232.html). It seems serious about nuclear power, unlike the U.S.

~~~
Cthulhu_
The US' main problem with nuclear waste is that they still don't have a place
to stash it; waste is building up at the nuclear plants and it's becoming a
huge risk.

Whereas China can just dig a storage facility in the desert or something; they
can disregard locals' complaints easily thanks to being a totalitarian state.
I mean so is the US but it's an ineffective one.

~~~
asdff
Modern reactors produce very little waste. It's a non issue, the technology is
here and we can build them today, it just takes decades to recoup investment
and no shareholder will consent to margins that slim.

~~~
masklinn
> Modern reactors produce very little waste.

Sadly that has very little impact in the face of the US's epidemic NIMBY-ism.
Yucca is dead, and the US is completely opposed to reprocessing.

------
cinquemb
I think the bigger concern for China in regards to this is slowing the pull on
their fx reserves in light of their overall demand [0].

Indonesia and Malaysia are taking the biodiesel approach with decent amount of
success at cutting their fx spend [1].

Why China cant pursue something similar to Indonesia and Malaysia probably has
to do with their Ag policies/capabilities/climate.

[0]
[https://ycharts.com/indicators/china_oil_consumption](https://ycharts.com/indicators/china_oil_consumption)

[1] [https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Markets/Nikkei-
Markets/Mala...](https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Markets/Nikkei-
Markets/Malaysia-plans-to-start-using-B-10-biodiesel-from-Dec.-1)

~~~
est
> Why China cant pursue something similar

China plans to push 100% ethanol fuel at the end of 2020.

~~~
cinquemb
Source?

I see that they had a goal of 10% by volume[0], I'd really like to see the
numbers behind how they'll get that, compared to where there are at now on
that. I have my doubts on that number or on any serious execution, sounds dead
on arrival:

 _" By 2020 China wants all gasoline sold in the country to contain 10%
ethanol by volume, which is what the United States currently mandates with its
Renewable Fuel Standard. Building an ethanol industry is a necessary first
step to building the Chinese bioeconomy, but there's a long way to go. China
currently produces about 800 million gallons per year (mgpy) of ethanol, with
about 500 mgpy derived from corn. Based on expected gasoline demand of 45
billion to 50 billion gallons, to meet the 10% ethanol blending rules in 2020,
the country would need between 4 billion and 5 billion gallons of ethanol per
year.

It will be nearly impossible to site, build, and ramp up enough new production
capacity to supply demand from domestic production alone by 2020. That's why
many industry experts expect the Chinese government to turn to ethanol imports
to fill the gap -- and only the American market has enough spare capacity to
cash in on the opportunity."_[1]

[0] [https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/12/china-plans-nationwide-
use-o...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/12/china-plans-nationwide-use-of-
ethanol-gasoline-by-2020-state-media-says.html)

[1] [https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/05/07/china-is-
unlikely-...](https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/05/07/china-is-unlikely-to-
meet-its-2020-renewable-fuels.aspx)

------
milkmiruku
As seen on some YouTube channels, the 'SPIM08HP' cell -
[https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/42-SPIM08HP-3-7V-8AH-LITHIUM-
POLY...](https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/42-SPIM08HP-3-7V-8AH-LITHIUM-POLYMER-
BATTERIES-25C-200A-SUPER-CELLS-24V-36V-48V-/202508210597)

------
siculars
This is a very good way to think about the price of goods. When supply and
demand are in relative equilibrium price remains stable and reflects the cost
of production plus some margin for manufacturers. When you trim demand even
slightly by a few percent - which EVs in their various forms will inevitably
do - what happens to price? Where is the new demand for oil to compensate? Jet
fuel?

I believe price per unit oil will decline until supply is withdrawn to
stabilize at a lower value, which may or may not happen. The total market
value for gasoline will shrink.

~~~
jwr
The price of oil is unrealistic, because it does not reflect the terrible
damage to our planet. In other words, the current price can be so low because
we are "borrowing" the planet from our children and grandchildren. We get
cheap oil because they will not have a planet to live on.

If the price were to include a carbon tax, it would likely be at least ten
times higher and we would very quickly get rid of our beloved gas guzzlers.

~~~
gibybo
>If the price were to include a carbon tax, it would likely be at least ten
times higher and we would very quickly get rid of our beloved gas guzzlers.

Wouldn't you expect a carbon tax to be similar in price to the cost to get the
carbon back out of the air?

CO2 released per barrel of oil (when converted to various fuels and burned)
appears to be around 300-450 kg [1][2], but we can round up to 500 kg to be
conservative and make the math easier.

The cost to take it back out of the air appears to run between $30-$200/tonne
depending on how you do it [3][4][5]. I think it's worth speculating that this
cost is likely to drop precipitously as the demand and scale at which we need
to do it increases, but we can very conservatively stick with $200/tonne for
now.

Crude oil is at about $59/barrel today. $200 * 0.5 tonnes = $100. So with the
most conservative estimates, it wouldn't quite triple the cost.

[1] [https://pyrolysium.org/how-much-co2-produced-by-burning-
one-...](https://pyrolysium.org/how-much-co2-produced-by-burning-one-barrel-
of-oil/)

[2] [http://numero57.net/2008/03/20/carbon-dioxide-emissions-
per-...](http://numero57.net/2008/03/20/carbon-dioxide-emissions-per-barrel-
of-crude/)

[3] [https://www.c2es.org/document/the-cost-of-u-s-forest-
based-c...](https://www.c2es.org/document/the-cost-of-u-s-forest-based-carbon-
sequestration/)

[4] [https://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/19/carbon-capture-
expensiv...](https://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/19/carbon-capture-expensive-
physics/)

[5]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration)

~~~
artificialidiot
The thing is, if you wait long enough, CO2 will be removed by the plant life
anyway so removing it is "free". However if you reflect the price of the
removal process which is as _fast_ as it is emitted to the consumer, someone
gonna pay through the nose...

~~~
bryanlarsen
Plants release carbon when they rot or are otherwise eaten. So they're only a
temporary carbon store.

~~~
vonmoltke
Three points on this:

\- Increasing total plant biomass increases the amount if carbon trapped in
that portion of the cycle at any given time

\- When plants decay or are eaten, some of the carbon compounds created are
solids. Carbon itself is not the problem, carbon-based gases are.

\- Some portion of plant biomass is harvested by humans for durable purposes,
such as wood and textiles. These uses hold carbon for much longer.

I don't know what the total affect of these is, but they shouldn't be ignored.

------
known
Daily emissions of cruise ships same as one million cars
[https://www.euractiv.com/section/air-pollution/news/daily-
em...](https://www.euractiv.com/section/air-pollution/news/daily-emissions-of-
cruise-ships-same-as-one-million-cars/)

~~~
captainredbeard
It's worth noting that not _all_ cruise ships use bunker fuel. Disney's cruise
lines use diesel.

------
m0zg
What's the advantage compared to a tram or trolley bus? I don't get it.

~~~
VladimirGolovin
No need to build and maintain the infrastructure (rail and overhead power
lines.)

The ability to navigate the road freely -- trolley buses often have trouble
circumnavigating badly parked cars in their way, sometimes causing the driver
to get out to reattach the "prongs" to the wires.

Also, trams are somewhat prone to "tram jams" caused by one faulty streetcar
blocking the railway. And they simply cannot get around a badly parked car.

~~~
smcl
Other than the need to maintain rail + power lines, I think these issues are
overblown. The badly parked car scenario sounds pretty horrendous in theory -
one careless actor causes chaos for an entire city center! In my experience it
simply doesn't happen - I think people just know how damaging it could be (and
possibly how much trouble they would be in) that they pretty much have to be
considerate and self-aware.

However I _have_ seen trams broken down temporarily (a couple of times in the
last 7 years of taking 2 trips daily) but these get resolved surprisingly
quickly with minimal fuss. Additionally I've only seen a Trolley lose its
connection a couple of times, and the resolution took about 1 minute.

This is of course heavily based on personal experience, if you have experience
to the contrary I'd be curious where this is. A friend complained a bit about
Trolleys in Wellington needing frequently reconnected, but I don't know how
common that is or whether they just had some bad luck

~~~
eMSF
>In my experience it simply doesn't happen - I think people just know how
damaging it could be (and possibly how much trouble they would be in) that
they pretty much have to be considerate and self-aware.

That's not really the why, at least not here. The shortcomings of trams
(including derailing and the inability to maneuver past stuck or badly parked
cars) are handled by a 24h emergency crew dedicated for just that. I think
they move on average less than one car per day, but those missions are much
more frequent during wintertime.

Trams are much more prone to failure than buses.

~~~
m0zg
Still seems like a trolley bus at least could get out of such a bind with a
very small battery that lasts like 3-5 minutes. It could then recharge said
battery when it reconnects. That way it won't have to haul ten tons of
flammable batteries everywhere it goes.

------
reustle
"Forget Tesla" is the wrong attitude. We should applaud every win we can get,
big or small.

~~~
melling
It’s a clickbait title. More appropriate clickbait would be “the United States
becomes the #1 producer of oil while China rushes to electric vehicles”,
busses and cars:

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-autos-
electric/chin...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-autos-
electric/china-targets-35-million-vehicle-sales-by-2025-nevs-to-make-up-one-
fifth-idUSKBN17R086)

~~~
crumpets
That revision is still clickbait. The US being the #1 producer of oil doesn’t
say anything about usage. Example: a country could simultaneously be a low
user while being a huge producer - Norway.

~~~
melling
I understand your made up hypothetical example but it has no value.

Wouldn’t it be more worthwhile to deal with reality?

The US is by far the largest consumer of oil and we love large vehicles.

[https://qz.com/1344537/by-2020-suvs-could-make-up-50-of-
us-c...](https://qz.com/1344537/by-2020-suvs-could-make-up-50-of-us-car-
sales/)

~~~
buzzerbetrayed
Why do we need to include the US in the title at all when the story is about e
buses in China?

------
teknologist
I see a lot of news of these "green" vehicles being used in China but few seem
to be questioning where that electricity comes from. Coal power is still a
massive thing in China.

~~~
epanchin
Pollution in cities causes huge health issues. Displacing that pollution is a
big priority.

Centralising electricity generation makes it easier to switch to renewables
later on. Also, higher grid usage means more investment. (China is already 24%
renewable, about twice the USA.)

No-one living in a city is going to question why they’re switching diesel
buses to remotely coal generated electricity.

------
austincheney
Then just imagine if shipping tankers became electrified. The world's 6
largest shipping tankers produce more CO2 than all the world's personal
vehicles combined.

~~~
mikeash
That’s not true. They produce more sulphur dioxide, a pollutant that cars
don’t emit much of in general, and which the heavy fuel used by ships
generates in abundance. Somehow the story morphed from “a few ships emit more
of this specific pollutant than all cars” to “more pollution” to “more CO2.”

The entire worldwide shipping industry accounts for about 3% of humanity’s CO2
emissions.

~~~
austincheney
> The entire worldwide shipping industry accounts for about 3% of humanity’s
> CO2 emissions.

To my knowledge personally owned vehicles account for a similar percentage of
total CO2 output, so that number while small is a red herring. People tend to
generate more CO2 per capita as a result of air conditioning than from the
vehicles they drive.

~~~
throwaway5752
You are very incorrect on most of what you've posted here, but this is
embarrassing since you could verify this with basic math.

An air conditioner typically consumes in the neighborhood of 4kW, less than
half the day, less than half the year.

So, being generous, 6000kWh annually for air conditioning.

Gasoline has the equivalent of 34kWh/gallon, which implies air conditioning
uses the equivalent of 176 gallons of gas per year.

The average person in the US drives over 13,000 miles per year. The average
car gets 25 mpg. That is 520 gallons.

~~~
austincheney
> An air conditioner typically consumes in the neighborhood of 4kW

That is not true globally. I live in Kuwait, which can get up to 140F during
the day in the summer.

At any rate if you want numbers (since people are crying about research
without doing any of their own) here are some:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19438999](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19438999)

~~~
throwaway5752
How many days was Kuwait over 130F last year?

~~~
austincheney
Most days May through September experience an average high of actual
temperature of around 120F each day with 100% sunshine. Its the heat index
that brings it up to about 140F. You have to understand that during the summer
here there is relatively lower humidity during peak sunlight which refracts
less light before hitting the ground. The ground here is also highly
reflective of heat, which is felt at least 5 to 6 feet off the ground (the
height of most people).

Another way to look at (and there is a lot of data on this) is which nations
produce the most CO2 per capita and then work backwards asking why that is.

~~~
throwaway5752
Developed countries with high car ownership and countries with very small
populations and very large hydrocarbon extraction industries.

~~~
austincheney
That isn't accurate either. The country that outputs the highest CO2 per
capita is Qatar. Qatar left OPEC within the last year because their oil
extraction is so low. Qatar's primary hydrocarbon extraction is LNG (liquefied
natural gas) which is a low CO2 emitter relative to oil refinement.

Also, most the countries here have a higher than average population density
compared to the global average due to a small geographic footprint.

~~~
throwaway5752
Trinidad & Tobago, Australia, and Turkmenistan are high in addition to Qatar.
What they all have in common is they are high LNG exporters, which involves
liquifaction trains. LNG liquifaction trains are extremely CO2 intensive,
along with heavy oil refining (see Curacao, Aruba, et al per capita CO2)

------
Razengan
Excuse me for this tangent, but when it comes to environmental concerns, why
do we still skirt around the largest elephant in the room?

 _Curbing population growth._

We have laws against almost every "natural human instinct/desire":

X Murder

X Rape

X Theft, even if you're stealing food when you're starving

X Taking shelter in property that you don't own, even if you were freezing to
death

X In some countries: Being with whom you love

So why are we resisting laws against _" Making babies whenever you want"_ and
not even discussing them without annoyed dismissals and instant shutdowns?

Is it because the people who shape the zeitgeist — First world countries —
have yet to experience the horrors of rampant overpopulation?

People who vehemently argue against population control, ought to own up to the
fact that we should then guarantee access to food, shelter and healthcare for
every new human.

You shouldn't expound one human right only to continue to prevent everyone
from many other rights.

~~~
twblalock
Because population growth is expected to decline over the next century
already, and because population is not really the problem anyway. We have the
ability to improve the carrying capacity of the earth and we have done so
repeatedly over time.

Dire predictions of the negative consequences of overpopulation, ever since
Malthus, have turned out wrong. The population doomsayers didn't even
anticipate the real problem we face today: climate change.

Climate change is not caused by overpopulation, but rather by the industrial
output of developed countries. These countries, except for China, are not
densely populated and have lower rates of population growth than the rest of
the world because obtaining contraception is legal and convenient.

On top of that, regulating reproduction is a violation of the most basic human
freedoms.

~~~
Razengan
> _population is not really the problem anyway._

> _Dire predictions_

Those are not only predictions, but existing examples. I invite you to visit
the slums of developing/"third-world" countries, or even just see
images/videos of them.

> _regulating reproduction is a violating of the most basic human freedoms._

We regulate MANY things that are also basic human freedoms.

~~~
twblalock
> They are not predictions. I invite you to visit the slums of
> developing/"third-world" countries, or even just see images/videos of them.

Slums are not caused by overpopulation. They are caused by poverty and lack of
opportunity, often abetted by bad government policy. Tiny countries with small
populations have slums.

~~~
Razengan
There are _entire cities_ , one after the other, that are like one big slum.
You can see for yourself on Google Earth etc.

Many of their problems _are_ caused by overcrowdedness, and there are few ways
to fix that without stealing even more space from nature and other species.

As for poverty and lack of opportunity, what do you propose would fix that?
Honest question, because this will lead to more problems that need to be
pointed out.

