China has the world's most aggressive electric car goals. Communist leaders are promoting them to clean up smog-choked cities and in hopes of taking the lead in an emerging technology.
At the auto show, the global industry's biggest marketing event of the year, almost every global and Chinese auto brand is showing at least one electric concept vehicle, if not a market-ready model.
Heizmann said VW, which vies with GM for the title of China's top-selling automaker, expects annual sales of at least 400,000 "new energy vehicles" – the government's term for electric or gasoline-electric hybrids – by 2020 and 1.5 million by 2025.
The vast majority of Chinese get around by smog-free vehicles already. They're called bicycles.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Volkswagen to Roll Out an Electric Car in China. Can It Help Reduce the Smog?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 38 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday April 27 2017, @11:38PM (27 children)
In the short term, it will make the smog worse by pulling more electricity out of the coal plants which create a significant amount of the winter smog.
But eventually (aka, when more nukes are up), it's a step in the right direction.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Thursday April 27 2017, @11:45PM (10 children)
China's making quite of bit of solar energy already, [technologyreview.com] and is on track to make a lot more. And that's going to beat nukes to implementation quite consistently.
While I'm all for nukes, the fact is they're slow to implement and far more expensive per installation. And here in the US, regulated out of practicality. Solar plus storage is better. Particularly for a country with the land area China (and the US) has.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday April 27 2017, @11:58PM (9 children)
Well, if any country could unleash the resources required to make clean energy storage real, for a 20M-people city where a significant fraction charges cars at night, it would the Evil Commies of China. They can also arbitrarily level a few houses every other block to create enough parking spots with chargers.
Realistically though, the nukes are still the short-term stopgap.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday April 28 2017, @12:21AM (8 children)
I've often wondered, in a country such as China where authority is almost exclusively top-down, why we don't see them implement pumped hydro storage just about everywhere to complement intermittent energy sources such as solar and wind.
a) msgs to citizen, businesses: "You're moving from here, over there. Pack now."
b) build.
Of course there's lots more storage tech being worked on, too. Be thrilling to see something become outright practical, modular, safe, etc. Lithium, IMHO, is a very bad plan. Because of that whole "safe" thing.
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Friday April 28 2017, @12:39AM (1 child)
"Hey boss! You know how lithium batteries need cooling, and pumped hydro has more capacity? I just decided to co-locate them to save on wiring, and asked the guys to lower the batteries into the storage pond! Genius, right? Why are you turning white, boss? We're not stupid, we covered all the contacts nice and tight to avoid shorts... The next train to Really Far Away? Sure, let me check for you boss... Are you giving me a bonus vacation?"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VanessaE on Friday April 28 2017, @02:00AM
You jest, of course, but it's really not such a crazy idea... imagine this:
Suppose you have a regular hydroelectric dam/reservoir, everything set up and operating normally as HE systems go. Now, cover part of that reservoir with solar panels, with the panels spaced say 1 meter apart and elevated say 20 meters up to keep them safely away from the water. Fill the space between the panels with some kind of minimal diffusing material e.g. etched glass, textured plexi, whatever's cheap. Add enough batteries somewhere to store several days' worth of power for the region served by the dam. They could even store whatever excess is coming off of the dam, if there's a reason to.
Now, suppose you kept the batteries in a properly-sealed container (as implied in your joke), but with clean coolant circulating through them (as in Tesla's cars). Then, you could keep them high and dry in a service building or something, and put the cold side of that cooling system of at the bottom of the reservoir, with a big-ass heat sink.
If you locate the heat sink near where the water's actually moving, i.e. the incoming river, with sufficient gratings and such to keep the heat sink clean, that's one less system you have to spend money on to get the heat out (i.e. no pumps/fans).
There, now you have base and peak load contained in one area, 100% renewable, clean energy, and with no more environmental impact than the creation of the reservoir had in the first place, and still enough light hitting the water to keep the fishermen and marine life happy.
We have the tech to do it right now, we just lack the political will.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday April 28 2017, @08:50AM (5 children)
> [...] pumped hydro storage just about everywhere [...]
For pumped storage, one needs two reservoirs at different altitudes, and enough water to fill one of them. I've heard that suitable places are uncommon.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday April 28 2017, @11:41AM (4 children)
These are solvable problems with construction machinery.
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Friday April 28 2017, @12:13PM (3 children)
Yes, if one is willing to throw practicality out the window.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday April 28 2017, @01:36PM (2 children)
It's practical if you have a top-down, massively authoritarian government. Which China, in fact, has.
You build the system once. The resulting energy storage lasts a very, very long time. So the return on the investment can be correspondingly high. Especially if not doing it means your citizens suffer massive health impacts, degrading the performance of your economy at large in both an immediate sense, and in the "high CO2 levels are going to have serious follow-on consequences" sense.
It's not so much a matter of "is it practical" as it is "can anyone see beyond the next few months."
Again, in the US, the answer is generally "no." But in China, the system works differently. They often operate with long-term planning in mind, something we have almost completely abandoned at the governmental level, which operates in convulsive twitches that tend to expire at midterm-election rates. On its good days.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday April 28 2017, @04:22PM (1 child)
Here's an example of what I think we're discussing:
The lower reservoir has a gross storage capacity of 10,080,000 cubic metres (8,170 acre·ft) of which 6,840,000 cubic metres (5,550 acre·ft) of water is active (or usable for pumping to the upper reservoir). The lower reservoir is at an elevation of 227.5 metres (746 ft) while the upper reservoir is situated at 510.4 metres (1,675 ft). The difference in elevation between the reservoirs affords a maximum hydraulic head of 291.3 metres (956 ft) and minimum of 266.5 metres (874 ft).
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vianden_Pumped_Storage_Plant [wikipedia.org]
Note the last sentence. In the most pessimistic case, when one begins with a flat landscape, creating a mound nearly 300 m high in which to put a reservoir is a major undertaking. Moving so much material will generate lots of air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions up front; that should make us hesitate. These facilities aren't just placed arbitrarily; they're put where they make sense, like on a mountain or perhaps an escarpment. There are, however, ideas for hydraulic energy storage that could work with different topography.
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph240/doshay1/ [stanford.edu]
http://www.thegreenage.co.uk/tech/pumped-storage/ [thegreenage.co.uk]
(Score: 3, Funny) by fyngyrz on Friday April 28 2017, @04:31PM
Doesn't mean it has to, though. Solar powered electric constuction FTW. :)
Perhaps China will be the first to create a sustainable, non-polluting construction system for this. We surely won't be first. We'll probably be last.
(Score: 2) by bart9h on Thursday April 27 2017, @11:53PM (9 children)
of course, using electricity is only better if it's source is cleaner then what it is replacing.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday April 28 2017, @12:14AM (8 children)
There's one advantage with electricity. You can pollute somewhere else and get the benefit elsewhere.
(but it takes an Hungarian engineer to accomplish that ;-) ,he probably weren't a professional engineer (R) [soylentnews.org] either, oh the horror)
(Score: 4, Informative) by fyngyrz on Friday April 28 2017, @12:31AM (7 children)
There are other advantages in re fossil fuels burned in the car vs electricity produced at a plant using similar fuels: overall efficiency tends to be / can be way up, and the vehicle immediately becomes energy-source-agnostic so as sources change, the car doesn't know, doesn't care, and gets "greener" as time goes by. Even driving to, and subsequently charging in, a new region can make the vehicle greener (or less so.)
Plus, it'd be kind of a bitch to drive a coal-fueled car; this way, they can leverage what they have, reduce dependency upon petroleum-based fuels, increase availability of the raw petroleum substrates for lubricants, plastics, drugs, etc. and prepare for any better future they can create, from marginally to amazingly better.
They're definitely aware of the pollution problem and focused on reducing it. In some ways, they're doing better than we are. As our (US) government is currently being driven by idiots who have shown multiple signs they think or are pretending pollution is imaginary.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday April 28 2017, @01:32AM (1 child)
Battery efficiency is the Achilles heel in this. And electric cars have high entry price.
As for saving cost. Wood gas may be more efficient.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday April 28 2017, @11:48AM
Batteries continue to improve. Ideally, we'd move to ultracapacitor based storage, but that tech is still pretty far behind where it needs to be and won't come into its own in the near term.
Still, looking into the near future assuming today's tech is the limit is unnecessarily pessimistic. That's almost never the case.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 28 2017, @01:41AM (4 children)
Minor flaw in your thinking. There are two reasons that corporations have off-shored so much of American industry. One, is labor cost, and two, is lack of regulations.
China may regulate things a bit better than many third world countries, but they still have a long way to go. Another post, above, noted that coal plants are a major source of pollution, and especially smog. We don't have that any more in the US. Here in the US, after the coal plants had been drastically cleaned up, automobiles became the major source of smog.
If China wants smog free cities, they need to clean up both the coal plants, and the cars. Electric cars will help on that second part of the problem. I don't suppose it matters which part is solved first, if they are looking at both parts.
Of course, if they neglect the coal plants, the cars won't make a huge difference.
(Score: 3, Funny) by maxwell demon on Friday April 28 2017, @05:46AM
They should replace the coal plants with electric plants. :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday April 28 2017, @11:44AM (2 children)
You said this, then you provided no explanation of the flaw you referred to. Care to elaborate?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 28 2017, @01:40PM (1 child)
" There are two reasons that corporations have off-shored so much of American industry. One, is labor cost, and two, is lack of regulations."
You seemed to have skipped over those last three words. There are few if any regulations on the coal plants. Coal can be much cleaner than it is, if the plants are properly regulated. Smog isn't a foregone conclusion if you're running coal plants.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday April 28 2017, @02:26PM
Still not seeing it. If a coal plant is made cleaner, the vehicle then is getting energy from a cleaner plant. I accounted for this: I specifically said that electric vehicles are source-agnostic. Don't know, don't care. If the source gets cleaner, it is a win. Doesn't matter what the source is. I didn't say coal couldn't be made cleaner, either. Sure it can. I'm right with you there. There are numerous forks in these paths. Not all of them are bad.
The root issue here is that the drive towards cleaner energy sources and cleaner energy consumption needs to be undertaken. China's doing that in various ways, including a very strong push to solar. I'm willing to say that's entirely a good thing. No matter how they do it. We're stumbling in the US right now, due to a prevalence of environmental know-nothings in our government, but that pendulum, too, will probably swing back. Although I find it actually painful to contemplate the backwards steps into increased pollution currently being encouraged by the Trump administration. I simply despise that man and his cadre of sycophantic morons. Sigh.
As far as US corporations moving their entire operations offshore, yes, absolutely – lack of regulations is a huge factor. However, our government, again, is dysfunctional in exerting any control over such transfers of industry, basically turning a blind eye to it, so we're pretty much screwed there, too. China, on the other hand, is very strict about who can import what, which means that should an operation move out of China, it's not a given that it's going to be able to sell stuff back into the country. We have huge trouble selling into China, and we're one of its biggest trading partners in the China-to-US direction.
As far as power production itself goes, US corporations have not off-shored power production much (a little bit to Canada.) It's just not practical, because no one can get the power from distant locations to here in any practical way at this point in time. So foreign regulations on coal plants have little or nothing to do with our corporate power supply structures. Chinese coal plants do what they're told. So that's down to a question of what they're going to get told. US coal plants are dying on the vine because of stiff competition; they won't be a significant factor for much longer. Though I'm all for them (and everything else) being regulated right down to zero CO2 and zero particulates. Which means 100% transition to nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, hydro, etc.
(Score: 5, Informative) by edIII on Friday April 28 2017, @12:04AM (1 child)
It may be wrong, but it is their only choice. Unlike in America where Trump can talk out his asshole (which is on his face), the Chinese don't have the option of partisan anti-science corrupt views on whether or not the pollution is real, whether climate change is real. Ironically, I'm sure the average Chinese person doesn't suspect a conspiracy with their government at all. It's around them and ruining their lives.
The smog in China is a fact, and a burgeoning health crisis. Burning fossil fuels is no longer an option in China, so the road away from them is going to be rocky as hell till they get 100% off fossil fuels.
At least China is trying though. Over here Trump is going to peel back anything regulatory that has to do with the environment. He and the Repugnicans have basically said fuck the environment, it's fake news, and we're going to do whatever the fuck we want.
Perhaps, if the U.S were to become as clouded with pollution and as many health problems, there wouldn't be the argument over whether pollution is good/bad and can businesses be forced to not pollute. Since Orange Anus killed the EPA entirely, we are well on track for that polluted future where nobody can breathe.
It's a crying fucking shame that we can't learn from the problems the Chinese are currently having, and instead engage in conspiracy theories that deny the reality of everyday China. More than a billion people can tell us how bad it is, and we will instead suspect them of conspiring against us.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Friday April 28 2017, @12:18AM
We wouldn't want to learn from L.A. losing its permanent smog. That's California Libtard politics.
Maybe someone should point out to the D.C. crowd that under the "predominant winds" Chinese conspiracy, their families are breathing the sum of all the pollution emitted west of them.
West of my kids is the Pacific, how about yours?
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday April 28 2017, @12:15AM (2 children)
In 2013, China was "the biggest importer of oil."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24475934 [bbc.co.uk]
The country has also been importing coal in recent years, notably from Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China#International_trade [wikipedia.org]
However I'm under the impression that trade in coal is less politicised than that in petroleum. I can't think of a war that's been fought for coal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28 2017, @04:53AM (1 child)
It is high grade coal used for carbonizing steel.
I can't remember where it was mentioned, but it was in the comments on another article from a few days back, possibly the one discussing underground cities.
As such the coal importation does not have much of an effect on the power production side of emissions, but has a large one on the manufacturing side of things.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday April 28 2017, @06:24AM
Australia does indeed produce about half of the world's supply of expensive, metallurgical grade coal that is used in the production of steel. There was a story about that earlier this month:
Cyclone in Australia Could Disrupt Steel Production in Asia
/article.pl?sid=17/04/04/0115217 [soylentnews.org]
However, here are two articles from 2015 that say Australian "thermal" coal was being exported to China for use as fuel.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/mining-and-resources/australian-coal-industry-to-benefit-from-china-carbon-trading-says-mca-20150927-gjvun4.html [smh.com.au]
http://www.afr.com/news/world/australian-coal-the-loser-as-china-looks-for-cheaper-greener-options-20150930-gjxxd6 [afr.com]
another related article, from last month:
China to Cut Steel and Coal Production
/article.pl?sid=17/03/06/065224 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28 2017, @01:29PM
Fortunately, China is also researching thorium reactors. Not everybody is as dumbassed as Americans.
(We can't have electric cars! Because coal!)
(We can't have thorium! Because OMG nooyouler!)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28 2017, @12:04AM (4 children)
** Does SN have the possibility of a "tickler file"? This article should re-appear in a year, then we can check if 8% of the cars produced and/or sold in China are electrics as per tfs. The various electric car mandates tried here (California in particular) have failed spectacularly.
If most of their trips are short (within a metro area), maybe electrics make more sense for China. Ditto for charging, have they already started to set up masses of charging stations for apartment dwellers?
In terms of suitability for purpose, have Chinese families (with income to afford a car) spread all over the country the way they have in the USA? Or, are most families still clustered near their parents/grandparents? Even if most US trips are short, people aren't all that excited about renting (or owning two cars) to also cover the few long trips they take each year.
(Score: 3, Informative) by edIII on Friday April 28 2017, @12:13AM
Having visited China, I believe that would depend on the city. Not everyone of them is the same, built the same way, etc. A lot of variation throughout China.
As an example:
Some cities have the majority as bicycle and foot traffic.
Some cities have the majority as mopeds and rickshaws.
Some cities have the majority as small cars.
Some cities have the majority as regular cars you would see in America and Europe.
It was quite amazing to see all the variations that they had. Their version of the interstate highway system is well traveled and pretty much all buses and cars. In some cities though the car is a liability as I was not able to get around that well at all with all the bicycles and/or mopeds surrounding us.
That's my experience of being in 20+ major cities and rural areas over the course of a few weeks. About 10 years ago though, so it could've easily changed.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ledow on Friday April 28 2017, @08:43AM (1 child)
That would be a killer feature.
The number of times that I'd like to be able to flag a comment to let me reply / update / "I told you so" in a few years time from its posting.
If we could have a article "be Revisted" and be shown your original comments on it, so you could do that. I fear the codebase isn't designed to allow such things easily, though.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tibman on Friday April 28 2017, @04:39PM
Surely posting dups is supported by slashcode?
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by charon on Friday April 28 2017, @10:41PM
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday April 28 2017, @01:39AM (3 children)
What will this car cost?
How much energy will it's battery take? and how long can you drive with it?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 28 2017, @01:53AM (2 children)
Cost isn't the same consideration in China, that it is here. The Chinese government will subsidize electrics, if it really wants to push them. We've already seen the government subsidizing other industries. Those subsidies might be considered the root cause of the poison milk scandal a few years ago. Government pushed up the price of milk, to the point that farmers felt the need to produce a lot of milk. That's the point at which they began adding adulterants to the milk.
Cost does remain a factor, but the cost may or may not be passed directly on to the end user.
As for battery charge - you should be aware that many, and possibly most, of our small batteries come from China. Many of them are knockoffs of Japanese batteries. In my limited experience and research, the Chinese are getting better charges and longer use from similar batteries. Their big problem is quality control. You're just as likely to get a superior battery from China, as you are to get a dud. Japanese batteries are far more reliable.
I can't speak for larger batteries - I've never owned a Chinese battery larger than AA or 18650.
If you go shopping for small batteries, you're best off sticking with Panasonic, or Sanyo.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by simonInOz on Friday April 28 2017, @02:58AM (1 child)
I was in Shanghai a few years ago. And yes, the pollution was terrible.
But interestingly, the major part of private transport appeared to be electric scooters. They looked like Vespa scooters, not electric bikes. They were quite zippy, and there were everywhere. Given the horrible traffic, they looked like an excellent solution, and would consume much less power than a car, not to mention road or parking space.
-- cats like plain crisps --
(Score: 3, Informative) by ledow on Friday April 28 2017, @08:49AM
You can get electric motorbikes and mopeds quite cheaply, in comparison.
They charge quickly, have "enough" range for a commute, and often you can recharge them from a single standard socket.
I was seriously considering one recently, but I don't have a motorbike licence (they separated car and bike licences many years ago in the UK).
However, it was a no-brainer and would have cost me 1p to get to work each day, I could put it in the office, and I could fully charge it in time for the ride home.
What killed the idea more than anything, though, was seeing other people's driving every day since I got my licence. I love the *idea* of a bike, but they are completely lethal in a country where they're treated as second-class drivers.
My gf is Italian, so she was behind the idea of getting a little electric Vespa for herself but she agreed. In Italy it would be fine as they are everywhere and other drivers expect them. In the UK, especially the slower moped-like bikes, people will happily risk killing you just to squeeze past you.
But even Harley Davidson do an electric motorbike now. The little moped/scooter things would be great for popping to the shops, etc. I imagine single people living in London flats, etc. are snapping them up rather than pay the congestion charge + taxes, for a garage to store it in, for petrol to run it, etc.
(Score: 2) by iWantToKeepAnon on Friday April 28 2017, @07:37PM
VW cars run on batteries when being tested and ICE's when on the road....
I wondered why I had to put gas in my electric car! :-p
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy