how many electric cars needed to offset £8m of gas a day?

Forums › Off topic › how many electric cars needed to offset £8m of gas a day?

Batman

Mad Scientist
30012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#299350 1-Sep-2022 06:14

serious question, anyone knows the answer?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/26/russian-plant-portovaya-burning-off-8m-of-gas-a-day-as-supply-to-germany-is-limited

Russia is burning off large amounts of natural gas that it previously would have exported to Germany while energy costs soar in Europe, the BBC has reported.

1 | 2 | 3

18679 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7820

Lifetime subscriber

#2961744 1-Sep-2022 07:13

The serious question is the carbon cost of this war. In the short term it might be neutral because it has stopped much economic activity in Ukraine. In the medium term it's going to be high if Germany is able to find replacement gas. I think it's having trouble finding that. Gas use is much lower. In the long term it will be very high carbon cost for rebuilding.

In the short term that is a extra heat being released into the near arctic ecosystem. That is going to have a destabilizing effect on local weather systems imo.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2961765 1-Sep-2022 08:58

Well the Germans slightly shot themselves in the foot by decommissioning a perfectly good nuclear power network and forgetting the concept of energy self-sufficiency.

Their present position demonstrates a shocking lack of geopolitical awareness and some pretty naïve thinking.

Eva888

2762 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2425

Lifetime subscriber

#2961812 1-Sep-2022 10:13

No one ever talks about the poisonous chemicals and emissions of the billions of dollars worth of ammunition being blown into the atmosphere in all wars not just Ukraine. What is the damage to the planet from tanks, planes, bombs and artillery used and the effects on our atmosphere and climate. I suspect such a conversation is not in the interests of the mighty war machine that builds, supplies and utilises arms.

Every couple of days the US and other countries approve another few billion $ for more arms and in the same breath tells citizens to turn off the lights to save energy but to brace for a very long war...so more damage to the atmosphere that drives our planet. How does anything we do as citizens to be greener ever mitigate the effects of the entire war industry. It’s like spitting at a waterfall.

Linux

12181 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8473

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2961864 1-Sep-2022 11:53

@Eva888 Do you drive a car or use public transport and go on planes to travel the world?

gzt

18679 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7820

Lifetime subscriber

#2961887 1-Sep-2022 12:53

Eva888: No one ever talks about the poisonous chemicals and emissions of the billions of dollars worth of ammunition being blown into the atmosphere in all wars not just Ukraine.

Not much of an issue in climate terms imo. As you say plenty of issues in relation to toxic munitions.

floydbloke

3646 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4554

ID Verified

#2962007 1-Sep-2022 14:01

Eva888: No one ever talks about the poisonous chemicals and emissions of the billions of dollars worth of ammunition being blown into the atmosphere in all wars not just Ukraine. What is the damage to the planet from tanks, planes, bombs and artillery used and the effects on our atmosphere and climate....

I suspect that warmongers don't really give much of a shit about the environment.

Sometimes I use big words I don't always fully understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Eva888

2762 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2425

Lifetime subscriber

#2962095 1-Sep-2022 16:02

floydbloke:
Eva888: No one ever talks about the poisonous chemicals and emissions of the billions of dollars worth of ammunition being blown into the atmosphere in all wars not just Ukraine. What is the damage to the planet from tanks, planes, bombs and artillery used and the effects on our atmosphere and climate....

I suspect that warmongers don't really give much of a shit about the environment.

Exactly my point. What we ordinary people do with cars and plane trips pales in comparison to the damage that wars must be doing to the planet yet it’s never measured and reported on.

Scott3

4176 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2990

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2962146 1-Sep-2022 18:08

We would need to make wild assumptions to answer the headline question, but anyway hear go's:

4.34 million cubic metres of gas / day

2.2 kg CO2eq per m3

= 9.548 million kg/day

Lets say that the EV replaces a car burning 7L/100km of petrol, averaging 40km/day.

= 2.8L day petrol saving

2.31kg CO2 per liter

= 6.47kg / ev / day

Ignore other sources of emission's, for example manufacturer of EV's, generation of power, refining and transport of petrol.

Find number of EV's

9.548m / 6.47

= 1,475,734 EV's

For comparison there were about 4.4 million motor vehicles in New Zealand in 2019

Of course the assumptions I have made make the above calculation competently meaningless:

The gas would have otherwise been burnt in Germany, so much of those emissions would have happened anyway. Sure some gas is being sourced from elsewhere, but Europe is dealing with a massive energy shortage, so that is far from replacing Russian gas. So they are slashing usage where ever they can.
The issues with gas supply will be motivating many countries to hasen their push to renewable energy (and to not retire fission power plants)
Europe uses gas to make power, so power prices have gone up a lot.
Oil is relatively easier to transport, so the cost differential of fueling an EV and efficient petrol car has gone down in Europe discouraging EV uptake.

As other have said, the environmental impact of war is massive.

Modern war, consumes vast amounts of fossil fuels

It takes 1,200L of diesel to fuel up a T-72 main battle tank, and that fuel will only take you 460km
Attacks on fixed infrastructure like the power grid mean facilities like hospitals will be running on their diesel backup generators for months.
Rail infrastructure will be damaged, forcing less efficient trucks to be used for most transport, often in adverse conditions or via indirect routes.
A lot of the foreign aid has been air freighted. Some airports in Poland have been seeing multiple C-17's daily, mostly off the back of intercontinental flights.
Military aviation (fighters and helicopters) uses vast amounts of fuel. Fueling up a Mig-29 takes 4,365L, and could be consumed in under an hour if a lot of time was spent at very high speeds. (plus it can carry extrenal tanks)
A lot of fuel just gets destroyed. Fuel trucks, stockpiles, refineries etc are attractive military targets

Situation in europe at the moment means more fossil fuels will be burnt.

In Ukraine, attacks on the switch-yards and the likes have forced Zaporizhzhia nucular power plant to stop generating. It's nameplate is 5700 MW. That is a heap of low emissions fuel lost.
Shortages of gas mean Europe will be burning dirtier fuels for power than normal. Coal power plants will be running hard, and oil power plants see a lot more run time.

And then there is the impact of war. When you are fighting for survival environmental concerns come second.

Multiple ships have been sunk, which typically causes significant marine pollution
Safety of nuclear sites is compromised. Shelling such sites, and overflying them with missiles is risking a nuclear disaster.
All those explosives have an environmental foot print.
incendiary weapons setting all sorts of stuff on fire
Damage to stuff like bridges. Will need to be rebuilt. Concrete has quite an emissions profile.
Lead from bullets all over the place
Lesser concern about managing toxic stuff.

gzt

18679 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7820

Lifetime subscriber

#2962160 1-Sep-2022 19:05

There is some evidence the result of anti-tank shells and similar munitions using depleted uranium as a hardener are not good to be around in the aftermath. Everyone agrees it's a hazard except the army, any army.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2962200 1-Sep-2022 23:34

gzt: There is some evidence the result of anti-tank shells and similar munitions using depleted uranium as a hardener are not good to be around in the aftermath. Everyone agrees it's a hazard except the army, any army.

Most especially hazardous if you are downrange on the receiving end of 6000 rounds a minute.....

Tinkerisk

4798 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3660

#2962213 1-Sep-2022 23:52

Geektastic: Well the Germans slightly shot themselves in the foot by decommissioning a perfectly good nuclear power network and forgetting the concept of energy self-sufficiency.

Their present position demonstrates a shocking lack of geopolitical awareness and some pretty naïve thinking.

If that were the case, only energy prices in Germany would explode.

- NET: FTTH & VDSL, OPNsense, 10G backbone, GWN APs
- SRV: 12 RU HA server cluster, 0.1 PB storage on premise
- IoT: thread, zigbee, tasmota, BidCoS, LoRa, WX suite, IR
- 3D: two 3D printers, 3D scanner, CNC router, laser cutter

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Eva888

2762 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2425

Lifetime subscriber

#2962264 2-Sep-2022 09:12

@Scott3 As always an impressive and informative analysis. My pet hate is the futility of wars and being preached to by people flying around in private jets to meet and discuss how we ordinary folk must make sacrifices to our lives because they continue to exacerbate the problem by placing sanctions that affect all of us and ordering more billions in warfare instead of talking and negotiating.

Watching gas being burned while people will freeze in winter because of sanctions is as ludicrous as continuing to up the ante. You can bet the ones flying in the private jets and making the decisions won’t be freezing this winter in their mansions.

My not using a plastic bag with handles anymore or switching to a Hybrid car is a big nothing when the environmental impact of war is being conveniently ignored in favour of telling me to switch off lights, turn down the thermostat and buy an expensive electric car...whose battery requires extensive mining in poorer countries by underpaid people living in squalor and that may not be able to be charged because of power shortages.

If Media daily called out the cost of fuelling up a Mig or a tank and all the other environmental costs of bombs and war I think the average person would be demanding more answers and forcing their elected governments to negotiate rather than placing sanctions and pouring more and more billions to fund our collective ruin.

These 'warriors' that poke holes in tyres of large SUVs carrying kids to school or lie across roads to stop petrol cars on motorways might want to change their focus to the bigger problems we face.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2962266 2-Sep-2022 09:17

Whatever the current cost, EU will push themselves towards green energy sooner and harder

Is it feasible to restart EU nuclear plants, to give 3 or 4 years buffer while green energy is expanded at high speed?

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2962274 2-Sep-2022 09:41

Tinkerisk:

Geektastic: Well the Germans slightly shot themselves in the foot by decommissioning a perfectly good nuclear power network and forgetting the concept of energy self-sufficiency.

Their present position demonstrates a shocking lack of geopolitical awareness and some pretty naïve thinking.

If that were the case, only energy prices in Germany would explode.

Not at all. I only commented on the lack of foresight demonstrated by the Germans. The fact that much of the EU is also dim enough to become dependent upon an historically bellicose and antagonistic neighbour for energy is another point.

Had the Germans kept the nuclear power program going they would certainly be in less of a difficult position and possibly even selling power to their neighbours.

It was foolish in the extreme to assume that the peace post WW2 in Europe was anything but temporary: war and conflict are the normal state of humanity not the exception. Increasing resource pressures will exacerbate the likelihood of conflict in future as well.

The EU has forgotten one of the best bits of advice ever given in history, by the Roman general Vegetius: "Si vis pacem, para bellum". With few exceptions, NATO members cut their contributions and were reminded firmly by President Trump of the foolishness of that - although I doubt any of them had the grace to acknowledge he had a point. Perhaps they see the validity of it now....

Scott3

4176 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2990

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2962302 2-Sep-2022 11:25

Eva888:

....

If Media daily called out the cost of fuelling up a Mig or a tank and all the other environmental costs of bombs and war I think the average person would be demanding more answers and forcing their elected governments to negotiate rather than placing sanctions and pouring more and more billions to fund our collective ruin.
....

Thanks for your comment's.

I think we are in agreement with the epic environmental cost of war.

But sadly with the current conflict I think negotiation is kinda pointless.

In 1994 Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum, agreeing to respect Ukraine independence (in return for Ukraine giving up it's nukes). Obviously their actions this year are in breath of this. What good is a negotiated outcome if a country isn't going to keep it's word.
Negotiation when one country is occupying territory of another is going to be problematic. It would be like If I stole two car's of your's, and we entered negotiation and proposed that I would give you back one car if you signed over ownership of the other to me...

We also need to consider the impact of our collective actions on future war's.

If the world did little but talk when Russia invaded Ukraine for fear of environmental impact, that would send the message that countries can get away with invasions / occupations (as Russia has done in the past, with Crimea, parts of Georgia etc.). What would be next? Poland?

I think that aggressive trade sanctions are perhaps the least environmentally harmful way to discourage future conflicts. I'm sure the PRC is watching what is happening to russia, and considering what would happen to them if they invaded Taiwan....

Would be great if we could come to some kind of global truce which meant we no longer had to spend vast amounts of money and emissions on defense.

The issue with flaring gas is fairly small fry. The wall could be shut off if it was deemed to be too environmentally harmful. Of course this does means that well would become clogged, and may require re-drilling to restart production. Obviously a balance between the value (and environmental impact) of the flared gas vs the time and cost to shut down and re-drill.

We (well poor countries) have been extremely lucky that this current conflict has coincided with bumber grain harvests (good growing weather) in other area's of the world. If it had of coincided with a poor growing season outside of europe, we would be looking at massive famine.

The skeptic in me thinks that the current military aid to Ukraine (especially from the USA) has been carefully crafted to create a near peer conflict that both sides think is worth continuing to fight for. Hence encouraging Russia to pour increasing resources into the war. Hence increasing the losses of resources, and reducing Russia's military resources for future conflicts.

And it appear's to be working, Russian losses are epic. It seems they will cross the 2000 milestone for tank's lost today. How many tanks that Russia has that could be realistically be made operable is unclear, but it is clear that this is a massive chunk of them.

https://www.minusrus.com/en

Either much more, or much less support from the US would have likely shortened the war, by allowing one side to dominate...

1 | 2 | 3