 Sustainability is the need of the art and electric vehicles or EVs are proposed as one of the promising technologies for achieving a sustainable transport sector in the future. But the big question is that if these electric vehicles are being powered from burning fossil fuels, are they really greener? So to debate about whether electric vehicles are eco-friendly or not, we have with us today two teams of youngsters, one of them in favour of electric vehicles and they call themselves evolutionaries and the others called eco-debunkers united who believe EVs are not so green after all. I am Shivani and let's commence the debate in the edition of School of Thought. So I request team evolutionaries to open this debate. A UCS study from 2022 shows that an average gasoline-fueled vehicle results in more global warming emissions than an EV. This trend is also confirmed by the analysis of data over the past nine years. EVs may seem green but it's not as it's seen. The whole picture is yet to come. Around 40 to 50% of the pollution already takes place before the EV even reaches the road. What are your points about that? Well, the EV even though it causes more pollution during production it covers it up when it is being driven on the road. In only about two years the EV can cover up all the pollution it caused in the production and get ahead of the gasoline-fueled vehicle. We have often heard the statement that EVs are the greener fuel but I really want to focus on the word greener. EVs are surely more eco-friendly than traditional fuels but are they truly environment-friendly? Yes they are because EVs produce only two metric tons of CO2 per year whilst ice produces more than 5.2 metric tons of CO2 per year. You've considered that to be your counterpoint to Mozart but you didn't consider the production cost and the emission of CO2 while the production? As I've already explained to Kashvi, the production is covered up in lifetime use. In only two years the EV comes up with more with lesser global emissions than the ice so it doesn't matter because we have to look at the long-term way. You're not going to buy a car in production and then just sell it off. You're going to use it so we need to consider that But do we talk about the recycling of the batteries? We consider more of a CO2 emission. The recycling of the batteries is in an ongoing research. We cannot actually just decide that we won't use EVs because it is not up to the development it is today. We have different methods for that. First of all we have a Malini's battery which is an alternate and it is already approved by IIT Kanpur. It will be in use in some months. It is less toxic, affordable as well as we use hydrothermal surfaces which uses crystallization in this ethanol is used which is reused as well as this too. But are they in use right now? Maybe in some months. Are you sure about that? Yes, IIT Kanpur have already approved that. You're talking about the use of manganese batteries as in substitute towards the Kubalt and Lithium ones but what about the recycling or what about the batteries being damaged after like five or eight years? Tesla company have also said that in their recycling procedure what they are trying to do is they are trying to use the old batteries to make the new ones. Hence they are trying to cut down the overall emissions that takes place during the production as well. They are trying to cut it down by recycling but recycle emissions is more. The technology, the correct technology and the feasible technology that we require to actually recycle those lithium ion batteries is still not there. If you consider this thing that the EV cars technology is still very in fact as compared to the fossil fuel cars. So you cannot be compared. You can't be cutting down it here that it is not 100% eco-friendly. So we have to stop using EVs. You have to give them time so that they can develop. Also one more point is that reusing and recycling market is growing in the EV industry whereas if you see the batteries, the small batteries used in ICs are not recyclable and almost 90% of it is destroyed in the desulfurization process of ICs. But what about the use of coal about the manufacturing of EVs? You just put a point about related to the battery but that's what I am saying that if you are talking about the related to battery. So in EVs there are still growing market related to recycling and reusing and some companies have already started using that. Which companies? Some companies like Tesla and... Tesla, Mahindra, Mahindra are releasing new EV technologies day by day for example. We can see that Mahindra has been using the Sardar Sarovar Dam hydropower plants in order to make their EV cars such as for example Mahindra Thar Electrical and even Tata, their blue smart cabs have been using Tata cars that are Tiago EV they are consistently making up from hydropower plants. We are considering the point that they are coming up with new technologies for the EVs but what about the use of coal again for the manufacturing of electricity? As she said that they are 100% eco friendly. It's not 100%. We never said anything. We never said anything. Talk about the pipelines and the transportation methods that are used in the transportation of petrol and diesel they are much more complex and complicated and they are using much more resources than what is used in EVs. Also the production of petroleum causes more than 1.9 billion gallons of wastewater come up in our fresh water resources per day in United States. And we can always talk about the oil spills that are happening during the transport of petrol for example in Indian Ocean Bay of Bengal and Arctic Ocean many oil spills happen almost every day. The Gulf of Mexico suffered a similar spill and more than 210 million barons of oil were spilled. To counter the point you had according to a 2018 International Council on Clean Transportation reports illustrate that the country in which batteries are produced as well as battery composition has much higher level of impact on emissions of carbon dioxide. Sir the emissions of carbon dioxide that are being produced by the batteries are still less than what are being produced by the petrol and diesel that is being used in cars and not only cars we can see them in the armies and the other parts of our daily life. But what about the fact that CO2 emission is still on a similar rate if we compare because like the factors that we are talking about the ratio between the petrol cars and EV cars is not that much. If you want to talk about CO2 emissions then first let's talk about United States which already has a developed infrastructure if we consider about EVs. In United States in more than 50 states it is more favorable to use EVs than ICE and they are producing less CO2 emissions. In India it is similar because India is still a developing country we are still trying to switch to renewable energy we are still trying to make our processes more eco-friendly instead of chasing profits. So we have to wait for that if we stop funding EVs this will never be achieved in India. You are proving it to be a greener one towards the petrol and diesel cars Yes the idea of EV is greener than the ICE can you say that ICE is greener than EV in principle? We are not talking about the point of the debate basically. You have to prove that the electronic vehicles are basically more eco-friendly. If you look at the total carbon emissions done by ICE it is around 4.6 metric tons in just one year whereas compared to EV it is just 3.2 in just in two years so there is a whole gap of one year. Because it is reducing we can achieve our zero carbon emissions In India in 2017 we have to do zero carbon emissions Just because it is greener it does not mean that we believe that it will help us to achieve zero carbon emissions Sir, there are no vehicles for zero carbon emissions there are factories and industries for that too Good point But this is what we want to bring a good alternative Just because it is less it does not mean that it is not doing it and it is doing it so that we do not achieve zero carbon emissions You tell me one thing Do we have to favor more people instead of less people? If they are reducing then it will be better You believe that we cannot shift to EV completely And it is not like everyone is doing effort like Indians Sir, if we talk about the zero carbon emissions do you really think that we can achieve zero carbon emissions We can achieve zero carbon emissions Electric vehicle is at least one step that we can reach to But it has not even been expanded Sir, petrol and diesel vehicles are not doing it You have to wait for it to expand At least let its technology grow It is still an infant process going on You are saying that let it grow But till 2070 we will not be able to achieve carbon emissions Sir, do you think that if we don't make EV vehicles then do you think that we will be able to achieve zero carbon emissions without petrol and diesel and conservative uses Not at all You are right Sir, what do you want to say? Sir, please tell us your step Sir, please tell us your step Sir, please tell us your step I am not telling you my step I have come here to say that EV is not the right step Sir, I want to tell you one more thing You said that the one who is polluting more than the one who is polluting more And you asked, like how is the greener So you yourself said that that greener takes less pollution That is true But, the one who is polluting is making its point less You call the pollution and polluting is not a greener It is taking the process of moving cars on roads You are saying that the pollution is taking In the process of moving cars on roads I am considering a lifetime If it is considered a lifetime then its measurement is decreasing compared to petrol and diesel Sir, please tell us your step Sir, please tell us A new study by the Centre of Economics study CES in Munich proclaimed Germany's current energy mix and the amount of energy used in battery production, the carbon dioxide emissions of battery vehicles are in best case slightly higher than those of a diesel engine and are otherwise much higher than these. In this study you have quoted battery production, so we are talking about lifetime now, so we cannot talk about battery. But the battery production counts in lifetime right? Yes, if we count battery production and we count ice production and then we check about user road, then we check recycling, then you can total it and still it is 60% more than these. I would also like to state a research done by International Energy Agency that states that overall electric vehicles come with a significantly lower carbon emission in a lifetime. And on an average one EV saves 1.5 million of CO2, grams of CO2, that means just too much. You have been talking about the battery productions, the battery productions are not only for the electric vehicles. Battery productions also, you need to consider the amount of batteries that are being used in other appliances. For example, your day to day appliances, your mobile phones, your laptops, your desktops and every other thing. At the current moment we are talking about the petrol cars versus the EV cars, we can't go into the other topics. But ma'am, the studies that are being provided include these things. They do include these things. But our topic does not include these things. So ma'am, you should not quote the study until and unless it is only for electric vehicles. The study is about EVs only. But ma'am, about battery production only. Battery production only. Battery production only. Battery production only. Battery production only. What? Will the EVs contribute? The EVs contribute. The EVs contribute only when production of EVs is not as big as our country. And if it is, then you can think about how much it is more. Sir, you know that the amount of pipelines that transport petrol and oil, they excavate and the pollution used in the appliances, the fuel in them and everything else. Does that counter the pollution that is being done by the production of electric vehicles? To counter on that fact, there are some minerals which are extracted for the fast friction of EVs. Since EVs have a lower acceleration and friction rates comparatively to the petrol and diesel cars, they use some specific and rare materials to have in the construction of the brakes and the tires. And these rare materials are not only used in the friction thing, but also in the batteries. Can you please name some of these rare minerals you are talking about? Someone had actual neodymium. Ne, N, E, O, D, Y, P, S, N. Can you please tell exactly what are the constituent software? And where it is extracted? It is used in the batteries. Where it is extracted? Which country is affected by its extraction? Where are the mines so that we can actually think about maybe that country is being affected? Maybe the resource is being depleted? How much is present? The resources are being depleted. Like it's a rare metal. And do you really think from petrol and diesel all other fuels, the resources are not being depleted? Bombay is on the verge of exploiting all the fossil fuels that are present in Arabian sea at this moment. Do you really think that exploiting some resources that are needed for EV are more than that of other petrol and diesel? What you are saying that mining materials and minerals from the seabed is harmful. So now harming, you also use lithium and cobalt. They are also extracted from the seabeds. In the future, international seabed is not on the seabed. Leave my point, please. In the future, international seabed is planning to use deep sea mining as an alternative method to dig out essential minerals using batteries, but deep mining sea is extremely harmful. Some experts claim that mining will disturb the benefit layer, increase the toxicity of the water column and produce sediments, flums, removing parts of sea, removing the parts of sea beds, also disturbs the benefit organisms and their habitat. You do realize that deep sea mining is already being used in order to take out other minerals that are being used in ice engines. It's already used in ice engines and now you are using EV batteries and EV batteries are also used in the sea. Sir, can you just get me that? Sir, we are using it in our system. Sir, it's the same thing. The EVs are being brought here so that what is wrong is done right. Sir, if you want to take it here, you can take it here. Sir, if you want to take it here, you can take it there. Sir, please. Sir, please. But it's the same thing. Sir, please. The basic concept of bringing EVs was that pollution is less. Now pollution is not less. The thing is that if you do it, then we do it. This is wrong. The thing is that EV is able to reduce pollution. Sir, please. Sir, please. Sir, please. Sir, please see one thing. The petrol vehicles, you are using deep sea mining to get some particular mineral and then you are using it as a petrol vehicle. So, this is just an example. So, when you will use it in a petrol vehicle, then it was used in a petrol vehicle and then a pollution was released to the entire production. In the manufacturing of the vehicle, a different pollution was released. Then the transportation of petrol until the gas pumps and petrol pumps had a different pollution. Then that vehicle, after you are using that vehicle, that vehicle is releasing a different pollution. Then there is a different pollution in its maintenance. At least when the electric vehicle is going on the road, then it is not releasing pollution. In one place, our pollution is decreasing in one step. But in manufacturing, comparatively, in manufacturing, it is still less than that of petrol vehicles. As she stated, 3.2 metric tons in about two years is still less than 4.6 metric tons in one year. That ratio comes up to 1 is to 3, if you calculate that. Manufacturing and disposing of batteries is not happening. What difference is there? Ma'am, we are talking about batteries. We are talking about only batteries. Only as a concept, including recycling of batteries. You have to wait for the technology to develop. In the late 1920s, when petrol technology came in the end of the 1890s, people should have said, why are you bringing in petrol to increase the pollution? Will you drive the vehicle by hand? I was just using the block. There was no discussion of pollution in that era. That was the time of rapid industrialization. The discussion of pollution is going on today. That is why the review is being questioned. Whether there is a better alternative? Yes, there is a better alternative. It is still better than Isigen in every way possible. You are saying that there is more pollution in recycling. There is more pollution in production. But our lifetime is countering it. When the technology is developed, how much profit will we have? If we are talking about electricity production, most of the sites where the lithium is found, the batteries are formed because it cannot be carried to a longer distance or travelled by. So where the batteries are formed, most of the sites have the major production of electricity through water or coal. That is again... When we are producing electricity through water, the water is being recycled. It is not being depleted or exploited at that moment. If we talk about coal, thermal energy is being slowly depleted and thermal power plants are being slowly depleted. One more important thing that I would like to state is the development of EVs such as the charging stations and the expansion of mining activities for battery material can result in habitat destruction and cause destruction to the local people living there and local ecosystems as well. When you have expanded your vehicle, that is also a problem. But it is a good technology. How much effect is there on the local ecosystems? That matters. If you don't expand your vehicle, you can't build your vehicles. That is not the point we are discussing here is our EVB Belt and Alternative. Yes, it is. The only point that you are providing against is that the battery or the ecosystem is being destroyed as if you didn't do it when you brought in... Our engineering problems are the same problems that you created yourself. If you don't do these things, we don't know how to expand mining. The point of having an EVB is that if something doesn't happen, then something is better. That's right. In the 1890s, we didn't have time and we didn't have awareness. Sir, listen to me. I will listen to you. You have to bring India to zero carbon emissions by 2070. Sir, in 2070, it is 23 today. So, there is more than 47 years. 47 more than... 47 years from now. So, sir, you don't think that we should give a little time, at least 5 to 10 years to EVB that they should evolve a little and increase their technology better, recycling better so that we can actually use EVB. Do you think that by ending it, the end of agenda you will bring more technology. Already developed technology which has already developed is much far better than bringing EVB. I would like to add that if we don't change the EVB from now on, then our goal will be to achieve EVB. Sir, one more thing. As you said, there are improvements in petrol or diesel vehicles. The engines of petrol or diesel vehicles are on the saturation of evolution. You cannot bring much more changes into them to decrease the pollution. You have to bring in new resources. That is one of them. So, what we feel is that EVB should be given a chance to improve so that it can still reduce the carbon emissions instead of just scratching the old agenda just because it is not fulfilling it right now at the present. We are not talking about taking it over totally emitting the EVB vehicles on the roads or totally not giving a chance to them. But we are talking about the fact that are we really in the process of innovations? It can be true for the petrol or diesel car too? As I said, there is a saturation of evolution. And as Sanchi stated, that new battery technologies are being developed. What is being done in ice to make it more eco-friendly? Hybrid modes were introduced for the cars. Hybrid modes were introduced for the battery. E20 initiative E-20 E-20 is to reduce pollution. It is not to erase it. You still have the type of pollution. What is the pollution from EV? When the car is running again, the pollution release is there. When the car is running in EV, the pollution release is not there. But it is still less than ice. It is much less than ice. Okay, he wants to make a point please. At a point that if we see current circumstances, then hybrids are the best solutions available to us. Then why don't we just focus on more than hybrid than on the EV? Sir, the battery used in hybrids is still the same as the battery used in EV. It is of the same size. It is of the same it is using the same emissions of CO2 in production. How does that even compare to the EV? Which is not even releasing pollution. And one more thing, you said that you are looking for an alternative. Like he stated, that you have to wait for it to grow, at least give it some time. And then again, if you introduce hybrid technology then we will do it with ethanol production then still it will take more time. And already EV is almost established. And we are just focusing on the main parts. And if we give it some time, it will bring out a greener, more better alternative. Magnesia is one of the alternative and second alternative is it is still not approved though. But it is still better than those petrol cars. And not just the pollution. We can use EV in cost effective ways. For example, if you take an EV today, then the cost that is being used to refuel the car is much less than refueling a petrol car. For example, EV covers up the extra cost of EV that they are expensive than petrol cars. It covers up in just three years of using because the petrol cars use the petrol that is being expensive due to the demand and supply. But if we want to reduce the demand and supply then if we will produce more EV compared to that, the demand will increase and the pricing will increase in its use. Electricity is easier to produce than petrol and diesel. We will take out petrol and diesel from the environment. It will be destroyed by time. We cannot use electricity or produce electricity in any way. For example, solar energy. Solar energy can never be destroyed. It is infinite. Solar energy is also there. We have wind energy. Wind energy. India can produce wind energy. Yes, sir. Go to Rajasthan. There are so many power plants in Rajasthan. In Jaisal main, Bar main, Jodhpur, Jayapur, there are more than sufficient wind plants in Rajasthan. Rajasthan has almost full energy. It can empower its electricity from wind energy. But it is not able to accept it. Exactly. I will repeat the same point again. If you do not give time to improve any technology or you do not give the scope to improve any technology, it will not be possible. We need the help of everyone in order to reach a saturation state of every technology. We are not the only people that we are against or are counter against you all. There are people all around the world. There would be some other fact about that. You are representing them right now. We are trying to convince you. We are actually representing them but you are not able to convince us. We are not considering the point that there are new alternatives for the production of electricity. What about the natural cut-offs? They are not new alternatives. They are already being used. If you are talking about cut-offs, I would like to introduce if you use solar energy, you can always store it. You can store it in electricity cut-off or something like that. It is already implemented. In our country there are so many cut-offs already. There are so many villages where electricity is not available. Do we really have electricity that we use it for EVs? Exactly. I will say that again. I have said that many times. Give us time. Mom, where are you giving time? What about current situation? Develop it. Go through its entire process. While you are looking at a 2010 technology... You are looking at the present perspective. We are looking at the present perspective. We are looking at the present perspective. We are looking at the present perspective. Nandika can show us whose emissions are more in lifetime. We will use simple maths. We will tell the data we have taken from the valid sources. Our point was on electricity. Exactly. We will prove it in the show. If EVs production emission is 70 Total emission is 2 and if we multiply the time span of 10 years 2 into 10 plus 17 that will be 37. And if we take the eyes of the eyes then production emission is 7 Total emission is 5.2 and if we compare the 10 years 5.2 into 10 that will be 52 plus 7. So, we should mathematically compare and prove that how different these two are. What do you have to say on that? If we talk about that can we go again to the electricity point because I wanted to count the point of Annika about the solar energies if we talk about storing the solar energy in batteries then again there is use of metals. There is actually a new technology which stores energy using potential energy against gravity that does not use batteries. And that is being introduced by IIT Madras. Okay, so now final comments from both the sides first I will ask the eco debunkers to go ahead with their closing statements. So, like your points that if you give more time then the emissions will be less but you already took so much time and if the same scenario continues in the future then what will happen? Because the same emissions will continue to happen and the same pollution will continue to happen So since we are concluding it so we are just concluding statements that we will prove that point and then I will end it. Firstly, EVs were used in 2010 so 13 was left which is comparatively less and if there is any new technology then it needs time. We are in the infant stage right now and the topic was towards the greener environment so greener environment even you guys were supporting the fact your own member said that EVs are better and you guys were contradicting yourself in every 2 minutes which proved our points so this proves that EVs are actually the greener option and till now there is no solution and since we are walking upon it then there will be more technologies which are replacing all the issues day by day which are also the issue of batteries because they are proven scientifically proven that they are good solutions so this proves that EVs are a good option and then this was how it was Well, that was it that was a profound discussion and I have to say that we clearly have a winner here. EV illusionaries have made their points really very clearly and they have just proved that EVs are the future and they are greener so in conclusion I just say that electric vehicles are more efficient than fossil cars when it comes to emission of CO2 while driving and hence no air pollution but what can't be ignored is its manufacturing process but now I think we can't talk about it basically because they have already proved that part as well giving the stats and everything that manufacturing also I mean it does not create so much of CO2 emission as when it compared to diesel and petrol cars so this was it I had a great time and I think you did too I take your leave for today we will be back with another burning topic in the next editions of school of thought