Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
cobran20

The Dirt on Clean Electric Cars

44 posts in this topic

But it is really 'cool sh!t' as somebody says, which makes it all worthwhile...

link

Quote

...For perspective, the average German car owner could drive a gas-guzzling vehicle for three and a half years, or more than 50,000 kilometers, before a Nissan Leaf with a 30 kWh battery would beat it on carbon-dioxide emissions in a coal-heavy country...

 

Edited by cobran20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you even read the articles you link to?

It only wins after 3 years. What is the average car lifespan?

In coal heavy countries. So in others it is quicker? Maybe coal fired electricity is the root cause?

Diesel. Something something volvo stopping making diesels oh thats right they got caught cheating about emissions.

" To be sure, other studies show that even in coal-dominant Poland, using an electric car would emit 25 percent less carbon dioxide than a diesel car "

Have you seen Katowice? f*ck me. If your baseline for happiness is living in a place like that you have issues. There's a reason it was chosen for the meetings!

Realistically that article is part of the freak out over Tesla becoming the third biggest car in the states and even then the journalist couldn't stomach lying enough to produce the propaganda they were being paid to write except the headline.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, tor said:

Do you even read the articles you link to?

It only wins after 3 years. What is the average car lifespan?

In coal heavy countries. So in others it is quicker? Maybe coal fired electricity is the root cause?

Diesel. Something something volvo stopping making diesels oh thats right they got caught cheating about emissions.

" To be sure, other studies show that even in coal-dominant Poland, using an electric car would emit 25 percent less carbon dioxide than a diesel car "

Have you seen Katowice? f*ck me. If your baseline for happiness is living in a place like that you have issues. There's a reason it was chosen for the meetings!

Realistically that article is part of the freak out over Tesla becoming the third biggest car in the states and even then the journalist couldn't stomach lying enough to produce the propaganda they were being paid to write except the headline.

 

At this rate, it will be a miracle if Tesla remains solvent much longer. In case you haven't noticed, they are not being profitable and it is only a question as to how much longer before their bond holders pull the pin. If you bothered to read the article without your 'cool sh!t' bias, it explains clearly the cost & pollution created in the manufacture of EVs, which the public doesn't get told as it against the 'clean image' being publicised.

Corporate fleet vehicles (which constitute a large portion of sales) are churned on average 3-4 years. So what type of car will their bean counters recommend? Unless of course the government forces the issue and we end up with higher TOC on owning cars, like our electricity prices.

Then there are the hidden taxes nobody has talked about. If the government doesn't get fuel excise revenues, what will be charged on EV's - distance based tax? Why isn't that being explained.

Also, if there is a big move to EVs, what reliable source of electricity generation will be used?

But all those questions don't matter ... as long as it is cool sh!t' technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tor's right. The article doesn't exactly disparage EV's It just states that in countries that use more coal fired power, the time taken for EV's to break even with conventional fossil fuel vehicles in terms of CO2 emissions takes a bit longer. In countries with more renewables the time is quicker. QED we need more renewables. 

There's a small mention of EV manufacturers using fossil fuels to produce the batteries. Again renewables as in the case of Tesla who use solar in their battery production can solve this. To be fair, I don't know whether the equation counts shipping of rare earth minerals and other components of batteries in the calculations. However, conventional vehicles use the same electronic components so it probably doesn't matter in a comparative sense. 

I no fan of Musk TBH. I think he's a bit of a dick. But the idea that EV's won't eventually replace fossil fuel vehicles is akin to coach builders trying to hang on to the horse and cart. 

Incidentally, the particulates emitted by diesel are toxic. They will eventually be banned.

Edited by staringclown
historical accuracy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, cobran20 said:

Corporate fleet vehicles (which constitute a large portion of sales) are churned on average 3-4 years. So what type of car will their bean counters recommend? Unless of course the government forces the issue and we end up with higher TOC on owning cars, like our electricity prices.

 

It only wins after 3 years. What is the average car lifespan?

So you are saying even in the worst case scenario EV's win (and that assumes they get blown up after the fleet is finished with them)? Wow that's awful for a new industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, staringclown said:

Tor's right. The article doesn't exactly disparage EV's It just states that in countries that use more coal fired power, the time taken for EV's to break even with conventional fossil fuel vehicles in terms of CO2 emissions takes a bit longer. In countries with more renewables the time is quicker. QED we need more renewables. 

There's a small mention of EV manufacturers using fossil fuels to produce the batteries. Again renewables as in the case of Tesla who use solar in their battery production can solve this. To be fair, I don't know whether the equation counts shipping of rare earth minerals and other components of batteries in the calculations. However, conventional vehicles use the same electronic components so it probably doesn't matter in a comparative sense. 

I no fan of Musk TBH. I think he's a bit of a dick. But the idea that EV's won't eventually replace fossil fuel vehicles is akin to coach builders trying to hang on to the horse and cart. 

Incidentally, the particulates emitted by diesel are toxic. They will eventually be banned.

I'm totally agnostic as to whether fossil fuel or EVs gain. But I want full disclosure as to the total operating cost of owning an EV (including the new taxes that will apply) and for that matter, the public should be made fully aware of the environmental impact of manufacture of EVs including batteries. Right now they're being promoted as all gain with now downside. 

As to whether EVs takeover, that depends on whether governments are going to follow the same approach as with renewable electricity and tax the hell out of the competition, resulting in higher TOC for EVs. If so, like with  renewable electricity, those least able to afford it will be hit the most. No point in saying that an EV will save after x years if you can't afford the upfront cost of purchase. A Toyota Prius was originally about 2x the price of a similar size Corolla. There as no way you could justify that difference in price unless you were a high mileage owner. Borrowing to buy means you also then have to factor interest payments. As previously discussed, EVs will not takeover fully until they do something about range & fast refueling capabilities. Those who travel into remote country areas need it. I personally would prefer hydrogen fuel cells if they were viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You always do this. Can you get the information you are asking for about ICE cars? It looks to me like as soon as logic is so clear you are going to lose an argument you just jump to unreasonable requirements from the other side.

It doesn't matter though, the market appears to have spoken and Tesla's are now the #3 selling car in the states I believe with #1 expected to be reached by some analysts in the next couple quarters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tor said:

You always do this. Can you get the information you are asking for about ICE cars? It looks to me like as soon as logic is so clear you are going to lose an argument you just jump to unreasonable requirements from the other side.

It doesn't matter though, the market appears to have spoken and Tesla's are now the #3 selling car in the states I believe with #1 expected to be reached by some analysts in the next couple quarters.

They can't manufacture at a loss indefinitely and they no longer are entitled to government subsidies. It is in the hands of Tesla's bond holders. That is why Musk tried to privatise the company but could not get a funder and got fined for engaging in BS, by stating that he had such funder.

The logic will only be clear if the government taxes the hell of the competition. Otherwise, it will boil down to the size of the wallet for each person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you do have that data for ICE cars? or are you changing the subject?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tor said:

So you do have that data for ICE cars? or are you changing the subject?

What specific data do you want  ... and no I'm not obfuscating.

Whilst on the subject of obfuscating, you didn't answer my questions on the globull warming thread as to your views if Armstrong's forecast materialises.

Edited by cobran20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, cobran20 said:

But I want full disclosure as to the total operating cost of owning an EV (including the new taxes that will apply) and for that matter, the public should be made fully aware of the environmental impact of manufacture of EVs including batteries.

Get that for ICE vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, cobran20 said:

... I personally would prefer hydrogen fuel cells if they were viable.

Everything You Need to Know About Hydrogen Fuel Cells

Quote

...Hydrogen takes three minutes to fill a tank at a local service station, which then permits a circa-800km range teamed with strong performance, just like diesel or petrol vehicle. And yet fresh, clean water vapour is your single tailpipe emission....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From today's Courier Mail:

The govt is funding 21 new "Ultra Rapid" charging sites - $15m. It will connect the east coast capitals and a bit north and south of Perth - f*ck Tasmania. They will charge a vehicle in 15 mins and allow a distance of 400ks.

so....

  • I imagine they will be located at those big service stations with a few fast food joints. So while the car is being recharged the occupants will most likely have a meal or snack, not just a take away bag of chips and a drink as currently may happen. Big profit for service stations - do they really need the handout? Perhaps this first few will. 
  • Can current cars hold enough charge to travel 400ks? I imagine the figures are based on going down hill with a tail wind, with no AC or radio and don't factor in that the occupants will be draining the battery through recharging their devices. 
  • Currently if you go to a service station and all bowsers are being used you might have to wait a minute for one to become available. Seeing as there are so few electric cars in oz I would think there will be only one, perhaps two electric bowsers per site. If someone arrives just before you the 15 min charge time turns into 30 - as/if EVs become more common this problem will go away. You're stuffed if the electric bowser isn't working. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, zaph said:

From today's Courier Mail:

The govt is funding 21 new "Ultra Rapid" charging sites - $15m. It will connect the east coast capitals and a bit north and south of Perth - f*ck Tasmania. They will charge a vehicle in 15 mins and allow a distance of 400ks.

so....

  • I imagine they will be located at those big service stations with a few fast food joints. So while the car is being recharged the occupants will most likely have a meal or snack, not just a take away bag of chips and a drink as currently may happen. Big profit for service stations - do they really need the handout? Perhaps this first few will. 
  • Can current cars hold enough charge to travel 400ks? I imagine the figures are based on going down hill with a tail wind, with no AC or radio and don't factor in that the occupants will be draining the battery through recharging their devices. 
  • Currently if you go to a service station and all bowsers are being used you might have to wait a minute for one to become available. Seeing as there are so few electric cars in oz I would think there will be only one, perhaps two electric bowsers per site. If someone arrives just before you the 15 min charge time turns into 30 - as/if EVs become more common this problem will go away. You're stuffed if the electric bowser isn't working. 

If you have to wait 15min to refill, I bet that people will soon be pissed off to say the least. My 2ltr diesel has a comfortable range of over 400km/refill.

But what they won't tell you is how the government will replace the tax revenues they earn on fossil fuels. Right now it looks great not to pay for the high petrol prices. But once when they become common, you can bet your life they will be taxed (my guess is a hefty mileage based tax). Nothing also said regarding the infrastructure to generate enough electricity to power thousands of electric cars & trucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, cobran20 said:

Car running costs 2018

... and you haven't answered my question yet!

No mention of new taxes. Does that mean guaranteed no taxes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, cobran20 said:

Hydrogen is also ludicrously safe in an accident. Being so light most of the explosion happens why the f*ck away from the people. I dig it too. There are serious engineering problems with it getting off the ground in the 80's and not enough government subsidies to have anyone serious look at solving those issues. It was all backyard tinkerers really as far as I am aware.

Maybe subsidies not being given to the cool sh*t you want is the reason you're so bitter?

I'd say fair enough. I am pissed the hydrogen fuel cell never made it, would have made my life way more awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, zaph said:

The govt is funding 21 new "Ultra Rapid" charging sites - $15m.

 

Once case where I agree with Cobrans basic argument. The EV makers need to build their own grid I think. Building roads for the car makers turned out to make them too big to fail as far as I see it. If they were less profitable their unions wouldn't have been so ridiculously strong, their stranglehold on the industry wouldn't have monopolised so easily and no one company would have employed enough people that governments have to give them loans when they f*ck up.

Where is the government going to get a reward out of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, tor said:

No mention of new taxes. Does that mean guaranteed no taxes?

Que?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, tor said:

Hydrogen is also ludicrously safe in an accident. Being so light most of the explosion happens why the f*ck away from the people. I dig it too. There are serious engineering problems with it getting off the ground in the 80's and not enough government subsidies to have anyone serious look at solving those issues. It was all backyard tinkerers really as far as I am aware.

Maybe subsidies not being given to the cool sh*t you want is the reason you're so bitter?

I'd say fair enough. I am pissed the hydrogen fuel cell never made it, would have made my life way more awesome.

Not bitter at all. Let private enterprise do the R&D. The winner makes $squillions. Same as with the internal combustion engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, tor said:

Where is the government going to get a reward out of this?

Such concern for tax payers monies. Not feeling well today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2018 at 8:03 AM, cobran20 said:

Whilst on the subject of obfuscating, you didn't answer my questions on the globull warming thread as to your views if Armstrong's forecast materialises.

still waiting for a response....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cobran20 said:

still waiting for a response....

Which question? You realise I am only here when i am drunk and have the object permanence of an infant right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tor said:

Which question? You realise I am only here when i am drunk and have the object permanence of an infant right?

If Armstrong's prediction that agricultural prices will rise due to global cooling materializes,  then that would nullify your belief in global warming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cobran20 said:

If Armstrong's prediction that agricultural prices will rise due to global cooling materializes,  then that would nullify your belief in global warming?

Weird arse question. If prices go up but I don't think they went up because of global cooling? if prices don't go up but global cooling happens?

If prices go up I will agree that someone that predicted prices would go up is correct. If they don't I would say they were wrong.

Every predictor using 2 or 3 levels of predictions has so many get out free clauses I disregard them.

I believe Armstrong has predicted overall global cooling due to sunspots. I am fully expecting him to die or claim methodological issues in measurements.

If Armstrong has predicted higher basic food prices I agree this will happen somewhere but it would happen with global warming, global cooling or global nothing (it happened a few years back, rice in Indonesia if I remember correctly). Climate change doesn't have to be involved.

If he is predicting emergency style prices for staples worldwide (weird as there are beans, rice, potatoes, and wheat which all respond differently) because of global cooling what is his suggestion? If he is saying we all sit still and die I am not super interested even if he is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0