Around 75% of electricity generation in Australia is from Fossil fuels.
This means 75% of the electricity used by EV's is from Fossil fuels.
How is that justifable by any measure?
And it could be much more if EV owners are charging when the sun isn't shining.
This is wrong and EV owners should be taxed at the highest possible rate
Fake news?
I think you said it best when you posted the word "generates".
Generate: To produce or create.
And just how much CO2 does an EV "generate" while it is running? (I'll give you a hint, it's pretty close to zero)
InB4: "BuT eLeCtRiCiTy MaKeZ CO2 aNd Ev'Z NeeD iT tO RuN"
This is correct, but once the electricity is made, the car then does not go on to "generate" more CO2.
If this is the base which people go back to, then you need to compare apples to apples and consider just how much pollution is made in the petrol/diesel supply chain (Hint: It's a lot). It takes a lot of energy to create fuels from raw crude. Then it has to be shipped to distributors, and then to retailers and then to end consumers and into the cars. Almost all of these steps also uses that same nasty coal fired electricity as well as big arse diesel burning trucks. And even when you finally get it in your car, your car then burns that fuel and "generates" more CO2 and the pollution cycle continues…
EV's basically cut out the refinery process, the storage, the transportation, the re-transportation, the sale, the pumping and burning parts of the ICE vehicles pollution cycle.
big arse diesel burning trucks
You forgot to add the big arse crude burning tanker ships.
You forgot to add the big arse crude burning tanker ships
The filthiest of all the big arse burners.
@Euphemistic: The curry I picked up on the way home from the pub last night would give that a good run for its money.
By this logic, my smartphone or TV don't produce any emissions either. They're 100% green - except for the carbon emissions needed to power them.
@SlavOz: Are you comparing these to your "petrol/diesel powered TV/smartphone"?
Yes, you require power to power your "electric TV/smartphone", but your TV/smartphone doesn't then use that electricity to create MORE emissions.
If anything, your logic is flawed.
It's simple. I'll break it down so it's even easier to understand.
EV support vs ICE support networks (CO2 produced at each step)
Now, let's use your "smartphone" example (as it is more similar to an EV because "battery powered"). Yes, my "battery/electric phone" would require electricity to charge it, and this "charging" would produce emissions, but once the phone is unplugged, it then goes on to produce no further emissions while running.
Let's compare that to your petrol powered phone. You would need to fill it, that creates emissions. You would need to go fetch that fuel, which ironically creates emissions. The fuel would need to be delivered to your phone's refueling station, and that costs emissions. And you would need staff to run your refueling station, who create emissions. Then you would run your phone all day, and the whole time it is switched on, it's burning fuel, and you guessed it, creating more emissions. You can see where this is going. (Well, you probably cant, but someone might be able to.)
While yes, EV's do create emissions to charge, the amount created to go the same distance in an ICE car is tiny. With EV's you don't need trucks, depots, fuel stations and all this other infrastructure. Hell, you don't even have to drive and create even more emissions just to get your fuel for an EV. I can fuel my EV from solar, hell I get a refund on charge if I roll down hill or use regeneration, both of these produce virtually zero CO2. Cant use anything but a petrol bowser to fill your Mustang "petrol powered smartphone".
So, your analogy above about smartphones and TV's is stupid because it doesn't take into any other considerations of the delivery network nor does it compare to similar products (ie: petrol/diesel powered TV/smartphones) because they don't exist.
@pegaxs: Wow, this reads exactly like a prop piece from the EV industry. Way to focus on one side of the story.
You really think the EV infrastructure doesn't produce emissions in the same way combustion engines do? Let's look at the whole story.
EVs are very complicated technology with lots of research and development still going into them. This require more use of advanced machinery and CPUs than what goes into developing combustion engines.
"Normal" car production is very standardised and fixed. EVs require a lot more considerations, testing, fine tuning, specialised development etc that combustion engines do not. So in this area, EVs are producing more carbon emissions than combustion cars.
Then you take into account the huge environmental cost of producing EV batteries. They require copious amounts of rare earth minerals that need to be extracted with large industrial machinery and then processed at a large industrial factory. That's a shit ton of emissions before your EV has even been assembled. On a side note, to yield enough of these materials to power our entire grid, we'd have to destroy countless trees and disrupt very sensitive ecosystems, often with the use of child labour in poor countries where this process is often outsourced to.
Then theres the disposal of EV batteries or other components, which once again are extremely harmful and bad for the environment. Renewables don't last as long as fossil fuels which means they usually need to be disposed and replaced almost twice as often, contributing to massive pollution.
This list goes on, but I'll end it there. Suffice to say, your utopian comparison of 0 emissions in the maintenance and development of EVs is utter dogshit.
@SlavOz: Ok, let's break this bullshit down…
Way to focus on one side of the story.
Because that is the side of the story you dont seem to comprehend. I am explaining "OnE SiDe oF tHe StOrY", because it's the opposite to "your side". Why would I talk about the same side of a story?? Oh, it's SlavOz. Seeking more confirmation bias and when anyone takes up a counter point it's "YoUr BiAsEd" or "dO YuR ReSeArCh!!!1!". Nope, I'm just trying to balance your bullshit out with facts.
EVs are very complicated technology
No they arent. They are actually a lot simpler than ICE vehicles. A lot less moving parts and no fuel:air stoichiometric ratio values to give a shit about.
lots of research and development still going into them.
As all cars do. R&D works on both sides of the fence. It's not just EV's makers that are doing R&D. And you do relalise that electric motors have been around longer than combustion engines, yeah? You do realise that some of the first cars ever built were EV's yeah? They are not something that was just invented when Elon "Electric Jesus" Musk got his twitter account?
"Normal" car production is very standardised and fixed.
You do realise that a lot of modern EV's are just based off their ICE counterpart? You do realise that EV's are manufactured in pretty much the same was as a regular car, yeah?
EVs require a lot more considerations, blah blah… that combustion engines do not.
No they don't. They pull out a complicated engine and fuel system and replace it with and electric motor and a battery pack.
Then you take into account the huge environmental cost of producing EV batteries.
Then you take into account the huge environmental cost of producing petrol and diesel…
They require copious amounts of rare earth minerals that need to be extracted with large industrial machinery and then processed at a large industrial factory.
Have you not seen how oil is mined/extracted and shipped? Have you not seen what an oil refinery and storage facility looks like?
That's a shit ton of emissions before your EV has even been assembled.
I agree with this part, but it comes with a massive caveat. If you are comparing like for like vehicles, yes, the EV can produce more emissions during its production cycle. But the point here is, that once an EV is created, an EV goes on to produce a tiny amount of emissions compared to an ICE vehicle that continues to contribute to emissions it's whole service life.
When comparing a full life cycle of an EV over an ICE vehicle, the cradle to grave emissions created by an EV is a minute fraction of what an ICE car contributes over its same life span.
often with the use of child labour in poor countries where this process is often outsourced to.
LOL. Ok champ. And these same slave labour conditions don't exist in any of the metals or oil productions that are consumed in the making and life cycle of an ICE vehicle. Have you seen the countries this oil comes from?
Then theres the disposal of EV batteries or other components
"recycling/repurpose" <- just going to leave that there for you to Google.
Just how do they dispose of the petrol and diesel? Oh, that's right, they just burn it and turn it into CO2 and other harmful chemicals. Very very hard to recycle the byproducts of burning fossil fuels. Not to mention all the waste oil that comes out of car engines. What do you think they do with all that shit oil after your service? Filter it and sell it back to consumers?
This list goes on, but I'll end it there
That was your list? Christ, nearly everything you said was wrong or refutable. You know as much about EV's and ICE vehicles as you do about road rules, female office politics, covid and vaccines. I would offer the advice to stay in your lane and only talk about things you have knowledge of, but since you have very little solid knowledge of anything, I don't really know where your lane is.
Are EV's the answer to global emission problems, short term, no, they aren't, but they go a lot closer to helping out the environment than driving around in a great hunking shit box V8 sports car to get to work on your morning city commute.
@pegaxs: So, your entire response is basically whataboutisms and "but V8s".
Thanks for the insight. You can't even recognise the nuance in something as complicated as "renewables" because they don't show up on your daily affirmations from the Guardian.
I suggest you read beyond your beliefs. I'm not saying EV's are useless. My position is more reasonable than yours - I'm in the middle of a complicated issue with 2 sides. Meanwhile, you're completely locked in an echo chamber of radical views. The V8 drivers are not trying to take your EV away, but the EV drivers are trying to take my V8 and other personal choices away.
At some point you need to realise you're the fringe minority here. The problem isn't with people who drive a petrol car - it's with people who are narcissistically obsessed with controlling others.
The V8 drivers are not trying to take your EV away, but the EV drivers are trying to take my V8 and other personal choices away.
No they are not. As oil prices continue to rise you’ll recognise that while you want to own and drive a V8 it won’t make sense to do so compared to running an EV. The EV will be faster, more convenient and cheaper to run.
People still use horse and cart and go on steam trains, but they certainly aren’t the majority and they haven’t been banned either.
So, your entire response is basically whataboutisms and "but V8s".
And your whole reply is "whatism about whatisms"
You can't even recognise the nuance in something as complicated as "renewables"
Ok, please enlighten me about what part of the mining of crude oil to your car burning petrol is "renewable"?? It's certainly not the E10. You wouldn't run that in your precious "V8".
your daily affirmations from the Guardian.
My what? From where? You are so indoctrinated by the Murdoch press that you are literally a regurgitating mouthpiece for their trash. I don't read newspapers. You on the other hand seem to spend your whole time reading echo chamber conspiracy theory Fartbook news groups to get your daily dose of confirmation bias. I read industry papers and university studies, not the back of tabloid liberal biased Murdoch mouth pieces.
I suggest you read beyond your beliefs.
I suggest you get off obtaining your knowledge from Fartbook echo chambers.
you're completely locked in an echo chamber of radical views.
I was literally banned for taking up a pro-ICE stand against moronic EV owners offering up their version of bullshit. How the (fropanity) can I be "LoCkEd iN" if I have literally been banned for expressing an opposite view? I'm "anti-bullshit", not "Pro-EV". If you were making stupid and outrageous claims about EV's I would shut that shit down as well.
The V8 drivers are not trying to take your EV away,
Didn't say they were.
but the EV drivers are trying to take my V8 and other personal choices away.
No they aren't. But, you don't get to say how "dirty" EV's are without offering up what you drive as the alternative and have people scruitinse your choice of vehicle.
At some point you need to realise you're the fringe minority here.
At some point, you are going to have to come to the realisation that change is coming. You either adapt and change with it or you are going to get left behind.
In the future, owning an ICE vehicle is going to be treated the same as people who smoke. It will cost more, be taxed much more heavily, you will only be allowed to drive it in certain areas or not at all. You wont be able to park it anywhere and only have designated "ICE" parking lots.
I am not in the "fringe minority" here, people clutching to Liberal media mouth pieces that support protecting mining interests over the environment are the "minority". Enjoy your V8 shitbox while you can, because you will end up being the societal pariah in the coming years, not the ever increasing population of EV owners.
@pegaxs: That is one reason I moved my GT on.(Societal pariah).And I even made money out of the thing.
Ok, please enlighten me about what part of the mining of crude oil to your car burning petrol is "renewable"??
I was referring to the fact that just because something is labelled "renewable", doesn't mean it won't produce waste (like you suggested). Renewables come with countless drawbacks like I mentioned previously - they've very resource heavy and require more rare earth minerals to develop, which requires even more industrialisation. And since they don't last nearly as long as fossil fuels, they need to be disposed of more often. Pro tip - not all the chemicals and materials in your EV batteries can be used to fertilise soil or package food. It's toxic waste that requires more resources to build and needs to replaced more often.
Now multiply that by the entire world's energy needs or driving, and you quickly start to wonder whether we are actually achieving any practical or meaningful reduction in emissions, which most green prononents have never been able to quantifiably measure, but I digress.
You on the other hand seem to spend your whole time reading echo chamber
The irony here is that you're simply repeating a popular talking point among the left-wing media, which is that anyone who disagrees with you must be getting their information from phony Facebook groups.
I believe I've made my view on social media very clear before. Facebook is for teenagers and self-conscious souls who need to highlight their sad choices. I'm not on there mate.
Besides, the actions of these companies suggests that progressives are the ones who use Facebook as their window to the world, hence why they're so eager to supress opposing views and "fact check" everything with left-wing punditry. You can't even post memes on Facebook anymore without some snarky comment saying "don't believe this because we said so". So please, stop calling it a conservative echo chamber. This is a talling point that comes from people who are so isolated from opposing views, they see any presence of such views as disproportionately larger than they really are.
No they aren't.
Yet you go on to proudly declare that anyone who drives a V8 will be systemically priced out of existence by taxes and social stigma. Is this going to be another "the vaccine isn't mandatory, you just have to lose your job and live as a 2nd class citizen if you don't take it" stance?
I am not in the "fringe minority"
Statistically speaking, you are. EV owners are a minuscule portion of drivers, and the people who are actually on board this fairytale that we can live forever off farts and sunlight are a loony (yet vocal) minority. Renewables have had billions of dollars of subsidies pumped into them for decades yet barely make up any of our energy supply. It's cute to think that this is some rising movement of socially conscious people but in reality it's just people who haven't grown out of the hogwash they were fed at university.
EV owners are a minuscule portion of drivers
Largely due to cost and supply. We don’t have a significant proportion of vehicles available that are EV, yet there are lots of people waiting an affordable one becaus they recognise most of the previous EV positive points.
Reality is majority of car owners don’t give to stuffs about what makes it go. They only want reliable cheap to run vehicles with the right amount of features at the right price.
EVs have less parts to go wrong, don’t suffer from the same heat cool cycles or as much vibration so last longer. They are cheap to run because Dino juice is expensive compared to sparks. They have plenty of power. What we don’t have is a range of EV that do what current ICE ones do at a price comparable with those current ICEs.
@SlavOz: Mark my words, you will eventually be in the ‘fringe minority’.(fact) The world is changing.
@SlavOz: They are not ‘trying’ to take away your V8,that is just a lot of nonsense.Paranoid is what you are.
We use solar power from our own solar panels to recharge ours.
Maybe he is nocturnal, sleep and charge during the day and move around at night?
A nightcrawler. I like it.
You don’t need to charge everyday… Daytime charging on a weekend would be sufficient for a full charge which will give you 300-400km distance.
Not only that but ToU charging, which most people with an EV already have and which pretty well everybody is likely to have by the next decade, means that even charging by the grid is and will be mostly done when wind and solar are producing because that's when electricity is really cheap (sometimes the wholesale price is NEGATIVE - ie they pay you to charge your car rather than having to stop and start the big steam turbines). Completely replacing ICE with EVs will only require between 10 and 20% extra grid capacity because of this.
This topic has been done to death. Even with a fully black coal grid you would get a net saving in emissions from EV's because ICE cars are so much less thermally efficient that a big steam turbine. With a gas grid you'd get a large net saving. With renewables, of course, it is ALL saving.
I'm guessing you export much more than you consume during day and use energy from grid during night?
It’s not like you are charging everyday. One day at home on charge during the day might last you 2 weeks.
We use solar power from our own solar panels to recharge ours.
Not everyone own/owning a house. Not every house owner has or be able to put solar panel up. In fact the 'Australian's dream' is far away for the youngster than ever …
I ain't an EV apologist by any stretch of the imagination, but this…
This is wrong and EV owners should be taxed at the highest possible rate
…is the dumbest take I have ever heard.
Versus ICE cars with a 100% fossil fuel use rate?
Versus ICE cars with a 100% fossil fuel use rate?
When running. They use even more in the generation and distribution of their fuel.
And if you're going to make a huge point about how bad EV's are because of fossil fuel usage in the generation of electricity, you should be taking into account the fossil fuel usage in the generation (drilling, refining) of petrol. And if you like we can also include fossil fuel usage in distribution of fuel source - hint: it's not muh at all for EV's; but it is a lot for petrol vehicles.
If fossil fuels are the problem, then why not tax fossil fuels instead of electric cars?
You really don't seem to have thought this through very much.
You're not suggesting a tax on fossil fuels are you? What would we call this? A CO2 tax? Nah, a bit wordy…. how about a Carbon Tax?
If we had a carbon tax we would all be living in massive poverty. I am well informed of this by both the mining lobby and the LNP.
You are a legend :D
Because op didn't finish schooling. Just a generic human who thinks they uncovered something important.
EV owners only work night shifts.
6.6kwh system generates between 24kwh a day in Melbourne, 28kwh a day Brisbane. That is during daylight hours excluding self use. Get about 200kms a day. I'll let other people do the sums.
Either they all work from home or they do night shifts.
Father in law charges on the weekend only when its sunny and always off the solar.
The funny part is they paid a lot of money for a fast charger and upgrading so that they could power it but they have never used the fast charger and always just use the normal cable so they can use solar lol.
Shame they already bought the fast charger, a MyEnergi Zappi V2 charger from the UK would allow them to use an ECO++ mode in which only excess solar goes into the car, no grid energy. There's a CT clamp on one of the power lines (or some other magic I don't understand) which detects how much solar is being generated, how much grid energy the house requires, and funnels the excess into the car. It was under $2000 to buy and install for us via EVolution Australia 3 years ago. $819.50 installation, and about $1000 for the charger itself.
I know a lot of people on various facebook EV groups who use a Zappi to put exclusively solar energy into their car during days they are at home. I will admit I am not one of these people. But it costs us $2 to charge our 28kwh Hyundai Ioniq Electric which does over 200km, and we export excess solar during the day because it makes financial sense. On the ancient solar feed-in tariff of 50c/kwh exported. Not the most eco-friendly, but haven't paid a power bill in ten years so helps with offsetting the high initial price of buying the EV 3 years ago.
Here's more on the zappi:
https://myenergi.com/product/zappi/
Where we bought it and some charge cables/adaptors: https://www.evolutionaustralia.com.au/
Either they all work from home or they do night shifts.
Or they charge on weekends or have a powerwall or charge at the office or…
Around 75% of electricity generation in Australia is from Fossil fuels.
An EV being charged from 100% coal power will still only emit around half the emissions as a petrol or diesel car. See below
https://thedriven.io/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/ELRAGcTXsAAH….
Around 75% of electricity generation in Australia is from Fossil fuels.
This means 75% of the electricity used by EV's is from Fossil fuels.
How is that justifable by any measure?
please provide your summary on efficiency of power generation from both methods.
You're making a claim that due to using electricity they must be 'as bad' as using fuel directly in an ICE car.
Doesnt the efficiency of power extraction and delivery needs to be compared before you get outraged?
OP must have done literally zero googling before posting this hot take. If he/she had a clue, then it would be apparent that even burning brown/black coal at a power station is less polluting than individual cars burning petrol.
OP clearly also has not considered that you can never make a petrol car less polluting, whereas an electric car will become less polluting as the electricity system as a whole becomes less polluting.
For example, here in SA if I recharge an electric car I will frequently be using 100% renewables.
You should have your water tested for lead
Wish I could give you more than +1 for this comment.
I'll help out. You owe me one Rolts
Here's one back, evens.
+1 Combo
I thought we all switched to unleaded like years ago? https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sci…
Because that's only the current generation split between renewable and fossil fuels. A car being powered by electricity doesn't care how the electricity was generated, so in the coming years as we will shift more towards green power they will be powered more by renewables.
Plus as others have said, rooftop solar is bad for the grid in large quantities, and a lot of ev owners I know are charging off their own generation already.
Also… What would the tax achieve and what possible justification do you have for it?
What would the tax achieve and what justification…? More station car parks in electorates of whichever government was in office. Then EV owners in these electorates could park their cars and catch the train to work, thereby use less ‘fossil fuel’ electricity and do their bit to save the planet. Wait… most suburban trains run on fossil fuel electricity. I need to think through this.
Wait 'till you hear about odd and even number plate driving days.
Governments can also control oil supply and price on a whim. Take Kazakhstan for instance. Some academics (eg Ross) even pose the idea that oil hinders democracy.
That's different, they have always controlled oil prices, switching off my car on a whim is not on.
Right. But he hasn't switched of anyone's car yet. And he likely won't.
GM has allowed law enforcement to remotely disable vehicles since 2009. This isn't new news, and it's not big news either!
OP needs to broaden their reading & learning.
OP learning some critical thinking wouldn't go astray either.
Broaden from nil?
Low IQ post. EV owners can charge from home solar. And even if they charge from the network, the grid is still supplied by a mix of fossil fuels and renewable sources. Even in a 'worst case scenario' where 100% of grid electricity is coming from coal, it's still more thermally-efficient than the internal combustion engine inside your car.
This is wrong and EV owners should be taxed at the highest possible rate
Second dumbest thing I've read today.
EV owners can charge from home solar
At how many kilowatts per hour from pure solar? That is the question. It is just a good headline but I suggest only a minority has a 15kw solar array with 3 phase power.
On average I export 8kwh per day. That’s good for a commute to work, but I’m at work when it happens so I’ll have to direct my sparks to go into someone else’s car while I’m not home.
You are absolutely correct. If even Murdoch's The Australian can report on this, what argument is there to be made by the OP here? https://www.theaustralian.com.au/special-reports/ev-vs-combu…
This is four years old FFS, do some research OP. https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/19/electric-car-well-to-wh…
Majority of people would agree electric cars are the lesser evil compared to ICE.
Unfortunately it is one BEV size fits all at the moment (either hatches or sedans). Any views that doesn't fit gets shot down by the few.
As cleantechnica article says about 42% of BEV owners have solar. Don't forget 42% solar includes various sizes and outputs. It is one size fits all when people on here (and various other forums) always say "when you got solar it is free fuel" unfortunately only if you can wait for the slow pace of electrons if you have anything less than 15kw array, sunny day and 3 phase power. Single phase dedicated circuit is only 7Kw per hour, 6kw solar array will only produce 24kwh a day (in Melbourne) so 4Kw per hour, on a model 3 that is 25km per hour plugged in.
I am all for electric cars but at the moment it is neither affordable and practical for my circumstances. Two efficient cars between 3.5L - 5L every 100kms will have to do (one of them is 20 years old)
Good points. It's theoretically also the most efficient thing to run your 20 year old car until it dies.
I would argue that for smaller battery EVs (like my 28kwh battery equipped Hyundai Ioniq Electric MY2019), single phase and 7kw charging is more than enough. Charging overnight with our granny cable was more than enough, though it could take up to 12 hours to charge, we would just chuck it on the one night a week we needed to charge after work and it would do its thing. We mainly bought the MyEnergi Zappi charger because we were into the technology and seeing what it could do. And for the occasional fast(er) charging requirements (4 hours til full vs 12).
None of this negates your points of course. Many circumstances make buying an EV right now prohibitive for a lot of individuals and families. I keep hassling a mate who can afford one to just do it, but living in a rental with shared car space in the basement, and it being next to impossible to lobby this particular body corp means pretty much nowhere to charge an EV in the whole complex.
It wouldn't take all that much rethinking of our neighbourhoods' designs to start making some positive changes that almost anyone could benefit from though. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/oct/05/electric-car-w…
We just need a government, and general mindsets, compatible with making changes that could positively affect more of the public who might like to get on board, but aren't in a situation where buying is an option right now.
It wouldn't take all that much rethinking of our neighbourhoods' designs
I agree with this.
@netjock: Wow. I've just come from here https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/689080#comment-11909950
Mainly catching up on the comments between SlavOz and pegaxs. I wasn't prepared for civility :-D
@JownehFixIT: Some OzB people come from extreme points of view.
Generally I try not to argue the point because people just never come around even if you make a very good logic. Sometimes you'll see it goes from farmer needed some eggs, so he bought a chicken, then found out he needed to feed said chicken and then planted crops, then needed to buy a tractor, sprayer, then needed donkeys to keep the foxes away and a dog to scare the birds. Suddenly he needs to buy an EV to absolve himself his carbon sins. Then realised he also needed solar panels but he needs 20 kwh to charge them during day light hours or else he can't sleep because he is using night time energy from coal power stations.
You get the point.
VS ICE cars whose fossil fuel use funnels 100% of funds, to crack/tin-pot dictators, and autocrats worldwide?
100% of funds, to crack/tin-pot dictators, and autocrats worldwide?
We do produce some oil in this country
100% of funds, to crack/tin-pot dictators, and autocrats worldwide?
We do produce some oil in this country
What makes you think those references don't apply to this country?
Chances are, anyone who owns an EV, probably also has the money to put Solar on their House. and a few batteries, so hopefully this offsets the Fossil element on Sunny days.
This is wrong and EV owners should be taxed at the highest possible rate
i say this is not going far enough, and clean coal vehicles should be developed to save the planet.
clean coal is the way of the future.
EV owners should be shot on sight. it's the only way to save the planet.
and develop lunar panels for harvesting the light emitted by the moon at night time.
(sorry, going by OPs post I thought this was a "how stupid can you make a topic")
We're building and maintaining all these powerlines and infrastructure to charge these goshdarnit "electrified carriages"! They need to pay for that!
Give me back my good old steam mobile!
ScoMo is having us go back to steam powered carriages.
lunar panels for harvesting the light emitted by the moon at night time
The moon doesn't emit light.
are you a moon scientist? do you have a degree in moonology? yeah, I didn't think so.
(was it not obvious enough that my post was a sarcastic piss-take of the OPs post by the last line of my comment?)
But…. what about all that reflected light? Surely we can get some high efficiency panels to gather that for use. /s
Decent effort, but OP still has the lead….
In addition to the OPs point about EVs being charged with coal fired electricity, solar panels and batteries aren't without their own environment impacts.
Lithium batteries require lithium/nickel/manganese/cobalt/copper/aluminum/steel/plastic. Mining all of this stuff has huge environmental impacts and inevitably will cause issues with disposing of them safely. Solar Panels require a bunch of chemicals like hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, arsenide, gallium … list goes on.
Yeah, driving an electric car gives everyone a warm fuzzy feeling about saving the planet, but I don't think the outcomes are as clear cut as what people perceive them to be.
Before someone chimes in with using wind/hydro/nuclear to charge their EV, each of those has their own environmental impacts too.
Sorry guys, switching to EVs isn't really going to save the planet.
You are going to get so much hate.
I think if Elon wanted to solve climate change he would have developed the teleporter from StarTrek. Takes all the cars, buses off the road. Also cruise liners, container ships off the seas.
switching to EVs isn't really going to save the planet
I find it amusing people pouring on the hate for cyclists. They are using less fuel so others can use more.
You are going to get so much hate.
I forgot to mention that climate change isn't real!
Let's see how many negs I can get now.
What is your ICE car made out of, wood?
Maybe they are using the earlier model for this guy -
https://www.motor1.com/news/498075/wood-bmw-electric-kid-car…
Waiting for the article about "Sydney Man gets fined 50k for driving unregistered e-vehicle"
I don't need to point out all the positives facts of EVs as most here cover that but I can give you few negative;
In about 10+ years time, there be tons of dead batteries and nowhere to dump them. Currently only proper battery recycle plant is in US and EU.
Which mean, we gonna get more tax towards battery recycling, and some of the component which need to make batteries may get scarce.
And most batteries are currently made in Japan/China for global demand, this could affect based on market in various economical conditions.
While and more EVs on the road, more line up for charging, I know we can charge them at home but still us Aussies like to travel. Have you seen the traffic towards Sydney after a long weekend? (at times M1 on 4hr traffic car park towards Sydney)
In about 10+ years time, there be tons of dead batteries and nowhere to dump them
In 10 years there will be enough product to make a recycle plant financially viable. Lithium batteries are recyclable.
Right now there is a good market in recycling lead acid batteries. They are over 90% recyclable so over time businesses have built up to the capacity of today. When they first started making lead acid, they would have been dumped too.
At least now people are starting to think cradle to grave much earlier. Why go and build another mine when you can get products delivered to you when they wear out.
Future demand > mining + recycling. Then they need to start mine the lower grade Nickel , which even bad for the environment. We only shifting the environmental issues from one form to another.
Funny thing is, the one thing that'll actually save the planet - economical and reliable public transport has been FUBAR'd by governments at all levels for the past 100 years and they have zero interest in addressing it, because there's no Elon Musk fanboi's cheerleading for it.
Case in point eScooter legalization in NSW. It's the perfect solution for last-mile commuting, but the government has ignored it for the better part of the decade and even when the rest of the country has legalized it, they're still looking at "trials".
Calm down scomo.
The trend is that renewable use (as a percentage or total) is increasing and fossil fuels are decreasing. Soon, it'll be 50/50, then 40/60, etc, that rate IMO will increase since renewables are being improved where-as fossils are getting more expensive/less convenient/etc.
We need to move to EV for the future benefit, not just an immediate benefit.
Ha, nice. Funny thing is that the petroleum industry and distribution is well established and yet queueing for fuel is not a solved problem: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cars+queuing+fo…
The electricity supply and distribution network is more scalable than liquid fuel has or will ever be. I don't see queueing to charge and EV being an ongoing issue here in AU as most will charge at home/work/etc.
Around 75% of electricity generation in Australia is from Fossil fuels.
How is that justifable by any measure?
I know it is insane right!? 75% of all electricity used in this country comes from fossil fuels! So when you're at home watching TV while cooking your frozen food in the air fryer, you're consuming fossil fuels!!!!
And it could be much more if EV owners are charging when the sun isn't shining.
This is wrong and EV owners should be taxed at the highest possible rate
You do know that non EV cars burn this stuff called fossil fuel which is pumped out of the ground?
Well to tailpipe for a fossil car has way higher emissions than EVs charged from 'fossil' fuels.
Most EV owners install solar power and charge from 'free' power.
So when you're at home watching TV while cooking your frozen food in the air fryer, you're consuming fossil fuels!!!!
Not if you have solar and do all of this during daylight hours. Tesla owners would have you think they stay home during day light hours and only drive at night.
Not if you have solar and do all of this during daylight hours. Tesla owners would have you think they stay home during day light hours and only drive at night.
You do know the cars don't need to be charged every single minute of the day? Bit like your dino juice car. Once fully charged it can run for many hundreds of kms without having to be charged again.
But Its great to hear you don't watch TV at night or use lights or cook etc once the sun goes does. Wouldn't want you burning any fossil fuels now.
Old news