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
I live 20km from Melbourne CBD. 50km a day round trip.
Unless I want to turn up at midday at work so I can get 2hr of charging in the morning or leave early for 2 hrs of charging before sun is too low in the horizon.
Why do you even NEED to charge during the week then if its a 50km round trip? 5 trips is only 250kms, well within the range of a model 3. So you can charge it on the weekend when you're sitting at home enjoying that solar powered TV you like so much.
You also seem to think that fossil power charging a EV is bad, but dino juice is somehow emission free?
The emissions to get dino juice out of the ground, refined at a plant using fossil fuel power, transported by tanker powered by fossil fuel, then again many times transported by more fossil fueled trucks till it finally reaches the servo tanks, only to be pumped out of a tank by fossil powered pumps into your cars tank, then burned, is huge. Way more emissions than burning coal to charge a EV.
So you can charge it on the weekend when you're sitting at home enjoying that solar powered TV you like so much.
That is your belief. There is no shortage of smart comments from BEV community. Nobody buys a $60k car so they have to stay at home half the weekend to charge it.
I am pointing out that nobody believes when BEV drivers think their solar panels makes them carbon neutral. The solar panels also require various sources of materials and energy to produce them.
You also seem to think that fossil power charging a EV is bad
Not going to entertain this line of conversation.
Not going to entertain this line of conversation.
Yeah so you think fossil fuel is 'clean' then and totally ignore the well to tailpipe chain.
So you're only happy to reply when you're EV bashing, but when called out, its like Oh no, I'm not going to have that 'conversation'.
@JimmyF: Nobody said it was clean but I knew where you were going. If you want a race to the bottom you can race yourself.
Not anywhere above I said it was clean but lets stuff words into other people's mouths to win an argument.
If you want a race to the bottom you can race yourself.
What race to the bottom? Facts are facts.
So it is totally ok for you to go on and on and on about EV charging from non solar fuel sources, but as soon as someone points out the dino fuel in your car is worse, you pack up your toys and go home.
Not anywhere above I said it was clean but lets stuff words into other people's mouths to win an argument.
Well you kinda did when you replied to my watching TV via fossil fuel statement with this
Not if you have solar and do all of this during daylight hours
But sure carry on.
I think your digging your own hole
Tell me again how much worse charging a EV via fossil fuels is vs burning them directly in a ICE?
@JimmyF: Did I tell you at all?
You are just inventing that conversation.
My opinion is unless you walk everywhere, grow your own cotton. Then you are just fooling yourself right now about being anywhere near carbon neutral just because you got an EV.
No body is coming around if you want to be aggressive about it.
It is like cruelty free synthetic leather in Teslas. Feel good marketing.
Did I tell you at all?
So you just replied to cause trouble then with that statement.
Carry on being bored and unloved at home hating the world around you.
Carry on being bored and unloved at home hating the world around you.
Wow. Talking about hate. Takes one to know one I suppose.
From the person who said I should stay home one whole day a weekend to charge my electric car and watch TV.
Nobody buys a $60k car so they have to stay at home half the weekend to charge it.
So you don't spend any time at home on a weekend? You may not be aware that charging an EV does not have to be done in one continuous go.
How many people do not spend at least a few hours at home most weekends?
How many people do not spend at least a few hours at home most weekends?
Good headline. Doesn't fit with your comment that follows below.
Look above. Either I have to stay home 2.5hrs a day to charge during sunlight hours and constantly check the weather forecast and pray it isn't overcast. Or I have to stay home 8 hours on a weekend to charge at 7kw per hour (single phase, 6.6kw solar). Obviously faster with 3 phase and more solar.
Alternative is to have 60kwh of batteries at home and charge at night but that is another $60k of batteries.
It sounds great including "few" as a number. Last time I checked few is 2 or 3.
Would help if BEV people would just accept that having solar on your roof doesn't mean you drive carbon neutral and you have to pull power from the grid willingly or not.
I am pointing out that nobody believes when BEV drivers think their solar panels makes them carbon neutral. The solar panels also require various sources of materials and energy to produce them.
Which can be done with renewables, fossil fuels are not required, even if they are in use today.
Simple fix - remove the use of fossil fuels, now the panels etc are carbon neutral.
Change My Mind.
You just need to charge enough for the day.
Is this the method you use when you charge your Eneloops? Just put enough charge in to cover the immediate use?
Who uses battery powered anything that way? What makes you think that is how you fuel an EV?
@Grunntt: That is what JimmyF proposed that I don't need to charge more than I need for the daily trip.
Or just stay at home on the weekend and watch TV while it charges.
So it is either spend 2.5hr a day on the 6.6kw solar to get the 50km range per day or stay at home for 8hr on weekend to full charge on 6.6kw.
@netjock: Our powershop EV tariff is 7.46c per kwh between midnight and 4am weekdays. Our car is a 28kwh Hyundai Ioniq Electric. It costs at most $2.09 to charge, and the range is 200-230km depending on driving efficiency, and even more with AC off if you're into that.
15000km average annual distance travelled.
÷200km = 75
75 x $2 = $150 a year to charge
It might pull that power from night time fossil fuel plants (that could otherwise have to be sitting there idling anyway to provide baseload power) but it's still more efficient than ICE which seems to be a focal point of this conversation.
Car cost $50k upfront 3 years ago. Yes it's a big outlay and if an individual or family can't afford that, then that's a very real barrier to entry.
But for anyone considering a car even approaching $50k or even $40k, not considering an EV is just insanity, even now in 2022. Apparently a Rav4 Edge Hybrid is $58. That's EV money. But if you've got that kind of money, but you still want to keep buying $2.20 / L fuel or whatever it costs lately and into the uncertain future, go for it!
In another 3 years I can only imagine what will be on offer, and for how much cheaper as manufacturing scales up. Most car manufacturers have announced their targets to phase out Ice vehicles completely by 2035/whenever. It's just a fact that any remaining combustion vehicles will cost more to produce if any are even still produced in ten years. What is an ICE vehicle going to be worth in that landscape?
Apparently a Rav4 Edge Hybrid is $58. That's EV money.
Unfortunately for now that EV money doesn’t buy the equivalent vehicle. They aren’t selling a RAV4 sized EV yet, nor anything bigger, or a ute, or ….
@Euphemistic: Yeah I was just talking about the Toyota bz4x over on another post, and apparently it's very similarly sized to the RAV4 just not out yet, and presumably not as cheap. There's a few comparisons between RAV 4 Prime plugin hybrid and the bz4x, but do you reckon we can even get the plugin hybrids here? Nope.
@JownehFixIT: No incentives for manufacturers to bring EVs here. Government isn’t promoting it. Public consensus is largely ‘too expensive and not enough range’ despite plenty of people waiting for EVs.
Agree, Why can’t we get more plug in hybrids?
Public consensus is largely ‘too expensive and not enough range'
This country is preoccupied with range. Range means more battery which increases cost (too expensive) You only need as much range as your bladder could hold it in. Holding it in for too long is bad for your old age, if you can't hold it in then might as well buy a shorter range EV anyway. Also people don't realise range has also got to do with how fast you drive (wind resistance). People want fast and long range but don't want to buy a sedan (better aerodynamics than an SUV).
Probably 400km range is good enough for 99% of people's lifetime. Given the cost of batteries it is a big amount of money to pay for a little bit of inconvenience (of having to fast charge)
In theory my Corolla sedan hybrid (current shape, 43L tank, 1100km of range) could get me Melbourne to Sydney non stop it is crazy to try for many reasons (leaking my bladder onto the seats is one reason, falling asleep another, food going everywhere and fermenting odours is another).
Agree, Why can’t we get more plug in hybrids?
This is interesting question. They contain bigger batteries therefore higher cost. 50km of battery only range is enough to get to work and back daily unless you are going for a long highway run then hybrid only model consumes a lot more energy having to lug the battery. But a long highway run will recharge the battery to full (my hybrid goes full over a 1hr highway run)
@netjock: We have been brainwashed.m about range. It’s a bit sad. Most 2nd cars would be lucky to go over 100km a day ever. Having 400km range for them is just dumb. When you can conveniently start every day with full charge, you rarely need more.
This morning I watched https://youtu.be/ZCq1WX62fbg. 30 best EVs you can buy now (well, a coupe were ‘real soon’) while here in Aus we get around 10 models. We get none of the cheap city runabouts that would be perfect as a second car/commuter for most families.
All the aspiring EV owners with money have one, now it’s time to bring in models for the regular folk. The folk who are buying hybrid corollas as fast as we can get them because using less fuel just makes sense.
Plug ins are a bit odd, but a good solution for those that want one car for weekday short commutes and weekend longer trips. Plenty of them available, just not in Aus.
@Euphemistic: It's true we're not at price parity yet, but I'd rather have a Kia EV6 right now (from $$67,990 plus on-road costs for the entry-level EV6 Air RWD) than a RAV4 equivalent personally. And there is a RAV4 sized EV that's on its way this year: the Toyota bz4X (dumb name, possibly good vehicle).
Four variants are available in the UK, kicking off with the Pure for £41,950, which converts to about $A79,135. So not exactly that close in price to the $58k hybrid RAV4, but prices are getting closer and closer to parity.
Volkswagen foresees EV price parity with ICE by 2025, 50% EV sales by 2030: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/volkswagen-ev-ice-sales/
Not that I'd buy VW personally after Dieselgate of course. They're not the only ones estimating EV ICE price parity before 2030.
Volkswagen foresees EV price parity with ICE by 2025, 50% EV sales by 2030
We can only hope.
The Cybertruck (personally not a Tesla cult member but hear me out) sounds like it fits my needs. Dual motor. 6 seats, tray and indestructible body work. $60k - $70k unless Elon is low balling again. Looks are divisive but I drive a Corolla sedan for practical reasons not for what other people think.
@netjock: Elon is lowballing again for sure. Sure, the manufacturers are
I’d love to have an electric 4wd dual cab ute. Be happy with 200km of range, 300 would add a level of range that id only need once or twice a year. If I can’t get a short range ute, I’ll want a 7 seat family wagon capable of towing a caravan.
@netjock: Yeah when ol Cybertruck was announced, I legitimately thought Elon was taking the piss, and the real thing was yet to roll on stage. Then the memes did flow.
If I needed a work truck, and it was actually as "cheap" as they've said, and it was actually available anywhere let alone Australia, I'd definitely be considering it.
I was pumped (for other buyers) with the prospect of the F150 Lightning, then Ford basically said they weren't converting it to right hand drive… Genuinely looks like a decent competitor for relatively low price, and we just get overlooked again.
I was also super psyched for Rivian and the R1T. Then they did some dodgy stuff recently. Not sure how that's all going. But the more models the merrier in my book.
OP obviously doesn't follow much news as it hasn't occurred to him/her that the generation mix is changing rapidly:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/feb/11/why-t…
Just use a green electricity plan.
Someone is going to call for an electron audit!
You like how Elon is going to not accept bitcoin but hold onto it until it is mined from green electricity. Any country totally on green power? Or how to you pinpoint the machines that are pulling green electrons.
I am for the environment. I've shifted clothes washing and dish washer to run during the day (because I have solar) but I am not making bold claims about my green credentials.
The whole idea of Bitcoin being environmentally unfriendly is a distraction cover story to discredit the technology. Bitcoin doesn't use peak power and in fact is highly efficient. Considering it is a Trillion dollar economy yet it consumes 0.3% of the worlds electricity.
Elon should instead call out his own exploits on space commercialism. Every rocket he shoots and explodes is equivalent to 10,000 car emissions sent directly to the most damaged layer of the atmosphere. But you know he won't…..
Bitcoin doesn't use peak power and in fact is highly efficient. Considering it is a Trillion dollar economy yet it consumes 0.3% of the worlds electricity.
WOW what a statement….. bitcoin is highly efficient and ONLY consumes 0.3% of the world's electricity……. ONLY….. you say that like it is a good thing?
Bitcoin power consumption (2021) = 131TWh = 131,000,000,000 KWh
CO2 emissions per KWh of generation in Australia (2021) = 0.656 kg
CO2 emissions from Bitcoin (theoretical - if the whole system ran off the Australian grid) = 85,936,000,000 kg/h
CO2 emissions from cars (2017) per km of travel = 0.182 kg
Average km driven in a car each year (2020) = 12,100km
Average CO2 emissions per car = 2,202 kg/yr = 0.25kg/h
Ergo: Bitcoin results in emissions equivalent to 343,744,000,000 cars on the road
@toomuchdogfur: 900x365=328,500 bitcoin mine in year 2022. so 1 bitcoin should value around 1 million cars running a year. assume price petrol is 2$, and average 10L/100km. what does it cost to produce 1 bitcoin?
your math is off the chart 🤣 misleading or funny 🤣
1 bitcoin should value around 1 million cars running a year
None of the numbers I presented make any mention of running costs or fuel consumption.
This is purely calculating the CO2 emissions resulting from Bitcoin operations worldwide vs direct emissions from cars, in response to plmko's absurd claim that Bitcoin is not environmentally unfriendly (and that Elon launching rockets into space is worse as it's "equivalent to 10000 car emissions").
your math is off the chart 🤣 misleading or funny 🤣
Bitcoin power consumption is off the charts.
@toomuchdogfur: You did not see the big picture!
It costs less than 1% of total global energy (nuclear, fuel, electric, coal,….) consumption to run the bitcoin network.
And yet it brings freedom to 1 billion people from inflation, tyrany, oppression, dictatorship, …
Bitcon will reach 1,000,000$US in about 10 years. Mark my words!
@lnq: It could very well hit $1m in 10 years, sooner, later, or never.
but it certainly does not do any of those other things you mention.
Trillion dollar economy
Gold isn't an economy and neither would I call bitcoin but nice to know you fell for the marketing.
I don't believe that EV will make a big impact on the current macrotrend but I believe that Musk will deliver his vision in the next 20Y.
Not having a position in TSLA would be financially irresponsible.
Not having a position in TSLA would be financially irresponsible
How many of the original Dow Jones Industrial Index companies are still in the index in their original form. Most likely none (GE got booted out recently). In 100 years Tesla might not be around just like Kodak is no longer really around. Don't fall for the marketing, it is a short term trade just Yahoo was a short term trade.
The DJI is too slow and boring.
I don't expect to be around in 100Y unless Musk starts selling cryogens.
TSLA is the leading player in the EV segment. Nobody else comes close in both code and hardware.
Noone else has really tried, except Toyota.
The rest of them put in a half assed effort, adding an electric motor and battery pack to an existing platform.
Both Mercedes and VAG have announced no new R&D on petrol engines. Tesla is the market leader now, but they won't necessarily remain so
@[Deactivated]: ICE brands like Toyota, MB and VAG aren't innovators. They're old dinosaurs from the 20th century thinking they could just cruise into the 21st century unchallenged because of their long history of successes.
They had +80Y to invent the next powertrain which they failed to do. They treated their users with contempt by repackaging +80Y old tech every 3Y, calling it new and improved and making a bucket load of money. The only new thing is a paint job and more buttons which later became a touchscreen.
They've now earned the name legacy just like banks from the early 1900s have earned the name legacy banks. Smaller ICE brands will slowly be bought out and stripped of their patents or die out with low sales like the 166Y old Holden.
This whole EV debate is one giant gas light on the whole climate debate. Your daily driver mon and pop land whale on skates is going to make zero difference in emissions whether it is electricity through the grid or whether it is via Petrol. You are literally buying one because someone told you a feels good story or because it makes sense to you.
Whilst all that is happening the transportation industry will continue to require diesel because alternative energy transportation is non-viable, unproven or ill-suited for logistics. And as you are continuing to consume your lala land products trying to make a difference all the whilst creating more waste from your now dumped ICE car, there will be another diesel truck purchased and put on the road to carry your EV to the dealership.
1 car makes little difference. But 100,000 people buying one car makes a difference.
Your daily driver mon and pop land whale on skates is going to make zero difference in emissions whether it is electricity through the grid or whether it is via Petrol.
Agreed that it's a distraction from the real polluters - big industry. But moving away from ICE would reduce the one big mobile source of emissions, improving air quality in non-industrial areas.
And as you are continuing to consume your lala land products trying to make a difference all the whilst creating more waste from your now dumped ICE car…
I disagree - people dumping their old cars are very likely to be buying a replacement, so the environmental impact from producing and transporting a new car will be generated regardless of whether they buy an ICE or electric vehicle. The electric vehicle is usually the lesser evil in this case.
Buying a used car of course has the least impact, but the used cars have to come from somewhere…
The payoff in carbon emissions varies, I think the average was 6 years when buying a brand new EV vs keeping or buying an existing old ICE vehicle.
Even if the effect on emissions is marginal, the pollution in cities will be redirected away to the power plant.
It also gets us closer to energy independence, Australia has enough coal to last until we are all dead, oil - not as much.
Complaining about "dumped" ICE cars is pretty silly. So no-one can ever upgrade to a less polluting form of transport because this would (obviously) involve getting rid of the old, more polluting form?
The energy efficiency of an EV running on coal fired electricity is about the same as the energy efficiency of an ice vehicle with the fuel already in the tank. So the whole drill, refine, distribute energy consumption isn’t included. ‘Yeah, but coal has to be mined’ which is a much simpler process than refining and sending to thouasands of different service stations around the world.
The energy efficiency of an EV running on coal fired electricity is about the same as the energy efficiency of an ice vehicle with the fuel already in the tank.
This isnt quite right. EV motors are about 75~90% efficient when it comes to using up their electricity. Internal combustion engines are only about 15~25% efficient (most of an ICEs efficiency is lost to heat and noise.)
Coal burning power stations are generally around the 45~60% at converting their fuel to energy, so almost double that of an IC engine. So, even though an EV might top up on coal fired power, that power is still generated at around 50% efficiency and then used to 85% efficiency in the EV.
I can’t do the sums. Which one is better at energy efficiency?
I though I read somewhere that coal to power point is around 40% efficient.
EV = 50% X 80% = 40%
ICE car = 20%
Intuitively- power plant much more efficient at turning fossil fuel into energy than a small motor designed to fit under your car.
Coal burning power stations are generally around the 45~60% at converting their fuel to energy, so almost double that of an IC engine.
Source?
@JownehFixIT: Ok great video, but I don't see the part that pertains to the very narrow question I asked regarding the efficiency of coal fired powerstations.
Even if that was in the video, I would be hesitant to trust a source that includes a Tesla referal code plug in the description.
@Mrgreenz: I typed ‘coal power station efficiency’ into google. I got some sources, enough to correlate the information.
@Mrgreenz: https://www.clpgroup.com/content/dam/clp-group/channels/medi…
60% for gas-based generator. I guess coal isn't far behind.
@Mrgreenz: I never said they were that high in efficiency. My google-fu told me about 40% (some time ago)
Coal/natural gas power plants are massively more efficient with turning fossil fuels into energy than petrol car engines are. Plus if we have a fleet of EVs now then we can transition the power plants to renewable energy or nuclear later. If we add a fleet of new combustion engine cars now then we can't do that.
Get out of here with rational perspectives
Wow… Missed the boat on this thread.
Anyway, OP, you're wrong.
To keep it as simple as possible, petrol vehicles run on fossil fuels. These are mined and that produces pollution. The raw material is then processed and this creates more pollution. It is this put into trucks and shipped to its destination causing more pollution. It is this pumped out of the tanks and into your car and this causes pollution. You then drive your ICE car around, and this again, causes pollution. There is no step or replacement in this process that is pollution free or negative. The whole supply chain and consumption of petrol or diesel in vehicles causes pollution. Every. Single. Step.
EV's can be charged up using solar/wind/nuclear/any other low emission alternative (no alternatives for petrol/diesel). The power for the vehicle is piped to your house via wires, not diesel burning trucks. When an EV drives around, it produces almost nothing when it burns up its fuel. Even if you charge up your EV using the dirtiest electricity source you can, the amount of pollution used via a coal fired power station to charge an average EV is measured in grams. For petrols to go the same distance, the pollution your car belches out is measured in kilograms.
Added to this, a coal fired power station is very efficient to converting all of its fuel into energy. Petrol and diesel engines are not. Electric motors in EV's are also highly efficient in using up every last ounce of energy they are fed. ICE cars turn most of their fuel into noise and heat, and lots of both. While they are getting more efficient, they are still nowhere and never will be anywhere near electric motors.
This is wrong and EV owners should be taxed at the highest possible rate
No, what should be taxed is idiocy and fact checking your ideas via Fartbook echo chambers. While EV's are still not the best (huge input pollution costs to manufacture) their cradle to grave overall CO2 output is far, far below any ICE vehicle produced in the current generation.
What they should be doing is taxing the shit out of ICE cars and using that money to put into EV incentives. Get auto makers interested in this market and show that we do want electric cars so they will give us electric cars en-masse. The best thing to happen to electric cars and the ensuing revolution is the price of fuel to creep up towards that magical $3/litre mark. The higher the cost of petrol goes, the quicker the pay off ROI is on electric vehicles, the quicker the payback, the more people will not even consider a car that costs $240 to fill a tank.
@pegaxs so I guess you are not in the market atm for an EV anytime soon?Nor am I for clarification.For what it is worth,you are pretty well on the money.
I want an EV, but it's still at a crossroads for me. There is no real viable alternatives for buyers out there unless you want a Tesla or some other expensive luxury car or a Chinese shitter. I don't want a 0~100km/h 3.6 second car. I don't want a car that does 600km/charge. I don't need open moon roofs, leather interior, 19 inch sports wheels and 24" monitors. Most people just want the car they have, but electric.
Unfortunately, Australia is the worlds ICE dumping ground. We are such a small market when compared to Europe, China and the USA, and coupled with dumb arse politicians protecting their mining magnate friends that we are a long way off any real shift to electric vehicles here when manufacturers can sell 100x more into other markets.
The other problem is that EV's are still in short numbers and with the price of fuel going up, the demand for them is rising, but the whole "we will give incentives to buy EV's to help with the second hand market" is backfiring. The shortage of new and used EV's has only risen on the back of the fuel prices. More needs to be done to get these vehicles to market and make the manufactures see Australia as a viable market and that shipping EV's here will sell.
But it's like anything. The hard part is convincing morons that EV's are ok. People are still stuck with memories of their remote control cars in the 80's lasting 5 mins on NiCd batteries and think that modern EV's will only get 50km of range and that they will take 3 days to charge.
It happens with every evolution of anything new. People are afraid of the change. Smart phones were a great example. People didn't went them because battery life was 2~3 days, where their old Nokia got 2 weeks out of a charge. Now smart phones are WAY more powerful and last 1 day, but people have now become accustomed to plugging it in every day. An EV is no different. They just drive it during the day and plug it in when they get home. There is this hump they cant get their head around that they can charge it at home (for most people) and that you can refil it every day from your wall. You dont need to go to a charging station and you dont need to run it out of charge before filling it up again.
And then there are the "But they use electricity, and making electricity makes CO2!" pundits. Yes, making electricity can make CO2, but its all the shit EV's cut out between the making of electricity and using it to power a car that makes all the difference, and the fact that once an EV is charged, that is the end of the CO2. Electric motors and driving an EV does not continue to pollute like fossil fuel powered vehicles.
I have @ the moment a brand new Hertz Corolla Hybrid rental,the car is so,so,nothing special,(& really could not live with one.)but,it is the Hybrid technology that has made me stand up & take notice.Just amazed @ how it functions.If my CRV had it,I would be a very happy camper.
@Hackney: I own a corolla hybrid and it is amazing. We put fuel in it about every 6 to 8 weeks. I drove it from Newcastle to the airport in Sydney. I was amazed at the journey where I turned off the highway at Hornsby and the 1 hour~ish trip to the airport, In all that time, I think the engine turned on maybe a handful of times and combined, I think the engine would have be on for 5, maybe 10 mins tops for that whole journey. The rest of the time it was just electric drive and regen at each light or downhill section.
I think PHEV and hybrids are definitely a great intermediate solution. They offer the driving range most people want from the electric portion of the drive train (shopping/school/work commutes) and the option to go further at the expense of petrol (Holidaying to grandma's house 300km away). The other thing I like about PHEV and hybrids are that they are usually built upon an an existing platform (ie: Corolla/RAV4) and are not much more than their equivalent ICE version. But I think most people wouldnt mind something like an i30, Kia Cerrato or Toyota Corolla in a full electric. Just a commuter car. It doesn't need to be insanely tech equipped, just functional.
I would have liked the government rebates extended to PHEV vehicles a little more (maybe 50% of the full electric rebate) and for the road user tax abolished on hybrids (as they still use plenty of fuel). I get that people get range anxiety, but this would at least nudge them in the right direction when looking for a new car.
@pegaxs: Hybrids are the ‘happy’ medium @ present.Toyota has this stuff well & really sorted.We just did a trip to Gunning,half the time it was on electric only.Just fascinating to watch it work on the LCD screen in the car.Honda is about to release a HRV Hybrid,will be interesting to see how it goes.My little Fiesta Ecoboost 1.0 sits around 5.9.So nowhere near a Hybrid economy.I thought that was good.
@Hackney: I had the same thoughts when I got one as a rental. It wasn't going to break any speed records, but I was surprised at how well it handled corners… travelling flat through corners, in a modern Corolla???
I'm pretty confident one of the main reasons manufacturers don't care to send us more of their EVs is that Australia has no tailpipe emissions standards to speak of, so while we're not participating in any of these programs that other countries do, no car manufacturer would get any "points" for sending efficient vehicles to us, whereas they do contribute to a cleaner record if shipped to participating countries.
Conversely, and adversely, they don't LOSE any points for dumping their dirtiest most fuel inefficient vehicles here for our use. So we get the worst vehicle engines, and the worst deal on EV quantities.
a coal fired power station is very efficient to converting all of its fuel into energy. Petrol and diesel engines are not.
Cool, didn't know this.
echo chambers
My echo chamber (chatting at work in the office) was going on about manufacture and disposal of the batteries (after 5-10 years) for EVs being as bad for the environment as running a petrol car.
Any truth to this?
No he is not all wrong.
Whilst Australia has 70% of its electricity produced by fossil fuel, EVs produce more green house gas compared to a hybrid ICE vehicle. Just look up the green vehicle guide and compare the a Tesla 3 (best of 116 grams of CO2 into the atmosphere for every km travelled) to a Prius (84 grams).
Figures gets worse if you consider the percentage of renewable that you have used up in your journey is taken away from somebody else on the grid and so more coal is required to generate it. This equates to 49 g of CO2 which means that if you didn't take an EV and drive a hybrid instead, you'd put into the atmosphere 84 g (which already includes the CO2 produced in the production and getting the petrol into the car) instead of the 116+49 = 165 g of CO2 for each km you travelled.
The trouble is that EV users don't understand that their renewable electricity usage is actually negating the effort to cut out fossil fuel use for household and industry, leading to more CO2 output as fossil burn is required to compensate. Even if you have solar roof top and charge from there, as long as you are connected to the grid, you will always put less CO2 into the air if you drive a hybrid instead. Take sometime to think about it and please look at the GHG site for comparison.
"coal fired power station is very efficient to converting all of its fuel into energy" - not sure where your source if from but for coal fired plants, "that the average efficiency of coal-fired power plants around the world today is 33 percent. Modern state-of-the-art plants can achieve rates of 45 percent, while "off-the-shelf" rates are around 40 percent." Hitchin 2018
It may help local air quality for highly polluted cities but he push for selling more EVs is not doing the environment any favours.
Petrol will come down below $2 soon I reckon… even if it stays, at about $20000 more for an EV equivalent, it will take more than 5-7 years to use up that $20000 to pay for my fuel at 15000 km per year.
PS not sure if those who don't believe that EVs are the way to go at the moment are all morons as you have called them below.
The EV fad will soon come back to earth with people realising the true cost to the environment of EV cars. From the environmental cost to produce the batteries, the environmental cost to generate the electricity they need to operate, and then the environmental cost to recycle the spent batteries.
Still, if it gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling to go EV, good for you
The pollution of making batteries isn’t that different to the pollution of drilling, shipping and refining fuels.
Once you’ve made a battery you can use it with very little pollution for the rest of its life. Anything fossil fuel powered continues to pollute.
And you can recycle it close to 100% which means it never has to be mined again
A tale as old as time. It's people like you that were saying the same thing about combustion engines and how it'll never take over from the horse and buggy.
It's people like you that will never be the innovators of the world.
Luddites gotta Luddite. cHucK a BuRn oUt in Me V8 Brah, hoW CoolZat?
And your current car runs on petrol right? You’re just part of the problem. People who don’t have a clue think they can lecture others as if they even care. You don’t care about the environment, why even pretend you do.
Yawn…
OP's post is the post that launched a thousand brain farts. The vegans of conservation are out in en mass. I'm out.
Good riddance
Oh no, we won’t have any contribution from you? What a shame.
While you've got it right that we are doomed - the Earth will not support human life according to the best science such as that coming out of NASA **. This likely will occur in as little as 50 years* although the most likely date is 2150 … hopefully I'm dead before that.
… you do seem to have an odd, ineffective solution for it.
* It could certainly be earlier as the current predictions have been although that is less likely.
** NASA really don't like emitting these reports because it stops them playing with rockets. That's how you know it's true.
We got like 50 harvests left.
Primary reason is unsustainable farming. Fields not given time to rest and regenerate top soil. Fertilizer made from my fossil fuels. That is just the start of it. Look at the farm run off killing the water ways and oceans.
90%+ of maize grown is fed to cattle. If we need less cattle would be a start. What do they put in when they clear the Amazon rainforest? Pastures for cattle.
How did people farm for 1000 years and screw it up in 1 century.
Farmers are starting to turn it around. When ‘we’ started using fossil fuels and discovered manufactured fertilisers we didn’t realise what the cost was in environmental damage. Now we are beginning to realise that good old fashioned sustainable practices are actually better for the land.
Sure, there some that are in it for max profit now and will keep using chemicals, but those that are leading in farming are using less chemical and allowing the ground to recover before re-sowing. They are using technology in a different way to monitor found conditions and choose appropriate crops rather than supplement with chemicals and causing long term damage.
Only a small portion turning it around. Not nearly enough. Amazon rainforest still being cleared at an accelerating pace.
@netjock: Agree. Only a small portion, in largely wealthy areas where they can afford to slow profits for a few years to move to sustainable practices.
Third world areas are a few decades behind the leaders.
elon made it efficient
Clean diesel is the answer …
… sorry, what was the question ????
This post is a response to mine - cognitive dissonance is helluva drug…
How do you know for sure? I didn't find a single GOFYS comment on yours…
This post's comments seem a tad more civilised overall. Still a spread of opinions but less vitriol.
The post itself though… Maybe it's just to get a rise out of people. There's not one comment from the OP on this page of comments. 🤷♂️
Honestly the dumbest post on this website. You obviously have no clue how the electricity market works or how EV batteries work.
ban cars, people and turkey's
Especially the people that are turkeys.
The latest peer-reviewed science shows that 'cradle to grave' or 'lifecycle emmissions' of EV's is over 50% less than a petrol car.
https://currentev.com/blog/evs-cleaner-cars-from-cradle-to-g…
The energy source isn't emissions free, but holistically it's waaaaay better than burning liquid dinosaurs.
this topic has been beaten to death:
and if you don't want to get EV for some reason, settle for a very efficient hybrid rav4 or camry/corolla hybrid.
Oh. You mean they don't run on a very long extension lead?
You just need to charge enough for the day.
I live 20km from Melbourne CBD. 50km a day round trip. Theory I'd need about 8 kilowatts (assuming about 15kw per 100kms for Model 3 which is about efficiency it is right now). If a 6.6kw system produces about 24kwh a day (assume 8 hours of sunlight) so I'd need to be connected for 2.5 hours. That would be before 8am when I need to leave for the office to get there by 9am or after 6pm. There is a charger at work but no solar panels on the roof far as I know. Unless I want to turn up at midday at work so I can get 2hr of charging in the morning or leave early for 2 hrs of charging before sun is too low in the horizon.