Thread: EV general discussion

Originally Posted by Tombie

As mentioned trucks do add a lot of wear and are charged accordingly.

However, on suburban roads, where damage is obvious, it’s a product of cars. Rarely is a HV seen in these areas.

Any increase in mass will add to degradation, it has to. So increasing the average weight of ALL road going vehicles does has a compounding effect.

To claim otherwise and blame trucks as the sole cause is nonsense.



In all this current nonsense, the only winner is the car manufacturers.

No emissions are reduced - simply relocated.

Price exceeds equivalent fuel burn cost for average life of vehicle. Payback on an EV for my mother vs a petrol version exceeds her predicted life expectancy!

And the most significant impact - take a look at where some of the materials for your “clean” batteries come from and the human cost. If it wasn’t mined in such a perverse manner of rights abuse and payment - nobody could afford to buy one.

Nope - these EVs in their current form are an absolute disaster. Meeting a trend in the West whilst only fixing localised problems at the detriment of greater issues.

Emissions are reduced. Sorry! It's been debunked so many times.

I think where people go off track is because so many people say EV's are zero emission. That's rubbish. Less emissions than an equivalent car yes. Emissions that will continue to drop over the life of the car - yes. Zero emission not so much. Every car trip comes with a consequence. If you want a zero consequence car trip ride your bike! Australians seem less than keen on that for the most part.

And yes the car makers always win. That's how it is. When I were a lad in the 70's people walked and rode to school. If mum had a car it was a Lazer or something like that. Now mum drives a prado or a raptor. The car makers always win.

Personally I'm more concerned about the Jevons Paradox playing out. That should be what you're worried about. People choosing to make more and longer car trips due to perceived economy.

Jevons paradox - Wikipedia

Originally Posted by Tombie

In all this current nonsense, the only winner is the car manufacturers.

No emissions are reduced - simply relocated.

100% agree with the first statement - the mindset is we will consume our way out of this climate crisis one new product at a time. Consumption is our greatest challenge.

Second statement - depends on where you live and if you're using a home PV etc. Still though... we need to address consumption. New EVs are a distraction.

Best we all convert our old cars when the cranks break.

Originally Posted by Homestar

While people say the charging infrastructure is going ahead, I don’t see this anywhere I go. I live in the 6th largest City in Victoria and we have 1 (broken) ev charger and no plans for any more according to Council, so if you live outside of Metro Melbourne you just seem to be **** out of luck. I’ve got better things to do with my time than plan where I need to go in the hope there’s a working ev charger when I get there.

It’s just too damn hard at the moment - I’m thinking another 10 years yet before there’s a decent network and that’s if there’s enough power to go around.

I work with an Electrical mob that install Tesla charging stations and they cost millions each for around 10 chargers as new switchboards, HV subs and miles of cabling are needed for each one. How long is this business model going to work for Tesla before they stop building them?

I bet you'd be horrified to know how many millions it would cost to put in a petrol station. I reckon Tesla make more money on each charge too.

Agreed big city charging is absolute rubbish. North of the river in Brisbane there are less than half a dozen public fast chargers. The only explanation I've got is that the majority of people buying EV's at this point are charging at home.

Having said that the highway charging situation is improving rapidly. From Brisbane into the nearby surrounds any longer road trip was difficult/slow only a couple of years back. Now there is a fast charger in most small/medium towns. The Queensland Electric Superhighway runs from Brisbane to Cairns, and it's now extending inland quite a bit too.

Well I have to ask why there are so many new servos being built.

I don't know about other areas but here in SE Qld there are new servos being built in just about every new development.....and no , new developments dont need them , they are only several km from an existing servo.

These servos are all owned by millionaires with foreign names and shelf companies and they are now more of a general store/cafe than a petrol station.

I wonder if perhaps EV charging stations can't price gouge like servos do and so are unpopular with the investors. I'm sure if it was profitable , we'd see them popping up.....but I guarantee I will never use one.

I did some driving in our EV on the weekend to support a bike ride I was doing. It could equally have been done in the defender - and if we didn't have the EV it probably would have been.

Distance was 440k. Let's do the math.

EV
440k * 130 wh per KM gives 58 kwh to do the trip. The national grid is at 900g of CO2 per kwh. That's a total of 52kg of CO2.

Defender.
440k @ 12l/100 = 52.8 Litres. Each litre of diesel generates 2.640kg of Co2. That's a total of 139.392 kg of Co2.. or round it up to 140. So nearly 2 times more co2.

Both methods are just calculating on the actual CO2 implication of the fuel. IE making a KWH by coal/renewable. Or in the Diesel's case, burning the stuff in an engine.

Neither figure takes into account how the fuel got to the place where they were burned. I'm darn sure there is a lot more Co2 in exploration, extraction, transport and refining of the Diesel than there is in digging the coal and dumping it in a pile at Swanbank. Yes there are inputs in the making of each car too that need to be considered as well as the path to the point of burning.

It's also worth noting that the EV is far from ZERO emission. But it is significantly lower. And if it ten years the grid is at 450g per Co2 per kwh it will have gotten 50% less again. Whereas the defender is always tied to that ratio of 1l = 2640 G co2. EV's still have all the problems that normal cars do, but they are somewhat environmentally better.

So I think having an EV in the house is a really good option if it works for people.

Originally Posted by Tombie

As mentioned trucks do add a lot of wear and are charged accordingly.

However, on suburban roads, where damage is obvious, it’s a product of cars. Rarely is a HV seen in these areas.

Any increase in mass will add to degradation, it has to. So increasing the average weight of ALL road going vehicles does has a compounding effect.

To claim otherwise and blame trucks as the sole cause is nonsense.



In all this current nonsense, the only winner is the car manufacturers.

No emissions are reduced - simply relocated.

Price exceeds equivalent fuel burn cost for average life of vehicle. Payback on an EV for my mother vs a petrol version exceeds her predicted life expectancy!

And the most significant impact - take a look at where some of the materials for your “clean” batteries come from and the human cost. If it wasn’t mined in such a perverse manner of rights abuse and payment - nobody could afford to buy one.

Nope - these EVs in their current form are an absolute disaster. Meeting a trend in the West whilst only fixing localised problems at the detriment of greater issues.

I read an article a couple of months ago that tyre manufacturers were having to develop new tyre compounds to cope with heavier EVs. The amount of tyre wear loss to the environment was mind boggling...

Originally Posted by cjc_td5

I read an article a couple of months ago that tyre manufacturers were having to develop new tyre compounds to cope with heavier EVs. The amount of tyre wear loss to the environment was mind boggling...

I'm unclear... over 50% of the Australian new vehicle sales are SUV's. Many of which are significantly heavier. We don't seem to be concerned about tyre wear from them?

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

I'm unclear... over 50% of the Australian new vehicle sales are SUV's. Many of which are significantly heavier. We don't seem to be concerned about tyre wear from them?

I suppose most suvs use larger tyres which are already designed for those weights. The article was talking about more typical 13-15" small passenger car sizes, which are designed for lighter vehicle weights than now being encountered. EVs were getting sub 40-50,000 from these tyres due to excessive wear?