Electric vehicles, progress (from a marketing perspective)

[Tote]

I was watching US tv tonight and an ad came on for Electric vehicles that suggested the way of the future was electric cars
https://youtu.be/KRgcJusf280

It occurs to me that electric cars are inevitable, although I am still amused by the fact that energy is energy and that my electric F250 will still generate a plume of black smoke, it may not be at the same location as the vehicle though.

Regards,
Tote

[101RRS]

And of course there are not the resources in the ground to switch the entire world transport fleet to batteries. Current first world maybe but not when the 3rd world comes online with electric vehicles.

So a totally electric world fleet is really just an intermediary step to something else - my guess is hydrogen once it is cost effective and non polluting to make it.

[Tote]

Meanwhile there's always another mountain in Kentucky to take the coal out of
https://youtu.be/i7Fo0-2AETQ

You should all watch Justified just because its cool.

Regards,
Tote

[cripesamighty]

Last time I checked, nearly 100% of Hydrogen available commercially (and cheaply) came from hydrocarbons and released metric shyte loads of CO2 in its production. A commercially viable quantity from a cleaner source (electrolysis of water by using solar power, wind etc) is currently not an option, at least in the near term.

PS. Nice clip Tote. That looks like a bit of fun TV!

[goingbush]

And of course there are not the resources in the ground to switch the entire world transport fleet to batteries. Current first world maybe but not when the 3rd world comes online with electric vehicles.

So a totally electric world fleet is really just an intermediary step to something else - my guess is hydrogen once it is cost effective and non polluting to make it.


Obviously Lithium is a stopgap, Lithium cells do not have enough energy density to satisfy petrol head range anxiety. Solid state or some other battery tech will be along shortly, even if its augmented by Fuel cell.

But notwithstanding there is no shortage of lithium

Is there enough lithium to feed the need for batteries? (https://blog.energybrainpool.com/en/is-there-enough-lithium-to-feed-the-need-for-batteries/)

[carjunkieanon]

I'm assuming someone knows how the numbers crunch on this (apologies if I'm bringing up something posted elsewhere but).


How much total 'bad gas' is produced to:
A) Drill for oil, convert to diesel, ship to a country, distribute to servos, fill diesel tank on my disco, drive 100km (15L/100km).
B) Generate electricity, transmit to my house, + mine for elements that go into batteries in BEV, to drive 100km.
?
C) Break down and dispose of my diesel engine.
D) Break down and dispose of batteries.
?

[JDNSW]

One of the points frequently overlooked in discussions such as "of course there are not the resources in the ground to switch the entire world transport fleet to batteries" is that these statements are always incomplete, in that they leave out "known".

Any mineral resource has a "known" reserve. This is the figure usually used in these discussions. In mining terms a "reserve" is legally defined and needs to have a very substantial degree of certainty. But it is also very heavily dependent on the price of the mineral and the mining technology. A good example is oil. If the price of oil goes up, the amount of reserves go up, and if it goes down, the reserves go down as wells are shut in when the cost of production exceeds the value of the oil produced.

There is a lag effect, as for most mining there are large capital costs, so the mine will not shut down until the operating cost exceeds the output value. (The operator may go broke, because they still have to pay interest on the loan, but the property will still be viable for the company that bought it at fire sale prices.) And no new mines will start, and there will be little if any exploration. Nobody spends money looking for minerals that they can't sell.

If we look at lithium (and the same sort of thing applies for other "rare" minerals used in EVs), until fairly recently, lithium was a niche product, mostly used in small (in mining terms) quantities in medicine and from WW2 in somewhat larger quantities in greases. Significant quantities have been used in nuclear weapons as well.

But because the demand is small, nobody has done anything much to look for it other than things such as literature searches, where it has been mentioned as secondary information noted while looking for something else.

So we really have no idea what quantities are available - and as noted, this depends on the price.

Some minerals, which are easy to identify, and are encountered looking for other minerals, may be "known" to exist way beyond "known reserves". These are often referred to as "resources" which is a much vaguer term, and not used consistently. A good example is coal. Coal is easily identified and is often seen in bores drilled for other purposes such as water or oil, and because of its known geological setting can be fairly confidently interpolated between these bores. We know from this information that Australia has truly vast coal resources - current and historical mining operations have barely scratched the surface.

This also gives an example of the things that can affect the viability of mineral deposits. Few today are probably aware that there used to be a coal mine at Balmain in inner Sydney, highlighting the fact that Sydney is entirely underlain by coal (but it is deep). Starting production in 1897, it hauled coal vertically over 800m, but its viability decreased as the railway lines from Lithgow and Newcastle were upgraded, making haulage of coal 150km cheaper than lifting it vertically 800m. Closed in 1932, it continued to produce methane until 1946. I wonder how many of the residents of "Hopetown Quays", now occupying the site are aware of this history?

[jezzarezza]

This guy explains it all pretty well. Note that he gives citations for the information. It seems pretty unbiased to me, and he seems to have done the relevant calculations

To summarise, EV’s win the emissions debate even if they use coal power stations for the energy.

YouTube (https://youtu.be/6RhtiPefVzM)

[AK83]

This guy explains it all pretty well. Note that he gives citations for the information. It seems pretty unbiased to me, and he seems to have done the relevant calculations

To summarise, EV’s win the emissions debate even if they use coal power stations for the energy.

YouTube (https://youtu.be/6RhtiPefVzM)

I watched the video twice, and both times I failed to see where he added the emissions output in the production of the fuel for the ICE dependent car as well.
That is, he calculated the emissions output of the ICE vehicle, and then compared the emissions output of the EV vehicle, but never factored the additional emissions output to manufacture and distribute the fuel used for ICE.

So, the emissions output advantage of the EV will be a shorter time frame than he's calculated.

I still don't think battery powered EVs are the long term future, and why the hydrogen fuel/fuel cell option is the best way forward .. long term.
EVs now are the better option going into the future too, as they're easy(er) to then redesign to then switch over to a fuel cell setup.

Wind power shouldn't be a difficult task to use as the option for H2 production in the future.
The two downsides to wind power are lack of wind and what to do when there's too much power in the grid when the wind is still blowing?

Both issues shouldn't be too hard to offset adding hydrolysis mechanisms into their operation(apart from other storage mechanisms) into their overall power setups.
That is, when the wind is blowing and over capacity in the grid, then the wind turbine would then continue power production and channel that into hydrolysis.
The current favoured path for power storage for wind power is to refill hydro stations as a battery/storage system .. but why not a localised hydrolysis system instead?

What do you do when there's an excess of power production capability, and the grid is already at capacity? ... you keep the generators generating and then turn that into a potential energy .. whether that's battery storage(stupid idea on a large scale!) .. or refilling hydro network .. or better yet. . make H2 [thumbsupbig]

My main issue is vehicle cost.
I'm not rich, and I'm not the only one that's in this situation.
$40-70K for a new car .. just to feel better about myself coz I'm doing a part for the environment .. never going to happen.
Govt needs to step up to the task here and make it an option in whatever way they can .. eg. zero interest loans for exactly this purpose. eg. say I need $40-70K for a vehicle, if they had a 10-15yr no interest loan system that would cost me say $5K/yr to replay .. it'd be worth my while to seriously consider it.
As of now tho .. to get finance for a car that will end up costing me 2x the amount of initial purchase over a 5 year term .. AND to lose all that value due to depreciation! .. err no thanks .. I'd rather keep on outputting my CO2 allocation [tonguewink]

There are literally million of 'Me's' in a similar situation .. a govt system would be 'household' means tested, so the already well off wouldn't then rip off the system to make it a viable mechanism.
This way the glacial pace of uptake that is invariably inherent with any new tech would be accelerated .. and the usual supply/demand mechanism would take over and new industries and markets are formed .. jobs and growth as former political party used to shout and dance about not too long ago.

if no one is driving hydrogen powered vehicles due to impossible an impossible price point, then the entire system is going to be a niche. lets say even 1000 vehicles on the roads .. across what ... 50K klms of road network?? .. how many refill stations would you expect to see?
How much H2 production would you expect to be made?
Give people the ability to buy into the system, x 1 million .. and I'm sure there's a rich fella somewhere rubbing their hands at the prospect of tapping into those billions.

Same thing happened all those years ago with diesel fuelled vehicles and LPG.
Even maybe 30 years ago .. try to find a non trucking type petrol station that sold diesel? Wasn't as easy as it is now. I can't remember the last time I drive past a petrol station that didn't sell diesel.
Same with LPG .. had to drive for miles to fill up back in the mid to late 80's .. then the LPG rebate came up as a govt scheme, and BAM!

[Bigbjorn]

Some minerals, which are easy to identify, and are encountered looking for other minerals, may be "known" to exist way beyond "known reserves". These are often referred to as "resources" which is a much vaguer term, and not used consistently. A good example is coal. Coal is easily identified and is often seen in bores drilled for other purposes such as water or oil, and because of its known geological setting can be fairly confidently interpolated between these bores. We know from this information that Australia has truly vast coal resources - current and historical mining operations have barely scratched the surface.

This also gives an example of the things that can affect the viability of mineral deposits. Few today are probably aware that there used to be a coal mine at Balmain in inner Sydney, highlighting the fact that Sydney is entirely underlain by coal (but it is deep). Starting production in 1897, it hauled coal vertically over 800m, but its viability decreased as the railway lines from Lithgow and Newcastle were upgraded, making haulage of coal 150km cheaper than lifting it vertically 800m. Closed in 1932, it continued to produce methane until 1946. I wonder how many of the residents of "Hopetown Quays", now occupying the site are aware of this history?

The Qld. State Geologist noted in the late 1880's the discovery of coal seams near Winton in water wells. Not bores, but traditional pick and shovel wells. A friend now retired worked several years in the field for a contract drilling and exploration company that undertook much exploration in an area roughly along a western line from the existing central coalfields. He reckoned they found coal just about everywhere they drilled a hole. Some shallow and able to be open cut and a lot of deep, some very deep. Seams ranging from thin and unviable to enormously thick beds.

There was a walk-in coal mine near Katoomba, long closed. My first boss at GM-H was born and grew up there in the village at the top of the cable car. Queensland's first coal mine was on the banks of Kedron Brook in what is now suburban Kalinga, actually Kalinga Park.

[JDNSW]

Yes. Much of the current Queensland coal production owes its existence to shotholes drilled for seismic exploration for oil in the 1960s - supplemented by water bores.

There was a coal mine here, on my next door neighbour's place - shut down after NSWGR went diesel in the 1960s, or probably before that when the local passenger service (discontinued in 1973) went from steam to rail motor, I think, 1949.

[Bigbjorn]

Yes. Much of the current Queensland coal production owes its existence to shotholes drilled for seismic exploration for oil in the 1960s - supplemented by water bores.

There was a coal mine here, on my next door neighbour's place - shut down after NSWGR went diesel in the 1960s, or probably before that when the local passenger service (discontinued in 1973) went from steam to rail motor, I think, 1949.

My mate was working for the exploration company quite recently, from about 2005 to 2012. Their search was specifically for commercial deposits of coal.

There were lots of small mines in Qld. that supplied coal to the railways particularly on the Ipswich-Rosewood field. Most closed down beginning with the bulk closure of branch lines to when the railways went diesel, the council power station that supplied the tramways closed, and the various gasworks went to natural and reformed petroleum gases (refinery waste). Was not NSW the last rail system in Oz to use steam locos?

[PhilipA]

There was a walk-in coal mine near Katoomba, long closed.
And the funicular is still serving a very useful purpose of transporting tourists down to where the mine was.
Regards Philip A

[bob10]

Tesla may not be in the EV mix.

Elon Musk's Tesla cars might not be the next big thing after all (https://thenewdaily.com.au/money/finance-news/2019/04/05/tesla-electric-car-stock/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Saturday%20News%20-%2020190406)

[PhilipA]

Far be it from me to defend Elon Musk but I think these articles are a bit of a beat up.

From what I see the loss in DELIVERIES is due to transit time.

Ships don't go every day so they have to be stockpiled on wharfs awaiting the arrival, then it takes time for the ship to reach Europe and unload.
So the deliveries may be delayed to the next quarter. If there is a similar situation at the end of the second quarter then start to doubt.
Imagine the delay if/when he starts shipping to OZ.
Regards Philip A

[JDNSW]

..... Was not NSW the last rail system in Oz to use steam locos?

I have not been able to confirm that - last steam in NSW was in February 1973, with the AD60 locomotive. This was kept on long after other steam locomotives, mainly because they were not only the most powerful locomotives in Australia at the time, but they were able to operate on all lines in the state, where most of the other powerful locos were restricted to main lines. Of course, these days (and for many years) the power of individual locos has been less important - they can operate as many as necessary as multiple units.

[PhilipA]

Er I think they used to run a Garret and another engine up the hill from Brooklyn in the steam days.
Regards Philip A

[JDNSW]

Er I think they used to run a Garret and another engine up the hill from Brooklyn in the steam days.
Regards Philip A

Yes - some grades regularly double banked in the steam days - but this is not the same as running multiple diesel-electrics. Each of the steam locos is fully crewed, but with multiple diesel locos only one crew is needed, and they are all controlled from the front one.

[jezzarezza]

I watched the video twice, and both times I failed to see where he added the emissions output in the production of the fuel for the ICE dependent car as well.
That is, he calculated the emissions output of the ICE vehicle, and then compared the emissions output of the EV vehicle, but never factored the additional emissions output to manufacture and distribute the fuel used for ICE.

So, the emissions output advantage of the EV will be a shorter time frame than he's calculated.

I still don't think battery powered EVs are the long term future, and why the hydrogen fuel/fuel cell option is the best way forward .. long term.
EVs now are the better option going into the future too, as they're easy(er) to then redesign to then switch over to a fuel cell setup.

Wind power shouldn't be a difficult task to use as the option for H2 production in the future.
The two downsides to wind power are lack of wind and what to do when there's too much power in the grid when the wind is still blowing?

Both issues shouldn't be too hard to offset adding hydrolysis mechanisms into their operation(apart from other storage mechanisms) into their overall power setups.
That is, when the wind is blowing and over capacity in the grid, then the wind turbine would then continue power production and channel that into hydrolysis.
The current favoured path for power storage for wind power is to refill hydro stations as a battery/storage system .. but why not a localised hydrolysis system instead?

What do you do when there's an excess of power production capability, and the grid is already at capacity? ... you keep the generators generating and then turn that into a potential energy .. whether that's battery storage(stupid idea on a large scale!) .. or refilling hydro network .. or better yet. . make H2 [thumbsupbig]

My main issue is vehicle cost.
I'm not rich, and I'm not the only one that's in this situation.
$40-70K for a new car .. just to feel better about myself coz I'm doing a part for the environment .. never going to happen.
Govt needs to step up to the task here and make it an option in whatever way they can .. eg. zero interest loans for exactly this purpose. eg. say I need $40-70K for a vehicle, if they had a 10-15yr no interest loan system that would cost me say $5K/yr to replay .. it'd be worth my while to seriously consider it.
As of now tho .. to get finance for a car that will end up costing me 2x the amount of initial purchase over a 5 year term .. AND to lose all that value due to depreciation! .. err no thanks .. I'd rather keep on outputting my CO2 allocation [tonguewink]

There are literally million of 'Me's' in a similar situation .. a govt system would be 'household' means tested, so the already well off wouldn't then rip off the system to make it a viable mechanism.
This way the glacial pace of uptake that is invariably inherent with any new tech would be accelerated .. and the usual supply/demand mechanism would take over and new industries and markets are formed .. jobs and growth as former political party used to shout and dance about not too long ago.

if no one is driving hydrogen powered vehicles due to impossible an impossible price point, then the entire system is going to be a niche. lets say even 1000 vehicles on the roads .. across what ... 50K klms of road network?? .. how many refill stations would you expect to see?
How much H2 production would you expect to be made?
Give people the ability to buy into the system, x 1 million .. and I'm sure there's a rich fella somewhere rubbing their hands at the prospect of tapping into those billions.

Same thing happened all those years ago with diesel fuelled vehicles and LPG.
Even maybe 30 years ago .. try to find a non trucking type petrol station that sold diesel? Wasn't as easy as it is now. I can't remember the last time I drive past a petrol station that didn't sell diesel.
Same with LPG .. had to drive for miles to fill up back in the mid to late 80's .. then the LPG rebate came up as a govt scheme, and BAM!

Sorry don’t know how to do the mini quotes.

To your original point: no calc’s on the transport and production of fossils. This just furthers the argument for EV’s, he gives ICE’s every benefit of the doubt and they still come out as higher emitters (not to mention the missing calculations). Then there’s the noxious emissions; nitrous oxides etc.

EV’s are only a good economical choice for very few households (big yearly km’s and renewable self sufficient energy sources at home)

Would love to see tax breaks but at the end of the day someone has to pay for it (us)

There is a Diesel engine by achates I would like to see being produced in the interim. Manufacturers could use current machines to make the engine. Has less parts so production prices and emissions go down there, as well as the engine itself uses around 30% less fuel with good power

Battery tech is moving at an exponential rate. Long term storage will evolve first and then storage for vehicles second (more tech hurdles). From what I have read, and if I understand correctly, when we have nanotechnology sussed/production process refined we will clock the silicon electrode batteries (I don’t fully understand this tech, just know to move forward has something to do with silicone/glass layer thickness)

I’ve seen some interesting long range economic forecasts for EV v’s ICE. I don’t think we will have many personal use ICE vehicles being produced past 2025 and probably none past 2030

I don’t know much about hydrogen. Never looked into it. It does get shot down rather quickly in any discussion i’ve ever seen, but I have to admit ignorance.

[JDNSW]

In my view 2025 is a very unlikely date for EVs to replace conventional cars in the market. It is barely possible, but very unlikely.

There are two major issues -

Conventional cars have over a hundred years of experience behind their production, and for most producers, a lot of depreciated machinery. While it is possible to produce an EV that is essentially a re-engined version of an existing car, this is not going to be competitive with one designed from the ground up, either in performance or producibility; a battery bank has very different characteristics to a fuel tank, for example. For a long term solution, the whole production process has to be redesigned, and while a few manufacturers have started this, most have not, and six years to achieve it is, in my view, very optimistic.

Secondly, mass production of suitable batteries is in its infancy, and capacity is also being required for power supply applications. And if, as you suggest, battery technology is developing at an exponential rate, this would mean that newly built production facilities are likely to have to be redesigned for quite different technology - hardly a recipe for rapid growth in production capacity.

But, in sixty years of close interest in EVs, I have heard this sort of statement many times - and will believe it when I see it! Even if breakthrough technology were to be demonstrated tomorrow, for it to go to production rates able to supply the world's motor industries with batteries for most cars within six years would require a development speed unparalleled in industrial history. (I just know someone will suggest "mobile phones" but you need to realise that cars mass about a thousand times what phones do, and that mobile phones are built on electronics technology going back to the 1950's - with capabilities defines by "Moore's Law", proposed in 1965. No such growth has even been suggested in battery technology.)

We now have batteries that are capable of producing usable EVs, and there are a few on the market. They will not replace ICE vehicles until they are cost comparable and readily available. Neither of these criteria are anywhere near today. Even if these criteria could be met within six years, I think that it is impossible for production to be built up that quickly.

[jezzarezza]

I didn’t say none by 2025 but maybe saying not many is overstated. Lets say massively reduced!

2030 is certainly not unrealistic to say none/replacement.

Consider almost every manufacturer (more than half of the bigger companies) will have an EV option by 2020 and by 2022 it will be flooded with options.

Ford are investing 18 billion and VW will have 22 different EV’s by then. This investment will be comparable by manufacturers industry wide, so current tech price will plummet; they will be more affordable

In the next 3 years it will be the “coolest” thing you can do and the options and gadgets will be super enticing to tech heads and the environmentally minded. It will just be popular in the first world

[scarry]

In my view 2025 is a very unlikely date for EVs to replace conventional cars in the market. It is barely possible, but very unlikely.

There are two major issues -

Conventional cars have over a hundred years of experience behind their production, and for most producers, a lot of depreciated machinery. While it is possible to produce an EV that is essentially a re-engined version of an existing car, this is not going to be competitive with one designed from the ground up, either in performance or producibility; a battery bank has very different characteristics to a fuel tank, for example. For a long term solution, the whole production process has to be redesigned, and while a few manufacturers have started this, most have not, and six years to achieve it is, in my view, very optimistic.

Secondly, mass production of suitable batteries is in its infancy, and capacity is also being required for power supply applications. And if, as you suggest, battery technology is developing at an exponential rate, this would mean that newly built production facilities are likely to have to be redesigned for quite different technology - hardly a recipe for rapid growth in production capacity.

But, in sixty years of close interest in EVs, I have heard this sort of statement many times - and will believe it when I see it! Even if breakthrough technology were to be demonstrated tomorrow, for it to go to production rates able to supply the world's motor industries with batteries for most cars within six years would require a development speed unparalleled in industrial history. (I just know someone will suggest "mobile phones" but you need to realise that cars mass about a thousand times what phones do, and that mobile phones are built on electronics technology going back to the 1950's - with capabilities defines by "Moore's Law", proposed in 1965. No such growth has even been suggested in battery technology.)

We now have batteries that are capable of producing usable EVs, and there are a few on the market. They will not replace ICE vehicles until they are cost comparable and readily available. Neither of these criteria are anywhere near today. Even if these criteria could be met within six years, I think that it is impossible for production to be built up that quickly.

Exactly.

And the other issue is where will all the power come from?
EV's use a huge amount of power.
We have seen what happened in SA,and Vic,during the recent hot weather.
And no it won't all come from solar or some form of battery storage system.
To put it in perspective,an EV that charges for 6 hours or more,will use more power than a 9KW split system AC unit,for the 6 hours.
These'quick' chargers need well over 50 amps,single phase.No domestic property without a major power upgrade would handle that sort of load.

There are lots of rumblings about shutting all these coal fired power stations,but in reality we will need a lot more power than has ever been generated,if Ev's become the norm.

Ev's also won't suit many,think of the many dragging around large vans,often in outback areas.
Tradies,and others with fully loaded vehicles,often with trailers.These vehicles need to go all day,every day.

Sure,EV's may suit a few that only do a few K's a week,but many do hundreds,even thousands.

Then there is all the power upgrades for all theses charging points,all over the country,a massive amount of infrastructure thats needed,and who is going to do it all,and fund it?

In reality,Ev's being the vehicle of choice is many,many, years away,probably 10 to 20,at least,and a pipe dream for some.

[goingbush]

JD, why EV's will become mainstream faster than you think, weather Australia is ready or not, We have no Automotive manufacturing industry and we are dependent on what overseas markets want .

China has massive incentives for EV ownership , and is the worlds largest market , They are not buying Diesel cars any more and hence JLR's current financial issues , Europe , USA and India and the rest of Asia are going ahead with EV in leaps and bounds.

Of course ICE cars will still be produced but they will become more expensive because of the smaller scale of numbers , and EV's will become cheaper . Its inevitable.

[DiscoMick]

Coal power stations will be worn out and closed by 2040, because no one will fund an asset likely to become stranded, so just forget the whole coal thing, it's going, going, soon gone.
Governments will increase the existing subsidies ($3000 grants for batteries in Qld right now, plus low cost loans for solar). Battery banks with solar will be literally everywhere - who would buy a house that can't generate it's own solar power? No-one, very soon.
Just as everyone charges their mobile phones, so everyone will charge their house banks and their vehicles - it will just be normal.
Australia is WAY behind the rest of the developed world on renewable energy, way, way behind.
For example, even in backward Myanmar, the capital Yangon is powered by hydro - I've seen it first hand myself.
We need to catch up fast.

[Homestar]

Coal power stations will be worn out and closed by 2040, because no one will fund an asset likely to become stranded, so just forget the whole coal thing, it's going, going, soon gone.
Governments will increase the existing subsidies ($3000 grants for batteries in Qld right now, plus low cost loans for solar). Battery banks with solar will be literally everywhere - who would buy a house that can't generate it's own solar power? No-one, very soon.
Just as everyone charges their mobile phones, so everyone will charge their house banks and their vehicles - it will just be normal.
Australia is WAY behind the rest of the developed world on renewable energy, way, way behind.
For example, even in backward Myanmar, the capital Yangon is powered by hydro - I've seen it first hand myself.
We need to catch up fast.

People that can barely afford to get into home ownership already won’t turn down a deal because it hasn’t got solar or batteries or could afford the extra money that currently costs - and that makes up a fair whack of the population.

I’m not saying it’s a bad idea, just that it won’t be ‘very soon’ but maybe in several decades as localised power production will be the norm once large centralised coal power has gone the way of the dodo.

[JDNSW]

JD, why EV's will become mainstream faster than you think, weather Australia is ready or not, We have no Automotive manufacturing industry and we are dependent on what overseas markets want .

China has massive incentives for EV ownership , and is the worlds largest market , They are not buying Diesel cars any more and hence JLR's current financial issues , Europe , USA and India and the rest of Asia are going ahead with EV in leaps and bounds.

Of course ICE cars will still be produced but they will become more expensive because of the smaller scale of numbers , and EV's will become cheaper . Its inevitable.

Of course Australia is dependent on what overseas manufacturers produce and can only buy what they produce. Yes, China is the world's largest market, but neither imports nor exports a significant proportion of its market/production. This may well change in the future, of course, but again, I think six years is unlikely. The second largest market is the USA, and it also supplies a tiny proportion of the Australian market - and their exports are a tiny proportion of the home market.

Yes, (most) manufacturers are planning EVs, or at least say they are, but unless I am mistaken, no major manufacturer supplying Australia has any actual plans to make EVs a major part of their production within six years. What we have is aspirations, such as that by Landrover that "new designs" will have electric or hybrid versions. Statements by VW are perhaps the most ambitious - but does anyone actually believe anything they say today?

Scarry-

I don't think there is going to be a problem with supplying power, especially as I think six years is optimistic. The grid itself has had a lot of 'gold plating' in recent years, meaning that problems in distribution are unlikely. And as DiscoMick points out, coal fired power stations are on the way out, and will be replaced by either renewables or gas. (Myanmar is not a good example for Australia - for a start, they have mountains, and they also have a military government, so no problems with conservationists preventing dam construction as in Australia. There is very little potential for hydro in Australia, and most of what is still untapped is off limits.)

But home ownership is decreasing in Australia, with both renting and apartments becoming the future for a lot of people. This means that whether people buy houses without their own power becomes less relevant. (As many know, I have been on stand alone power for 25 years.)

[scarry]

Scarry-

I don't think there is going to be a problem with supplying power, especially as I think six years is optimistic. The grid itself has had a lot of 'gold plating' in recent years, meaning that problems in distribution are unlikely. And as DiscoMick points out, coal fired power stations are on the way out, and will be replaced by either renewables or gas. )

But home ownership is decreasing in Australia, with both renting and apartments becoming the future for a lot of people. This means that whether people buy houses without their own power becomes less relevant. (As many know, I have been on stand alone power for 25 years.)

We will have to agree to disagree,can't see the power being available,weekends paper,large solar plant in SA now not going ahead.The company that was going to build it, has pulled out.Now it goes to tender again,these processes,and then the building of the plant takes years.

Are there any others actually on the drawing board,or being built?

Gas maybe an option,instead of coal,but reliable,long term,large renewable sources of power are a fair way off,as you have said,more than 6 yrs away.

And thinking all home owners are going to race out in even the next 10yrs,and purchase solar panels,and large batteries to suit,is a dream.
As others have said,many live week to week,and are flat out paying their mortgage off.
Some may,but most may not.Renters definitely won't.It will be up to the landlords,and they won't be keen to provide them.

Industry is probably the main user of power,they won't put up with it being unreliable,as i have said before,like what happened recently in SA.

Don't get me wrong,i am all for renewables,but in reality, in this country,its a long way off before it can be relied on as a consistent source of power to replace the existing power stations.

Agreed,home ownership,unfortunately,is decreasing.
A sad situation for many.

Getting off topic,if the govt changes,there may actually be less domestic rental properties around,which will make it more difficult for these renters,who do it pretty tough at the moment.We will have to wait and see.But thats a topic for another thread.

Oh,and comparing charging a mobile phone to charging EV's is like comparing apples and oranges,there is no comparison at all,apart that they both use power,one uses milli amps,where the other uses a huge amount of power.
Sure they both rely on power to charge.

[DiscoMick]

It's a big country and the wind is always blowing in numerous places.
Battery banks are going in all around the place and it's happening faster and faster.
Why would someone buy a house without solar to cut the power bills when there is another with solar for sale nearby? It's a marketing advantage.
This is going to happen rapidly.

[goingbush]

We will have to agree to disagree,can't see the power being available,weekends paper,large solar plant in SA now not going ahead.The company that was going to build it, has pulled out.Now it goes to tender again,these processes,and then the building of the plant takes years.

Are there any others actually on the drawing board,or being built?

Gas maybe an option,instead of coal,but reliable,long term,large renewable sources of power are a fair way off,as you have said,more than 6 yrs away.

And thinking all home owners are going to race out in even the next 10yrs,and purchase solar panels,and large batteries to suit,is a dream.
As others have said,many live week to week,and are flat out paying their mortgage off.
Some may,but most may not.Renters definitely won't.It will be up to the landlords,and they won't be keen to provide them.

Industry is probably the main user of power,they won't put up with it being unreliable,as i have said before,like what happened recently in SA.

Don't get me wrong,i am all for renewables,but in reality, in this country,its a long way off before it can be relied on as a consistent source of power to replace the existing power stations.

Agreed,home ownership,unfortunately,is decreasing.
A sad situation for many.

Getting off topic,if the govt changes,there may actually be less domestic rental properties around,which will make it more difficult for these renters,who do it pretty tough at the moment.We will have to wait and see.But thats a topic for another thread.

Oh,and comparing charging a mobile phone to charging EV's is like comparing apples and oranges,there is no comparison at all,apart that they both use power,one uses milli amps,where the other uses a huge amount of power.
Sure they both rely on power to charge.

Of course the power is Available. Its well known that the amount of Electricity consumed to produce & refine oil / petrol is equivalent to what would be used to power EV for the same distance as the electricity used to produce petrol. ( but without the vehicle emissions)

So: A , no extra electricity is needed , and B The power station Emissions are not being added too by EV's

But you will argue Australia no longer produces or refines petrol / diesel , but it used to and we had the Electric capacity for that . Oh wait We used to build cars too, that takes a huge baseload, we had the Electricity for that , AND for oil production at the same time, as well as many other heavy industry that has moved overseas.

On top of that we now have more wind / solar / hydro & battery .

And as More & more people buy EV's , those people will install solar / battery to take advantage of free motoring.

There is / will be more than enough Electricity. So what if theres power shedding on hot days , it wont affect those with solar / batteries.

Convert to EV and stop subsidising terrorisim by importing middle east oil . Also if we are not dependent on fuel imports we will be less vulnerable to international disruption.

[DiscoMick]

Yep, it's a win-win.

[scarry]

Its well known that the amount of Electricity consumed to produce & refine oil Oh wait We used to build cars too, that takes a huge baseload, we had the Electricity for that , AND for oil production at the same time, as well as many other heavy industry that has moved overseas.


Quick google search,around 2009/2010,there was a reduction in power used through out Australia,this is put down to consumers and businesses being more power conscious.

From 2014 onwards power usage has increased year on year.
Increase in population probably accounts for this.

And i quote"since 2014,power usage has increased,even though there has been a large reduction in manufacturing,and many mining companies are reducing power use"

Sure some manufacturing and oil production may have shut down before 2014,but the most recent trends are probably more important.

Its also interesting looking at power generation figures,hydro is the biggest renewable source,with wind and solar lagging way behind.
As we know these will increase as time goes on.

Some may ask what were the power usage trends before 2009?
i couldn't find any facts,but as population was increasing,as were products and businesses using electricity,i presume so would power usage.

[bob10]

The Australian car industry is ready to talk electric cars, but needs the Government to come on board.

Electric cars could resurrect Australian car industry, says expert (https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2019/04/16/electric-cars-manufacturing/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Sunday%20Best%2020190421)

[NavyDiver]

I was reading the specs on a Zero SR/F (2019) electric bike. Claimed more torq than a 1000cc super bike[wink11] "The SR/F delivers 140 ft-lbs of torque and 110 horsepower" Big claim which seems correct as for example Aprilia 999 cc produces a high power of 198 bhp and 115 Nm of top torque, My quick calculation as 140ft-lb= 189.8145Nm

Oddly top speed a long way below what my new 20 year old bike has on the clock which might have 66NM torque and I do NOT want any more torque.
Given its speed is twice the speed limit I do not see that as an issue. [biggrin] The price is. Nearly 20 thousand pounds is a ridiculous price in my opinion.



Zero SR/F (2019) reveal and specs | Visordown (https://www.visordown.com/news/new-bikes/zero-srf-2019-reveal-and-specs?utm_source=YouTube&utm_medium=YouTube)

[Kaps]

A guy at work sent me this. It's a reprint from an industry magazine decades ago. They say we should have mainstream electric cars forty years ago.
Not much has changed between 1968 and today.
150511

[Kaps]

I think, from a marketing perspective, electric vehicles have had their day.
'In 1901, 38 per cent of the cars were electric, and 20 per cent or so were petrol, and in the middle, there was the outgoing technology of steam"
They lost the war over a century ago.

The history of the electric car is longer than you might think - RN - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-02/the-history-birth-death-resurrection-of-the-electric-car/11053928)

I like the idea of bringing back the Hansom cab and bullock dray. Amish communities seem to do well.