Where in the hell is Australia heading?

[Starcraftmazter]

I will try and find the book I was reading a couple of months ago. Pretty sure I loaned it to someone of similar mindset as yourself to try and get a balance. Maybe even perform a Google rummage that will direct me to some subversive pro CO2 site !

There is one other very important thing I forgot to mention;

Even if electric cars do use anywhere near as much energy as their oil-fueled cousins, it's important to understand the difference between energy and oil energy specifically. If we can mitigate oil use through electric cars, they would still be far better, because energy in general can come from clean sources, or at least from fossil fuels which have not peaked.

So there are two arguments for electric cars (probably among others);
1. Less polluting in terms of greenhouse gasses
2. Remove dependency on oil

The second one is very important, because one of the ceilings the world economy is hitting now is the supply of oil.

Ummmmmm not wanting to be picky AGAIN but your post did not mention anything at all about being linked to batteries young bean.

Well, I said the following.

You could easily install solar panels on the roof of a house which store the energy they collect during daytime and recharge the car at nighttime.

Unless you can think of another good way to store energy (rather than batteries), it should be clear that I implied it would be stored in batteries

Solar panels do not store electricity. They generate it.

I feel that this is more of an argument of the language used. Surely what I meant was easily enough understandable?

Please consider that the cost of manufacutring as well as mining the zinc/lead/copper/lithium PLUS research and development required as well the plastics (oil byproduct) etc etc. when accounting for saving the planet.

This is of course a concern (and I often wonder if there is enough lithium on our planet to replace all oil-fueled motor-vehicles with electric ones), but unless you know of another way to power cars, then I don't see any real alternative?

One thing which is also true, is that battery-related research is presently moving at a very fast pace, so it will probably be possible to get more efficient batteries using more abundant resources overall in the future. This is no certainty, but it is a strong possibility in my view.

 

[basilio]

Solar panels do not store electricity. They generate it. Batteries will or molten salts/parrafin wax storage systems will store heat to generate electricity and are insanely expensive. Please consider that the cost of manufacutring as well as mining the zinc/lead/copper/lithium PLUS research and development required as well the plastics (oil byproduct) etc etc. when accounting for saving the planet Trainspotter

There are models around that are attempting to integrate electric cars, their in car batteries and distributed solar power into the energy grid and balancing the overall power supply. In fact a lot of the work on smart grids is looking at these situations.

Your quite right in saying that it's not appropriate to set up expensive home battery systems. But the idea of using molten salt as an energy store for thermal solar power stations does make sense and will offer an alternative to coal fired power stations.

With regard to the impact of electric versus vs petrol powered cars on resource use. I do remember the report which tried to say that Hummers had less environmental impact that Hybrids. I don't know how honest that assessment was and the parameters they were using. I (strongly) suspect it was another crack at people attempting to offer an alternative to petrol powered vehicles.

The big deal was the expensive battery systems. I think these should become cheaper and more environmentally cost effective. In fact they must if electric cars are going to be successful. On the bigger picture we need to see cars as more robust but simple long life products that aren't replaced every few years. In that sense a decent upfront investment is useful for a far longer time than currently envisaged.

By the way there is plenty of off peak power available with current coal fired power stations to charge electric cars. In fact it would be good thing because coal fired stations can't be turned off and at night the electrical system is often running at 250 volts plus because of the low demand. Turning some of this into stored energy in electric cars for short distance travel makes good sense.

Finally there are some interesting options for retrofitting current cars with electric power to create electric hybrid cars. The simplest model is a battery pack and a couple of electric motors to the rear wheels. Check out http://www.poulsenhybrid.com/index.php

 

[wayneL]

I do not seek to influence anyone.

That leaves only one other conclusion.

I actually did not read it from the first few words, as it is obvious that it makes a wide range of assumptions and implications. For instance, someone could be allergic to alcohol - and how is this a reason to mistrust them? Perhaps they could have had one of their kidneys fail, and the other is very weak. Again...not a legitimate reason to not trust them. Clearly the passage is nothing short of stupidity.

You must be a real barrel of laughs in person.

Thanks once again to your contributions to my thesis as detailed elsewhere on this forum. This is really grade A material.

That's funny, I was just thinking the same about you...

There is a difference between my nonsense and yours - mine is intentional.

 

[trainspotter]

There is one other very important thing I forgot to mention;

Even if electric cars do use anywhere near as much energy as their oil-fueled cousins, it's important to understand the difference between energy and oil energy specifically. If we can mitigate oil use through electric cars, they would still be far better, because energy in general can come from clean sources, or at least from fossil fuels which have not peaked.

So there are two arguments for electric cars (probably among others);
1. Less polluting in terms of greenhouse gasses
2. Remove dependency on oil

The second one is very important, because one of the ceilings the world economy is hitting now is the supply of oil.

Has not peaked but hitting on the ceiling? Which one is it? Irrespective ... to mine the minerals to manufacture these efficient/non eficcient cars will require fossil fuels to dig the damn stuff out of the ground. Maybe you sould be looking at the HEATING component of the Northern Hemisphere which is heavily dependent on oil to burn to keep warm.

Well, I said the following.

Unless you can think of another good way to store energy (rather than batteries), it should be clear that I implied it would be stored in batteries

I feel that this is more of an argument of the language used. Surely what I meant was easily enough understandable?

What ..... I am a mind reader now? You claimed these words "If you read my posts, this is precisely what I said," So no Sir, this is not what you precisely claimed at all. Semantics I know but you cannot have it both ways Jimny Cricket.

This is of course a concern (and I often wonder if there is enough lithium on our planet to replace all oil-fueled motor-vehicles with electric ones), but unless you know of another way to power cars, then I don't see any real alternative?

I am sure there will be more oil available than lithium to mine Hydrogen is the way of the future for the motor vehicle industry. NASA has been using it for years for their rockets.

One thing which is also true, is that battery-related research is presently moving at a very fast pace, so it will probably be possible to get more efficient batteries using more abundant resources overall in the future. This is no certainty, but it is a strong possibility in my view.

Agreed but at what cost to the environment due to the mining operations to obtain the minerals to manufacture the batteries !!

 

[moXJO]

The problem with electric cars to date is the carbon cost of manufacture, the limited life of batteries and the amount of pollution they present when they wear out. Also mining the materials needed (as TS pointed out). Not to mention the actual cost of the bloody things.
Maybe smurf can comment on everyone charging the cars up using clean energy

 

[So_Cynical]

The problem with electric cars to date is the carbon cost of manufacture, the limited life of batteries and the amount of pollution they present when they wear out. Also mining the materials needed (as TS pointed out). Not to mention the actual cost of the bloody things.
Maybe smurf can comment on everyone charging the cars up using clean energy

Your kidding right?

100% electric cars are cheap as chips to make and are far more recyclable than conventionally powered cars...the Carbon cost to manufacture is no more than a conventional car and battery life issues can be minimised with the appropriate infrastructure roll out.

Simple NG/electric hybrids are a better alternative to 100% electric cars as most of the battery life issues are greatly minimised (talking cheap deep cycle, lead acid battery's)

All this is well known anyway...has been for 3 decades or more.

 

[trainspotter]

Oh oh ! The manufacture of the batteries is the killer for the environment.

The Toyota Prius is among the greenest cars to operate. But manufacturing the famous gasoline-electric hybrid can be a dirty business.

Toyota studied the car's total environmental impact from factory to junkyard.

Not surprisingly, the fuel-efficient Prius was better than average in its class of vehicles in lifetime emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide, according to Toyota.

But it was slightly worse than average in emissions of nonmethane hydrocarbons and particulate matter. Toyota says this is because producing hybrid-only parts such as motors, inverters and nickel-metal hydride batteries consumes more energy and creates more emissions.

In fact, when looking at the "materials manufacturing" phase of the car's life cycle, the Prius was worse than the class average across all five emissions categories.

Toyota said it conducted life cycle emissions assessments on eight vehicle series last year and used the results to help redesign such models as the Prius, Lexus RX 450h and HS 250h and such Japan-market vehicles as the Wish minivan and Mark X sedan.

Read more: http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101018/OEM01/310189979#ixzz1QApQ9b94

Now we gotta charge the damn things up with that pesky thing called ELECTRICITY.

According to environmental researchers, that's not the case. Jim Kliesch, author of the "Green Book: The Environmental Guide to Cars and Trucks" told HybridCars.com, "There are many types of batteries. Some are far more toxic than others. While batteries like lead acid or nickel cadmium are incredibly bad for the environment, the toxicity levels and environmental impact of nickel metal hydride batteries—the type currently used in hybrids—are much lower."

http://www.hybridcars.com/battery-toxicity.html

 

[So_Cynical]

Ill just C & P from the Wiki.

The General Motors EV1 was an electric car produced and leased by the General Motors Corporation from 1996 to 1999

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

The Gen I EV1 models, released in 1996, used lead-acid batteries, and weighed in at 3,086 pounds (1,400 kg). The first batch of batteries were provided by GM's Delphi branch; these were rated at 53 amp-hours at 312 volts (16.5 kWh), and initially provided a range of 60 miles per charge. Gen II cars, released in 1999, used a new batch of lead-acid batteries provided by Panasonic; some Gen I cars were retrofitted with this battery pack. The Japanese batteries were rated at 60 amp-hours (18.7 kWh) at 312 volts, and increased the EV1's range to 100 miles.

------------

The Prius is a socially palatable green car, not a true green vehicle by any stretch of the imagination.

In general the green movement is as anti lead as it is anti Nuke...both stances not making alot of sense considering the cold hard facts.

 

[disarray]

You must be a real barrel of laughs in person.

...

 

[trainspotter]

In general the green movement is as anti lead as it is anti Nuke...both stances not making alot of sense considering the cold hard facts.

This would be an incongruity of terminology by the Green movement then So_Cynical?

 

[tothemax6]

Electric cars are ideal - without even taking into account the environment.

In terms of power, there is arguably more room to increase power-to-weight ratios of electric cars than petrol cars vs price. Increasing the power of petrol cars requires complicated engine designs, additional weight, better quality fuels, larger air-intakes etc etc.
With electric cars it is merely a matter of scaling - increasing battery capacity, increasing conductivity of the electric elements (supply wires, motors etc), and improving the converter. There are less moving parts, the motors are simpler, the energy supply system is simpler and more efficient, and power is only a function of conductivity and cooling.

Additionally, you have the benefit of 'recharge it how you like'. You do not have to be restricted to sourcing a non-manufactureable liquid fuel. There is no exhaust system, the cost and size of the motors means you can eliminate drive-trains to the rear or even between wheels, there is no distributed pollution (so anti-pollution systems can be focused at the generator), regenerative braking can be used, and repairs and services would be simpler.
Of course there will be disadvantages. It will likely raise the radio noise-floor substantially, so EM shielding will be important.

------------

NB: I haven't covered 'carbon footprint', mainly because I don't give a sh_t, and it would be irrelevant in any kind of healthy and rational society.

 

[Smurf1976]

Now you're changing it from "trading partners" to "countries we directly compete with".

I would claim irrelevant. The carbon "tax" (which is not an actual tax by the way...), is not going to shut down or significantly effect any industry. Perhaps if the carbon price was set at several hundred $ per tonne it might have, but not at $23/t.

Economics 101 - of course it's competitors that matter rather than simply who we are currently selling to. If we're not competitive then our customers will go elsewhere. Economics 101 there...

As for $23 per tonne, I take it you do realise this constitutes a 15% increase in total input costs to some industries?

Given that selling prices are out of their hands and controlled by global markets they can't simply raise selling prices. So how do they remain in business given that a 15% increase in costs, with no increase in revenue, is a pretty big blow in terms of business viability.

Cut emissions? Minor improvements could be made, but physics precludes a major reduction in energy use for a typical electrolytic process.

 

[trainspotter]

Says it all really.

MILES PROSSER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AUSTRALIAN ALUMINUM COUNCIL

"This imposes a carbon cost on Australian aluminum producers of at least $60 per tonne of aluminum compared to only $8 per tonne in China.

Australia's carbon cost will rise every year of the scheme and over the next decade to more than $200 per tonne of aluminum while in China it is not expected to get any higher than $60. The Government only wants you to look at the first year of the scheme. The initial costs are bad enough but we need to look at the huge cost increases that are being locked in for the future."

BELINDA ROBINSON, CEO, THE AUSTRALIAN PETROLEUM PRODUCTION & EXPLORATION ASSOCIATION

"The export gas industry rejects the politically motivated label of 'big polluter' when for every tonne of emissions produced in liquefying natural gas, up to nine and a half tonnes are removed from the atmosphere when substituted for coal in customer countries.

Whether used in Australia or exported, gas has a big part to play in reducing global emissions and there is no rational reason for a policy that sees Australian gas use increase but exports constrained."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/10/us-australia-carbon-analystview-idUSTRE7690HM20110710

Lone Ranger - "What do we do now Tonto?"

Tonto - "What do you mean we white man?"

 

[Smurf1976]

So there are two arguments for electric cars (probably among others);
2. Remove dependency on oil

The second one is very important, because one of the ceilings the world economy is hitting now is the supply of oil.

On the topic of oil I totally agree. We already have a problem, and that is precisely the reason I am so opposed to using natural gas to generate electricity as a means of cutting CO2 emissions.

If we use all the gas to keep the lights on, then we're going to be forced into battery transport rather quickly. It may well be viable for cars in the suburbs but it is completely useless for hauling freight and running aircraft etc and probably always will be due to issues of energy density.

We have numerous means of generating electricity (coal, uranium, thorium, hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, wave...) but we have very little in terms of high density, portable fuels for combustion (oil and gas are pretty much it as far as those available in large quantities are concerned). That being so, it seems almost criminal to be even considering using the limited reserves of oil and gas to generate electricity and that is one of my two main objections to the whole CO2 thing (the other one being that any measure needs to be global to be effective).

It's a sobering reality that Bass Strait oil is 95% gone and we've burned through somewhere around half the gas as well. Go to the Cooper Basin, the main gas supply source for SA and NSW, and it's far worse than that. Sure, we've still got plenty in WA and in Qld coal seams, but it's certainly not an unlimited resource. What, exactly, are we going to use to power trucks, farm machinery, aircraft etc without oil or gas? Those things are not at all suited to electric power (though we could swap long distance trucking for electric trains, but there's still a need for trucks at each end of the journey).

Electric cars aren't at all hard to build. But electric trucks and planes just aren't even being seriously contemplated and there are fundamental reasons for that.

As for issues of charging vehicles, it comes down to when they are charged. If it can be done overnight then that works reasonably well and can integrate quite nicely with increasing use of (non-solar PV) renewable energy. Charging them in the middle of the day, thus adding to peak loads, is another matter entirely and implies the use of fossil fuels to generate the electricity as well as an awful lot of expense to upgrade distribution infrastructure which already struggles to cope.

 

[Smurf1976]

Labor is shutting down coal (I understand that specific power station closure plans are buried somewhere amongst all the details of the carbon tax - I'm guessing the plants in question are Playford B (SA) and Hazelwood (Vic) but that's just my guess). If that's not offset by massive investment in alternatives then the lights go out - but is anyone actually going to invest given all the uncertainty? I doubt it.

The lights could end up actually going out under this scenario...

 

[tayser]

Labor is shutting down coal (I understand that specific power station closure plans are buried somewhere amongst all the details of the carbon tax - I'm guessing the plants in question are Playford B (SA) and Hazelwood (Vic) but that's just my guess). If that's not offset by massive investment in alternatives then the lights go out - but is anyone actually going to invest given all the uncertainty? I doubt it.

The lights could end up actually going out under this scenario...

Mortlake has a Gas 500MW station U/C right now - and with the incentive to now invest more in this type of generation, more will come along allowing a phased shut down of Hazelwood (1600MW) to occur in the medium term.

 

[trainspotter]

Mortlake has a Gas 500MW station U/C right now - and with the incentive to now invest more in this type of generation, more will come along allowing a phased shut down of Hazelwood (1600MW) to occur in the medium term.

We can but hope tayser ..... we can but hope.:aus:

 

[Aussiejeff]

Says it all really.



http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/10/us-australia-carbon-analystview-idUSTRE7690HM20110710

Lone Ranger - "What do we do now Tonto?"

Tonto - "What do you mean we white man?"

Ah, Kimosabe! You just jolted me back to 1957 - the year my parents bought our first B&W TV - and as a 6 yr old I sat mesmerised by the great masked man, his "Hi-ho Silverrrr, awaaaaay!" & his trusty sidekick Tonto (with Scout the pinto).

Ahhhh. Hours of viewing pleasure.

Thankyou!

 

[springhill]

Says it all really.



http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/10/us-australia-carbon-analystview-idUSTRE7690HM20110710

Lone Ranger - "What do we do now Tonto?"

Tonto - "What do you mean we white man?"

BOB BROWN, GREENS LEADER
"This today is a world-leading outcome. It is going to lead to better outcomes at Durban and for the next international conference on climate change."

This sums it up perfectly, these people are megalomaniacs, full of their own self-importance.

Do they honestly think because little old Oz has a carbon tax, the rest of the world will follow? Our importance in the Australasia region has seriously gone to our heads.

We will be laughed at for being the country with every advantage in the world, and threw them all away for a false ideology. The rest of the world will prey upon our competitive disadvantage.

A sad, sorry turn of events.

 

[moXJO]

Your kidding right?

100% electric cars are cheap as chips to make and are far more recyclable than conventionally powered cars...the Carbon cost to manufacture is no more than a conventional car and battery life issues can be minimised with the appropriate infrastructure roll out.

Simple NG/electric hybrids are a better alternative to 100% electric cars as most of the battery life issues are greatly minimised (talking cheap deep cycle, lead acid battery's)

All this is well known anyway...has been for 3 decades or more.

Nah I'm not so_cyn
Lead acid is too heavy

The study was commissioned by the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, which is jointly funded by the British government and the car industry. It found that a mid-size electric car would produce 23.1 tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime, compared with 24 tonnes for a similar petrol car. Emissions from manufacturing electric cars are at least 50 per cent higher because batteries are made from materials such as lithium, copper and refined silicon, which require much energy to be processed.

Many electric cars are expected to need a replacement battery after a few years. Once the emissions from producing the second battery are added in, the total CO2 from producing an electric car rises to 12.6 tonnes, compared with 5.6 tonnes for a petrol car. Disposal also produces double the emissions because of the energy consumed in recovering and recycling metals in the battery. The study also took into account carbon emitted to generate the grid electricity consumed.

Wasn't the article I read before but pressed for time.