Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Electric cars?

Would you buy an electric car?

  • Already own one

    Votes: 10 5.1%

  • Yes - would definitely buy

    Votes: 43 21.8%

  • Yes - preferred over petrol car if price/power/convenience similar

    Votes: 78 39.6%

  • Maybe - preference for neither, only concerned with costs etc

    Votes: 37 18.8%

  • No - prefer petrol car even if electric car has same price, power and convenience

    Votes: 25 12.7%

  • No - would never buy one

    Votes: 14 7.1%
  • Total voters
    197
Jump to new
]
Smurf1976 said:
Do you honestly believe that the average car or light commercial vehicle in the US gets 89 miles per gallon using gasoline or diesel?

In truth you'll find the average is around quarter of that for cars and it's even worse for light trucks. There's the point you are missing - EV's get the equivalent of 89 mpg but gasoline sure doesn't, the engine just isn't anywhere close to being efficient enough to achieve that. :2twocents
Click to expand...

I don’t think he really understands a lot of the details.

but hey he has his mind Made up, Hahaha.
 
Crunching some numbers for the Australian states based on ABS data for vehicle distance travelled in each state.

I'm taking EV electricity use as 0.2 kWh per km for cars which seems to be reasonably accepted.

For light commercial vehicles there's no single figure, and the configuration of such vehicles does vary considerably, but for simplicity I've doubled it to 0.4 kWh per km or 40 kWh per 100 km. If anything that's probably an overestimate but it'll be somewhere in the ballpark in the absence of precise data.

Following is for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles as defined by the ABS. That is, all powered road vehicles other than motorcycles, heavy trucks and buses.

Distances are total for all vehicles in that state and likewise calculated electricity required for a 100% EV fleet is for all vehicles in the state. State as defined by it's official boundaries as such.

NSW:
Passenger = 54,007 million km = 10,801 GWh
Commercial = 14,142 million km = 5,657 GWh
Total electricity required = 16,458 GWh
Electricity consumption increase = 22.7%

Victoria:
Passenger = 49,445 million km = 9,891 GWh
Commercial = 12,828 million km = 5,131 GWh
Total electricity required = 15,022 GWh
Electricity consumption increase = 32.3%

Queensland:
Passenger = 36,641 million km = 7,328 GWh
Commercial = 13,134 million km = 5,254 GWh
Total electricity required = 12,582 GWh
Electricity consumption increase = 21.4%

SA:
Passenger = 13,071 million km = 2,614 GWh
Commercial = 3,318 million km = 1,327 GWh
Total electricity required = 3,941 GWh
Electricity consumption increase = 28.6%

WA:
Passenger = 18,219 million km = 3,644 GWh
Commercial = 6,380 million km = 2,552 GWh
Total electricity required = 6,196 GWh
Electricity consumption increase = 14.5%

Tasmania:
Passenger = 4,004 million km = 801 GWh
Commercial = 1,282 million km = 513 GWh
Total electricity required = 1,314 GWh
Electricity consumption increase = 12.2%

NT:
Passenger = 1,212 million km = 242 GWh
Commercial = 706 million km = 282 GWh
Total electricity required = 524 GWh
Electricity consumption increase = 11.7%

So the required increase in electricity supply ranges from about 12% in the NT and Tasmania through to 32% in Victoria.

The difference in change between states is heavily related to current per capita electricity consumption noting that Tasmania is extremely high by global standards, it has one of the most electrified economies anywhere as well as the dominance of a number of 24/7 manufacturing loads, whereas Victoria is at the other extreme with an extremely high reliance on gas for heating purposes and a comparatively small electricity industry (per capita) as a result.

Realistically though, it doesn't seem overly difficult to achieve given there'd be 30+ years in which to do it. :2twocents
 
Smurf1976 said:
Crunching some numbers for the Australian states based on ABS data for vehicle distance travelled in each state.

I'm taking EV electricity use as 0.2 kWh per km for cars which seems to be reasonably accepted.

For light commercial vehicles there's no single figure, and the configuration of such vehicles does vary considerably, but for simplicity I've doubled it to 0.4 kWh per km or 40 kWh per 100 km. If anything that's probably an overestimate but it'll be somewhere in the ballpark in the absence of precise data.

Following is for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles as defined by the ABS. That is, all powered road vehicles other than motorcycles, heavy trucks and buses.

Distances are total for all vehicles in that state and likewise calculated electricity required for a 100% EV fleet is for all vehicles in the state. State as defined by it's official boundaries as such.

NSW:
Passenger = 54,007 million km = 10,801 GWh
Commercial = 14,142 million km = 5,657 GWh
Total electricity required = 16,458 GWh
Electricity consumption increase = 22.7%

Victoria:
Passenger = 49,445 million km = 9,891 GWh
Commercial = 12,828 million km = 5,131 GWh
Total electricity required = 15,022 GWh
Electricity consumption increase = 32.3%

Queensland:
Passenger = 36,641 million km = 7,328 GWh
Commercial = 13,134 million km = 5,254 GWh
Total electricity required = 12,582 GWh
Electricity consumption increase = 21.4%

SA:
Passenger = 13,071 million km = 2,614 GWh
Commercial = 3,318 million km = 1,327 GWh
Total electricity required = 3,941 GWh
Electricity consumption increase = 28.6%

WA:
Passenger = 18,219 million km = 3,644 GWh
Commercial = 6,380 million km = 2,552 GWh
Total electricity required = 6,196 GWh
Electricity consumption increase = 14.5%

Tasmania:
Passenger = 4,004 million km = 801 GWh
Commercial = 1,282 million km = 513 GWh
Total electricity required = 1,314 GWh
Electricity consumption increase = 12.2%

NT:
Passenger = 1,212 million km = 242 GWh
Commercial = 706 million km = 282 GWh
Total electricity required = 524 GWh
Electricity consumption increase = 11.7%

So the required increase in electricity supply ranges from about 12% in the NT and Tasmania through to 32% in Victoria.

The difference in change between states is heavily related to current per capita electricity consumption noting that Tasmania is extremely high by global standards, it has one of the most electrified economies anywhere as well as the dominance of a number of 24/7 manufacturing loads, whereas Victoria is at the other extreme with an extremely high reliance on gas for heating purposes and a comparatively small electricity industry (per capita) as a result.

Realistically though, it doesn't seem overly difficult to achieve given there'd be 30+ years in which to do it. :2twocents
Click to expand...


You can't honestly believe that all EVs have the same specifications?
 
Chronos-Plutus said:
Would you like me to start breaking down all the vehicle categories in the USA now, both electric and ICE? Get their specs and input them into the calculation.
Click to expand...
There's no need to go that far once you realise it's hard to find even one passenger car or light commercial vehicle which achieves 89 mpg or higher.

If practically every car available is far below that, it's plain commonsense that the average won't be anywhere close to 89 mpg indeed in truth it's closer to 25. :2twocents
 
Chronos-Plutus said:
You can't honestly believe that all EVs have the same specifications?
Click to expand...

Nobody would expect them to.

It is however fairly unlikely that someone's going to build one with an order of magnitude worse performance than those being made at present.

Just like not all computers have the same specifications but it's reasonable to assume that nobody's going to reinvent the Commodore 64 in 2020. Any new desktop or laptop computer will be able to run Win10 or an equivalent, that's a reasonable assumption, and it's a reasonable assumption that EV's won't be drastically worse than one you can buy today.

Even if I'm out by 50%, that's still a lot closer than expecting 89 mpg and the average car or other light vehicle traveling 60,000 Miles each year, that's 100,000km in round figures, as you've based your figures on. That's an awful lot of driving and apart from a few business users there aren't too many who drive close to 400 km each and every day 5 days a week. That certainly isn't anywhere close to normal for most vehicles. :2twocents
 
Chronos-Plutus said:
I think that you deliberately ignore the details you don't won't to accept.
Click to expand...

Mate, I own a Tesla and 99% of its charge comes directly from the solar panels on my roof, so I am quite aware of the details, and can see through the gaping holes in your arguments.
 
Smurf1976 said:
There's no need to go that far once you realise it's hard to find even one passenger car or light commercial vehicle which achieves 89 mpg or higher.

If practically every car available is far below that, it's plain commonsense that the average won't be anywhere close to 89 mpg indeed in truth it's closer to 25. :2twocents
Click to expand...

OK; so lets use your 25.

What percentage of additional electrical capacity are we going to put on top of our final figure for transmission loss, battery charge loss and vampire drain. What's a fair percentage?
 
Value Collector said:
Ok, you do you mate.

but if this is something you are interested in you need to learn a few more facts about what you are talking about, because at the moment you are way off.
Click to expand...

Not way off yet. Let's get Smurf happy with the metrics that we will input into the calculation first. Then let's talk about the energy requirements.

Awaiting a reply from Smurf now.
 
Chronos-Plutus said:
OK; so lets use your 25.

What percentage of additional electrical capacity are we going to put on top of our final figure for transmission loss, battery charge loss and vampire drain. What's a fair percentage?
Click to expand...

Do you not think petrol/gasoline has transmission loss???

It is transported around the globe on ships burning diesel to refineries, then from other ships and trucks burning diesel to distribution hubs, then on trucks again to petrol stations, and eventually pumped into a car.

Then finally used in a really inefficient way once it makes it to the cars engine.

but again I don’t think you actually want to understand that.

and exactly how much transmission loss do you think happens from the 12 meters my electricity has to travel from my roof to my car charger in my garage?

sure not 100% of electric cars are charged by onsite solar, but a lot can be.

While 0% of petrol cars are fueled by onsite oil wells.

the worst case for EV’s is about equal to petrol, however the best case for EV’s completely smashes petrol.
 
Chronos-Plutus said:
Not way off yet. Let's get Smurf happy with the metrics that we will input into the calculation first. Then let's talk about the energy requirements.

Awaiting a reply from Smurf now.
Click to expand...

I will save you the wait.

smurf is correct and you are wrong.

have a good life buddy, but improve your research skillls.
 
Value Collector said:
Do you not think petrol/gasoline has transmission loss???

It is transported around the globe on ships burning diesel to refineries, then from other ships and trucks burning diesel to distribution hubs, then on trucks again to petrol stations, and eventually pumped into a car.

Then finally used in a really inefficient way once it makes it to the cars engine.

but again I don’t think you actually want to understand that.

and exactly how much transmission loss do you think happens from the 12 meters my electricity has to travel from my roof to my car charger in my garage?
Click to expand...

I am talking about running transmission networks from solar farms in deserts to cities.

OK; we can leave the transmission loss out.

That leaves us with the electricity loss in charging the battery and a fair metric to input for vampire drain.
 
Value Collector said:
I will save you the wait.

smurf is correct and you are wrong.

have a good life buddy, but improve your research skillls.
Click to expand...

This isn't over; how can Smurf be wrong when she hasn't put a nameplate figure on the capacity that will be required?

How can I be wrong when we haven't finished yet?
 
Chronos-Plutus said:
OK; so lets use your 25.

What percentage of additional electrical capacity are we going to put on top of our final figure for transmission loss, battery charge loss and vampire drain. What's a fair percentage?
Click to expand...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien...EU,consistently for charging than discharging.
So we need to add a minimum of 20% increase to Mr @Smurf1976 figures for the charge decharge effect of ev batteries.
We should also add a few% extra losses as the charging of ev on the domestic network will not be as optimised as for the usual industrial consumers.will the network be ready?
So let's take Smurf figures that i assume correct and add 25% to include battery losses and extra transmission losses
 
qldfrog said:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544217303730#:~:text=The losses in the PEU,consistently for charging than discharging.
So we need to add a minimum of 20% increase to Mr @Smurf1976 figures for the charge decharge effect of ev batteries.
We should also add a few% extra losses as the charging of ev on the domestic network will not be as optimised as for the usual industrial consumers.will the network be ready?
So let's take Smurf figures that i assume correct and add 25% to include battery losses and extra transmission losses
Click to expand...

OK, so we add additional 25% for additional capacity.

So that leaves us with what is a fair metric for average: miles per KW/h for electric vehicles?
 
Top