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
The good, the bad and the ugly of Teslas.


After viewing,my feelings are :dicks will be dicks,
whether you are a gold chains wearing Mafioso in a Maserati doing the rounds in Noosa or a hipster cool BTC "green" billionaire in a such a Tesla....
Manufacturers caring for their moronic overcashed audience.And we are supposed to save the planet?
africa population 100m in 1900, 650m in 1990, 2.5 billions projected in 2050...
Ev are great technologies but do zip for this poor old earth.
And i think it is actually relevant as the narrative behind EV is so twisted.
 
The Rivian pick up sounds as though it has some serious battery storage.
https://www.couriermail.com.au/moto...t/news-story/065e2ba9558cb6cf1b679f4eedfe3283
From the article:
Rivian claims its R1T will have some pretty impressive performance. The truck will tow up to 4500kg and have a claimed range of up to 640km.

The good news for Aussie tradies is that it’s expected to be sold in Australia.

The Rivian R1T will be available in several variants including with a 135kWh or 180kWh battery pack, with respective theoretical range of 500km and 640km.

All are all-wheel drive — electric motors power each wheel, with torque vectoring to ensure optimum grip.

Power figures vary with specification: the smaller battery makes 563kW/1120Nm and the larger battery pack prioritises range over power, making 522kW/1120Nm.

The ute will have an 800kg payload and a wading depth of up to a metre.
 
Andrew Forrest thinks BEV's will be a stop gap, until H2 fuel cell cars and infrastructure are installed, which kind of is what we have been saying on this thread.
From the article:
But hydrogen isn’t without its problems, as Mr Forrest noted in his lecture.

Similar to how a Tesla is only as green as the fuel you use to charge it, hydrogen is only as good as the fuel you use to produce it.

“Right now, we don’t use it for energy, it’s just an ingredient used in industrial processes, and we make it from fossil fuels – quaintly calling it grey hydrogen, to hide the fact that it’s a pollutant,” Mr Forrest said.

“Green hydrogen – the good stuff – is virtually ignored by the economic world.
We’re missing a colossal opportunity.”

Mr Forrest reckons a properly harnessed green hydrogen industry using renewable sources for production could generate revenues “at the very least of $US12 trillion ($A15.5 trillion) a year by 2050, bigger than any industry we have”.

Our “technology-led” Asian neighbours in Japan, Korea and China “have together pledged to put almost 8 million hydrogen fuel cell cars on the road”, and “Australia, with characteristic luck, is sitting on everything it needs to be the world leader – but only if it acts fast,” Mr Forrest said.

He added that although the Federal Government hasn’t committed to a zero emissions target by 2050 (and has also dragged its feet long enough for any eventual commitment to be largely symbolic: All of the states and territories now have their own targets), it is still “investing 300 million dollars in hydrogen”.

But Mr Forrest thinks it won’t even take until 2050 thanks to the same economic system that made him a billionaire.

“Forget 2050 – zero emissions will begin to happen overnight. That’s how capitalism works – you can predict that too,” he said
.
 
Andrew Forrest thinks BEV's will be a stop gap, until H2 fuel cell cars and infrastructure are installed, which kind of is what we have been saying on this thread.
From the article:
But hydrogen isn’t without its problems, as Mr Forrest noted in his lecture.

Similar to how a Tesla is only as green as the fuel you use to charge it, hydrogen is only as good as the fuel you use to produce it.

“Right now, we don’t use it for energy, it’s just an ingredient used in industrial processes, and we make it from fossil fuels – quaintly calling it grey hydrogen, to hide the fact that it’s a pollutant,” Mr Forrest said.

“Green hydrogen – the good stuff – is virtually ignored by the economic world.
We’re missing a colossal opportunity.”

Mr Forrest reckons a properly harnessed green hydrogen industry using renewable sources for production could generate revenues “at the very least of $US12 trillion ($A15.5 trillion) a year by 2050, bigger than any industry we have”.

Our “technology-led” Asian neighbours in Japan, Korea and China “have together pledged to put almost 8 million hydrogen fuel cell cars on the road”, and “Australia, with characteristic luck, is sitting on everything it needs to be the world leader – but only if it acts fast,” Mr Forrest said.

He added that although the Federal Government hasn’t committed to a zero emissions target by 2050 (and has also dragged its feet long enough for any eventual commitment to be largely symbolic: All of the states and territories now have their own targets), it is still “investing 300 million dollars in hydrogen”.

But Mr Forrest thinks it won’t even take until 2050 thanks to the same economic system that made him a billionaire.

“Forget 2050 – zero emissions will begin to happen overnight. That’s how capitalism works – you can predict that too,” he said
.
Andrew Forrest thinks BEV's will be a stop gap, until H2 fuel cell cars and infrastructure are installed, which kind of is what we have been saying on this thread.
From the article:
But hydrogen isn’t without its problems, as Mr Forrest noted in his lecture.

Similar to how a Tesla is only as green as the fuel you use to charge it, hydrogen is only as good as the fuel you use to produce it.

“Right now, we don’t use it for energy, it’s just an ingredient used in industrial processes, and we make it from fossil fuels – quaintly calling it grey hydrogen, to hide the fact that it’s a pollutant,” Mr Forrest said.

“Green hydrogen – the good stuff – is virtually ignored by the economic world.
We’re missing a colossal opportunity.”

Mr Forrest reckons a properly harnessed green hydrogen industry using renewable sources for production could generate revenues “at the very least of $US12 trillion ($A15.5 trillion) a year by 2050, bigger than any industry we have”.

Our “technology-led” Asian neighbours in Japan, Korea and China “have together pledged to put almost 8 million hydrogen fuel cell cars on the road”, and “Australia, with characteristic luck, is sitting on everything it needs to be the world leader – but only if it acts fast,” Mr Forrest said.

He added that although the Federal Government hasn’t committed to a zero emissions target by 2050 (and has also dragged its feet long enough for any eventual commitment to be largely symbolic: All of the states and territories now have their own targets), it is still “investing 300 million dollars in hydrogen”.

But Mr Forrest thinks it won’t even take until 2050 thanks to the same economic system that made him a billionaire.

“Forget 2050 – zero emissions will begin to happen overnight. That’s how capitalism works – you can predict that too,” he said
.
There will be a place for hydrogen, But Battery EV’s only going to grow in number, they are just far to convenient for the vast majority of people.

Once you own a BEV, going back to a model that requires you to go to the petrol station is a step backwards not forwards, especially for people that want to utilise their own solar production.

———————
Industrial use of hydrogen, synthetic liquid fuels, energy storage, etc etc will be good uses of hydrogen.

But, I challenge anyone to drive an EV for 6 months charging at home to see whether they want to start attending the petrol station again, I doubt any sane person would, to many moving parts in the hydrogen production and transport model for it to ever compete with simply charging at home.
 
There will be a place for hydrogen, But Battery EV’s only going to grow in number, they are just far to convenient for the vast majority of people.

Once you own a BEV, going back to a model that requires you to go to the petrol station is a step backwards not forwards, especially for people that want to utilise their own solar production.

———————
Industrial use of hydrogen, synthetic liquid fuels, energy storage, etc etc will be good uses of hydrogen.

But, I challenge anyone to drive an EV for 6 months charging at home to see whether they want to start attending the petrol station again, I doubt any sane person would, to many moving parts in the hydrogen production and transport model for it to ever compete with simply charging at home.
A lot will depend on who makes money out of selling what, the BEV makes a lot of sense, but there isn't a lot of money to be made out of them for the fuel companies.
Who knows they may and start to make green hydrogen and supply both BEV's and H2 at servo's, time will tell, but I think it will be a long time if ever before H2 takes over from BEV for passenger vehicles.
Our next vehicle will be a BEV, it would suit our needs well.
 
Who knows they may and start to make green hydrogen and supply both BEV's and H2 at servo's
FWIW There was a concept around very early this century for hydrogen vehicles which did assume the hydrogen would be produced on-site at the servo from electrolysis.

I might even still have the documents (on paper) which went with it, complete with mockup images of the servos with electricity company branding.
 
FWIW There was a concept around very early this century for hydrogen vehicles which did assume the hydrogen would be produced on-site at the servo from electrolysis.

.

Much better to just be charging BEVs at that point, rather that suffer all the losses of Electrolysis and compression.

@sptrawler - A lot will depend on who makes money out of selling what, the BEV makes a lot of sense, but there isn't a lot of money to be made out of them for the fuel companies.

I think the Electricity companies, especially the renewables generators looking to unload excess power can make a lot of money charging cars especially if they convince their customers to install smart chargers that they control.
 
This article talks about Hydrogen it mentions the energy losses in compression, these are losses on top of the 20%+ losses that happen during the actual electrolysis step producing the hydrogen, there is even more energy loss on top of compression if the ambient temps mean that cooling is required.

from the article - Currently, hydrogen is typically compressed by a reciprocal compressor. At the flow rates and pressures for 1,000 kg/day hydrogen refueling stations, these compressors can achieve an isentropic efficiency of about 56% and a motor efficiency of 92% [5]. Using these values, the H2A Delivery Scenario Model (HDSAM) projects a refueling station compression energy efficiency of 52% to fill 350 and 49% for 700 bar vehicles.

https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/9013_energy_requirements_for_hydrogen_gas_compression.pdf
 
I think the Electricity companies, especially the renewables generators looking to unload excess power can make a lot of money charging cars especially if they convince their customers to install smart chargers that they control.

That would only work for consumers if there were enough electricity companies around to provide proper competition.

I posted this in another thread that shows that competition in the retail electricity sector is a myth.

 
That would only work for consumers if there were enough electricity companies around to provide proper competition.

I posted this in another thread that shows that competition in the retail electricity sector is a myth.


My comment was about whether there was profit to be made from it for the electric companies (since that was what SP was referring to), I wasn't actually commenting on whether it is good for the consumer.

However, longterm prices can't drop below the basic cost of supplying the service for long, so they consumers have a better chance of getting a better deal with the technology that has the lowest on going cost, and at the moment that would be charging BEVs because the hydrogen system has exactly the same cost inputs as charging, except it has added steps which increase the costs and higher installation costs for equipment.
 
The thing is with the change over to BEV's, there isn't a huge benefit ATM for the consumer, so eventually it has to become the carrot or the stick to accelerate change. Then the consumer will benefit, currently the only benefit is for the generators, so they have to get the cart before the horse.
My guess is the change will happen very rapidly, over the next 3-5 years, as the coal generators become less and less cost effective and less reliable due to increased cycling of the units.
As we posted in the power thread, the only coal fired power station in W.A that is privately owned, have the youngest units on the grid and have already been written down to zero value, so either the generators get out or adapt.
 
Much better to just be charging BEVs at that point, rather that suffer all the losses of Electrolysis and compression.
Agreed from a technical perspective certainly.

From a business perspective though, the electricity companies will ultimately aim to supply whatever the market decides it wants be that efficient or inefficient technically.

There's plenty of precedents for inefficient technical approaches ending up the way something is done in practice.

A lot of freight travels further than it needs to for example. Technically inefficient but efficient from a business perspective.

If you're reading this on a desktop or laptop PC then most likely it's running an operating system that's notoriously inefficient technically but it works pretty well and dominates the market.

Incandescent lighting was outmoded in the 1930's so far as efficiency is concerned but continued to expand greatly for decades beyond that.

Etc. Lots of examples where the inefficient approach won. The energy industry will go whichever way consumers and car manufacturers go. :2twocents
 
My guess is the change will happen very rapidly, over the next 3-5 years, as the coal generators become less and less cost effective and less reliable due to increased cycling of the units.
As we posted in the power thread, the only coal fired power station in W.A that is privately owned, have the youngest units on the grid and have already been written down to zero value, so either the generators get out or adapt.

Some wind and solar's gone to waste for most of the day today.

Anyone in Vic or SA who charged an EV (or for that matter used electricity for anything else) anytime in the past 8.5 hours has in practice added zero CO2 emissions.

Doesn't happen every day but it does happen and just ending now.

That doesn't mean no fossil fuel power in the grid, it means the marginal source was wind / solar with some of that going to waste. You use more = wind or solar turned up slightly, no change in amount of fossil fuel burned therefore your contribution to emissions would have been zero.

That's very much a day by day, indeed hour by hour, situation but it certainly does occur and happened today. Market spot prices negative during this time too by the way. :2twocents
 
Agreed from a technical perspective certainly.

From a business perspective though, the electricity companies will ultimately aim to supply whatever the market decides it wants be that efficient or inefficient technically.

There's plenty of precedents for inefficient technical approaches ending up the way something is done in practice.

A lot of freight travels further than it needs to for example. Technically inefficient but efficient from a business perspective.

If you're reading this on a desktop or laptop PC then most likely it's running an operating system that's notoriously inefficient technically but it works pretty well and dominates the market.

Incandescent lighting was outmoded in the 1930's so far as efficiency is concerned but continued to expand greatly for decades beyond that.

Etc. Lots of examples where the inefficient approach won. The energy industry will go whichever way consumers and car manufacturers go. :2twocents
The market is pretty brutal in penalising high cost producers when there is a cheaper simpler model.

if hydrogen system was already installed, I agree with you it would be hard to replace even if another system was more efficient.

but the hydrogen infrastructure is not installed yet, but almost everything you need for Bevs is already installed, and relatively few new charging location need to be installed compared to how many hydrogen locations would have to be installed.
 
Top