This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Electric cars?

Would you buy an electric car?

  • Already own one

    Votes: 10 5.1%

  • Yes - would definitely buy

    Votes: 43 21.7%

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

    Votes: 78 39.4%

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

    Votes: 38 19.2%

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

    Votes: 25 12.6%

  • No - would never buy one

    Votes: 14 7.1%
  • Total voters
    198
Jump to new
Doesnt fit the current rhetoric, no one is listening, you should be in tune with that it is used to great effect.
Tone deaf to facts, kind of sounds familiar.
 
Tesla’s new batteries don’t contain any Cobolt, so I guess it’s not an issue if you are purchasing a Tesla.

However, of course I am against exploitation and believe it should be something that should be looked into more where ever it is happening and what ever industry it is happening in, I don’t think it is as simple as avoiding certain elements on the periodic table.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www...t-free-cathodes-mining-battery-nickel-ev-cost
 

At the moment it's just plan to make batteries without cobalt, and Tesla has been named in a lawsuit, but I guess we all use batteries and probably most use cobalt, but there are a lot of batteries in an EV.

Good on Musk if he recognises the problem, but he seems to thinks it's more an issue of cost than exploitation.
 
SirRumpole said:
At the moment it's just plan to make batteries without cobalt, and Tesla has been named in a lawsuit, but I guess we all use batteries and probably most use cobalt, but there are a lot of batteries in an EV.
Click to expand...


SirRumpole said:
Good on Musk if he recognises the problem, but he seems to thinks it's more an issue of cost than exploitation.
Click to expand...
No the battery factory producing the cobolt free batteries is already running, and these are the first batteries Tesla has actually designed and produced them selves.

the high cost is part of the problem that creates incentives to exploit all available labour to produce it.

All other batteries Tesla has used have been produced by Panasonic and LG, the cobolt free batteries are the first battery Tesla has made themselves.

but as I said I don’t think simply avoiding certain metals is the solution, child labour exists in most industries, even the steel recycling industry, I think it’s a problem and I am not sure of the solution.
 
Child labour is of course abhorrent.
However the absolute poverty that people around the world live in would mean families would starve without the income.

I'm in no way saying it should be accepted. I am saying that a whole lot needs to change so that people won't suffer more.
 
Yeah, I think helping the worlds poorest nations develop their economies should be a priority.

there is no reason why these metals can’t be mined using more capital intensive, safer ways. It just comes down to politics and investment.
 
A considerable proportion of the link below is a critque of Australia's floundering National EV policy situation. Luckly there is hope but it's not coming from the conflicted plonkers in Morrisons Cabinet....

Who’s about to get rich off the green energy revolution?

A generation of Australian entrepreneurs is readying for a carbonless future, even as the Morrison government remains stubbornly committed to gas and coal.
www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au

And for those concerned as to Child abuse, you may have a think about the dereliction of duty to the children of the children of today that the policy settings of Morrison is condeming them to in the future...scraping a bit of cobalt out of the dust just maybe preferable...
 
Land Rover to go all BEV by 2025, also sounds as though they may make their own battery plant.

Luxury car brand Jaguar to go all-electric by 2025

The company hopes the move will help turn around the fortunes of the 86-year-old Jaguar brand, which for many epitomises class but has struggled in recent years.
www.smh.com.au
From the article:
Struggling luxury car brand Jaguar will be fully electric by 2025, the British company said on Monday (UK time) as it outlined a plan to phase out internal combustion engines.
The switch to an electric future will involve moving car production from JLR’s Castle Bromwich factory east of the central England city of Birmingham to nearby Solihull.

Chief executive Thierry Bollore said the firm is “exploring opportunities to repurpose” the Castle Bromwich plant, leading to speculation it could be used for battery production.
 
It sounds as though BEV voltages are really starting to get up there, which should reduce charging current/ temperatures, therefore charging times IMO.
https://thedriven.io/2021/02/15/new...q-5-testing-at-tritium-brisbane-headquarters/
From the article:
The Ioniq 5 will be built using Hyundai’s e-GMP platform, which it has previously said it will use in its dedicated electric car range and which will be offered with a typical 400-volt electrical architecture, or in a high-performance 800-volt version for faster charger and more power.

More details of the Ioniq 5 were revealed in a leak in December that confirmed the 800-volt architecture would allow the vehicle to charge from 0-80% in as little as 15 minutes.

It is unknown whether the Ioniq 5 snapped at this charger is using the 400-volt or 800-volt architecture, but it was observed by commenters on Tritium’s Facebook post that if it were the latter, it should surely be snapped using Tritium’s 350kW ultra-fast PK350 chargers.
 
I think this idea by VW, is the only way they will be able to transition to BEV without a financial collapse, as long as the other manufacturers follow suite.

VW to introduce own "carbon tax" on cars, exempting electrics

Volkswagen to raise prices of its cars on basis of CO2 emissions, German media reports.
thedriven.io
From the article:
Volkswagen will raise the prices of its cars on the basis of the models’ CO2 emissions, Stefan Menzel writes in business daily Handelsblatt.

The Wolfsburg-based car company increases its prices annually based on inflation, but this is the first time the company adds an environmental component that leads to a differentiated price increase for the individual VW models, he writes.
 

It's clever isn't it ? It recognizes that ICE cars have an extra cost associated with them and attaches it to the selling price. I hope the idea catches on.

I suspect that the direct cost differential between ICEand EV cars will narrow very quickly and the reduce operational and maintenance costs of EV will become clearly apparent - again within a few years.
 
It is far better than attaching a tax payer funded subsidy to electric cars, but hey that doesn't fit the rhetoric. Maybe you are becoming enlightened, there may be hope after all.
The manufacturers should wear the cost of the transition, it shouldn't be something the taxpayer has to fund.
If the taxpayer wants a cheap low distance BEV, they shouldn't have to be subsidising someone who wants a Porsche Taycan.
The manufacturers will make more money out of the end product, due to less manufacturing costs, the taxpayer shouldn't have to be helping them.
It is the same as the NBN, the telecommunication companies should have been made to upgrade the copper network, meanwhile the taxpayer paid for it and now has to pay more to use it. Dumb $hit IMO.
Way too many media muppets, putting ideas into the general public muppets heads, IMO.
 
How noble of Volkswagon, the biggest fraudsters in the automotive industy.

VW have decided to put their own carbon tax on internal combustion engined vehicles and cut-out the middle man, being the government and me and you.

I hope the masses avoid Vee Dub like the plague.
 
sptrawler said:
It is far better than attaching a tax payer funded subsidy to electric cars, but hey that doesn't fit the rhetoric. Maybe you are becoming enlightened, there may be hope after all.
Click to expand...

Not sure about that SP. VW's proposal is in effect a carbon tax . They are calculating the additional CO2 emissions from ICE vehicles and putting a consumer cost to it.

In point of fact the soundest economic and environmental policy processes would ensure this carbon cost differential was applied across all products. The best economic models ensure that the government makes no money from the carbon tax but instead gives a carbon tax refund to people who minimise their use of fossil fuels.

In fact this proposal was put forward by Republicans in the US but also supported in principle by many Democrats. The first story examines in detail how this would work and why it makes sense environmentally and economically.

Carbon Tax & Revenue Recycling: Revenue, Economic, & Distributional Implications

The purpose of a carbon tax is to price carbon emissions to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and mitigate the effects of climate change.
taxfoundation.org

Refundable Carbon Tax - Not Perfect, But Good Enough​


Joseph Thorndike Contributor
Tax Notes
Contributor Group

Taxes
I’m a historian, a regular columnist for Tax Notes magazine, and a writer for the Tax Notes blog.

Carbon taxes are toxic, at least to most Republicans. But recently, a handful of GOP wise men, including several former Treasury secretaries, offered a challenge to party orthodoxy. Their plan? To impose a new carbon tax but refund the money to taxpayers before politicians get a chance to spend it.

Refundable Carbon Tax - Not Perfect, But Good Enough

Carbon taxes are toxic, at least to most Republicans. But recently, a handful of GOP wise men, including several former Treasury secretaries, offered a challenge to party orthodoxy.
www.forbes.com
 
No they are actually going to put the cost of their vehicles up, so it is up to the general public, if they want to pay more.
The other option is, the Government gives taxpayers money as an incentive, to buy VW BEV product.
I know which I'm happier with, obviously we see things differently.
 
basilio said:
Not sure about that SP. VW's proposal is in effect a carbon tax . They are calculating the additional CO2 emissions from ICE vehicles and putting a consumer cost to it.
Click to expand...
Well all the vested interests would think that way.
In reality VW is increasing the cost of their product to cover the cost of transitioning to BEV's, the consumer doesn't have to buy their product therefore the consumer has a choice.
If a taxpayer funded concession is given to VW, to supply BEV's the consumer doesn't have a choice, they pay anyway through their subsidies.
But like I've said, we see things from polar opposites, I do mind who my money gets handed out to, mine was hard earned.
 
"No", they are going to put up the cost of their ICE vehicles based on the cars CO2 emmissions. That is a carbon tax. You posted the article, did you read it?

Interestingly to me, we actually see some things the same. I agree with not subsidising electric vehicles. From what I have seen in the solar panel industry, the "sunny" companies pocket the subsidy that is supposed to flow on to the end consumer.
 
The consumer has the choice whether to buy the more expensive VW ICE car, or any other make of car VW aren't the only manufacturer available, therefore the choice is completely in the hands of the consumer.
I would expect VW are going to option up their ICE car, to make the extra cost worthwhile, which in turn increases the profit margin on the car which then goes to the development of their BEV.
If VW or any other manufacturer is going to manage the transition from a product they have been making for a century, to a completely new product, while still fully supporting the old product there will be huge losses involved somewhere.
What VW are suggesting makes sense, if the Government starts handing out tax payer subsidies for BEV's, all that happens is the manufacturers just keep stamping out the same product.
Then the change over has to be forced by increasing tax on fossil fuels, registrations etc, which in the end just costs the taxpayer twice as much.
By the way I did read it that's why I posted it, I don't give a ratz ar$e if it's a carbon tax, as long as I don't have to pay it if I don't chose to buy a VW.
I will drive my current car untill it suits me to change over to a BEV, that will be when I can charge it during the day and run the house off it overnight.
Just my opinion
 
Last edited:
sptrawler said:
I would expect VW are going to option up their ICE car, to make the extra cost worthwhile, which in turn increases the profit margin on the car which then goes to the development of their BEV.
Click to expand...
Far dinkum, that sounds like something Scotty from marketing would say. You could get a job with VW with that spin.

Anyway, I generally agree with you accept where the only form of socialism you like is when the recipient is a company and not a person.
 
Not really, I see socialism where someone who doesn't drive a car or own a car, has to pay taxes so someone who does gets a cheaper car. That is completely immoral to me.

If VW wants to charge more, that's fine those who want the badge pay for it, why you think the taxpayer is funding that I don't understand.
I would actually think it would reduce VW sales, so I don't even understand why you think it is good marketing, obviously a completely different take on things.

Like I said we see things differently, I don't think I'm right, or your right, just a different way of seeing the same issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...