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
Your chart graphic was based off 4 months data - Jan to end-April. However it actually showed the percentage change over the same 4 months in 2020, as you can see here:

I used an industry site with information for the year to December. I could not access their data as I am not a paid subscriber, so I don't know why they placed BYD third, but they did.
I used the CATL percentage change of 3400% to show how quickly the NEV scene changes, not BYD data.
My previously posted table here may be more accurate, but I cannot be sure.
So based on the Chinese language table above and the fact that BYD sold only 15% of their cars in the period to April, the question is did the other 85% lead to them overtaking Panasonic in the period to December?
I am not aware if data is freely available to be definitive, so without it I am simply saying it was not impossible for BYD to catch up. Perhaps you can actually stump up with enough apples to compare, as until then the jury is out or, in your parlance, "I need more facts."
JohnDe said:
Any other source besides a YouTube video?
Click to expand...
Yes
BYD makes its own chips.
 

Not sure what you mean by that.

It doesn't matter where a business is located if it is important enough there will be industrial spy's. However, there are ways to protect intellectual property and business secrets.

Where China got a leg up in the industrial and technical world was by allowing companies to set up in China on condition that the Chinese government becomes part owner of the factory.

Tesla did not have to comply with that rule. This makes it much easier to protect their intellectual property.

Tesla’s Gigafactory 3 in Shanghai is 100% owned by Tesla, an American company, and this is an incredibly big deal. “I think that something that’s quite noteworthy here is Tesla’s the only foreign manufacturer to have a 100% owned factory in China,”

Tesla's 100% American Owned Factory In China Is A Big Deal - CleanTechnica

Tesla's factory in China is 100% owned by Tesla and is the only foreign owned factory in China--this is is a big deal and here's why.
cleantechnica.com
 
I guess so.
Do they use a fly in fly out workforce?
 
qldfrog said:
The part about the storage capacity of the total Tesla megafactory batteries vs total grid usage in US is scary if true.
And this is before moving to EVs
Click to expand...
Batteries in their present form are great for power, terrible for energy.

For those not familiar with correct terms there, power is the equivalent of how fast you are going or how much you are paid per hour of work whilst energy could be compared to the distance you have travelled or how much you have earned in total.

According to this: https://electrek.co/2020/11/24/tesla-first-battery-cell-factory-produce-up-to-250-gwh/

Present world production capacity is about 250 GWh per annum and demand will reach 2000 GWh per annum by 2030. That's global.

Putting that into perspective, Tasmania's hydro system stores nominally 14,400 GWh if filled to 100% and that's based on conservative engineering assumptions - a bit more can be squeezed out in an emergency if desperately needed.

Over the past 24 hours total energy for Australia's NEM and SWIS systems, which combined are the power grids serving the vast majority of Australia's population and industry, generated 629 GWh.

So batteries work nicely for peak power and they're good enough to power cars and so on but they're nowhere near economic for bulk energy storage, something which hydro does vastly cheaper and with comparable technical efficiency.

Hence on the power grid side well AEMO's dropping the bomb publicly today with the updated Integrated System Plan. In short as a very brief summary:

Total electricity load up 100% by 2050 at a minimum. Under some scenarios that growth is 300%

Coal gone completely by 2040 and most of it well before then. Victorian coal industry gone completely by 2032

Massive scaling up of wind farms in particular. Also solar farms and rooftop solar.

EV's projected to be 58% of the total vehicle fleet in 2040

Net zero by 2050 with electricity sector emissions almost gone by 2040

Most short duration storage from batteries - households, EV's and grid batteries

Deep storage is vital to the whole plan and that's large scale hydro not batteries

Extensive new transmission projects needed

Time is the big risk. There's a lot to get done, some of which takes years to build, and not a lot of time in which to do it.

It's intentionally a non-political plan but it does ultimately rip the rug out from under all political parties to some extent and lays bare the brutal reality of the energy situation, the transition required and the extreme urgency of it after years of delays due to politics.

For those on the far Right - net zero is a goer yes, there's no future in coal indeed it's closing completely and permanently. Petrol, diesel and gas are ultimately going too.

For those to the far Left - hydro, wind farms and transmission are all part of the future so it's time to learn to love them.

That's a major body of work and announcement from AEMO today, it's not simply my personal opinion.
 
sptrawler said:
I guess so.
Do they use a fly in fly out workforce?
Click to expand...

I am naive when it comes to stealing design technology from a automotive factory. I do believe that it would not be easy, otherwise we would see it on the roads, and I also know that companies reverse engineer their competitions products. Ford Australia did it with the BMW X5, purchased two and stripped them down to help design the Ford Territory.
 
Agree %100 but the bit where you claim that bhp nickel dont despoil the air was my point.
If you have ever worked in nickel you will never forget the smell
 
The only thing that wouldn't be easy is the software, but we aren't talking automotive here BEV's really aren't 'automotive' as we know it, we are talking an electrical distributive control systems operating electric motors, there are no radiators, clutches, gearboxes, driveshafts, differentials etc. there are a one or two electric motors being driven by probably a thyrister speed contoller
This isn't new by any means and is used in all sorts of industries, so any initial gains tesla have had by being ahead of the curve, will very quickly be chased down, all they have to do is find out what the Tesla can do then write code to replicate it.
It is a bit like Apple and Microsoft, they both do an excellent job, to think either is going to leave the other in it's wake would be a risky assumption.
The problem the legacy manufacturers have that Tesla doesn't, is the same as the established electrical power generators have, they have to support old technology while trying to also develop new technology, new entrants in the field don't have that baggage.
The Chinese don't have the problem either, because they are under authoritarian control, the greater good comes before the business outcome. So my guess is all ICE development and funding has stopped and all resources are being focused on BEV, they might not catch up with Tesla, but I wouldn't be prepared to put money on it.
 
JohnDe said:
What about torque?

EVs eat ICE for breakfast
Click to expand...
Absolutely, no argument there.

My comment was specifically about batteries however, responding to another which noted the global manufacturing capacity and compared it to overall electricity use and in that context batteries are still very limited. They're good enough for cars but they won't hold the electricity grid up during a week of cloudy weather without much wind.

That is, they're a great source of peak power and mobile storage but not for bulk energy storage.

So it depends on the application.

Back to the AEMO ISP though, some scenarios do put EV's at up to 99% of the fleet by 2050 and even the lowest one puts it at 36%.

Whilst the ISP is about the power grid not EV's specifically, I've mentioned it here since it crosses over. First because EV's are a big part of the changes going forward driving higher total electricity use and second because arguments against EV's on the basis that they're using power from coal simply aren't going to be valid since coal's near its end regardless.

So it's sort-of separate but not really, the two are joined in many ways in practice. The ability to use renewable energy being one motivator for EV's in the first place and at the same time, having EV's makes it easier to deploy renewable energy. So they're tied together at least partially.
 
First, hydrogen was not mentioned in your post.
Second, there is no way on present trend the NEV take up will be as low as AEMO report. Unless there is something we presently do not know, by 2030 ICE manufacture will cease except for very, very small niche markets. By 2040 residual ownership of ICE vehicles will be in the single digits.
Third battery technologies are still nascent, so this sector will only get more efficient and effective over time.
Fourth, dams don't fill overnight, so as batteries accumulate so will capacity.
Fifth, an essential element of intermittent energy is a requirement to build significant excess capacity in order to accommodate deficient output and have storage mediums available to it. This latter aspect is a huge field (eg., gravity or flow batteries, hydrogen gas or solid state, flywheels, thermal materials, pumped hydro, and compressed air) that has not really needed tapping because we have more than adequate FF backup.
My thinking is that hydrogen will be the biggest winner because a lot of the northern hemisphere is already configured to "gas" so there is a framework and familiarity. However, there's so much happening on the technological side of things that maybe something else will beat everything I have listed.
 
Humid said:
Agree %100 but the bit where you claim that bhp nickel dont despoil the air was my point.
If you have ever worked in nickel you will never forget the smell
Click to expand...
What I said was in response to another forum member who was claiming that mining battery materials have a larger impact than oil drilling and refining, what I said was in the context to the claim he was making, I said this.
if you take a look at BHP nickel mine for example, they aren’t despoiling rivers and the air as you claim

Meaning it isn’t creating bigger impact than the tech it is replacing, I actually said we all know it has an impact, I wasn’t saying there is no impact.

As I pointed out, oil refineries exist in most cities, BHP’s nickel mine is a global asset.
 
IMO hydrogen will be the biggest because of energy density, versatility, ease of manufacture and absolutely no residual waste.
Once we can get the production cost down, it will be the perfect fuel IMO.
 
Just not Australian ones anymore
 
Average lifespan of a car in Australia is about 20 years. For heavy rigid trucks it's about 30 years.

So 5 - 10% of the 2040 car fleet, and a third of the heavy rigid truck fleet, has already been manufactured and runs on diesel / petrol.

Bearing in mind that ICE's are still being manufactured, and still account for the overwhelming majority of new vehicle sales, it's a given that they'll still be a substantial portion of the fleet in 2040.
 
JohnDe said:
I got confused with the threads topic -

Electric cars​

Click to expand...
Main reason I've referred to the AEMO ISP is that whilst EV's aren't its main focus it's a credible document, one that does have serious implications in the broader sense, and it dispels the biggest myths around whether or not this is happening.

It's quite clear - it's happening in the near future and the often cited argument against EV's that they're powered by coal simply isn't likely to be the case in practice.

It'll take a long time for them to disappear from the roads completely but the days of seeing new ICE cars in showrooms are nearing their end. A point is fast approaching where if you say you're buying a new car, nobody will ask if it's electric much like today if you said you're buying a new phone nobody asks if it's a mobile. Of course it is.
 
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...