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
I wouldn't describe it as owning shares in the government, share holders (and the debt holders) would be being paid a return for the capital they contribute, but where you are correct is that a nuclear power plant would have alot of government control, and the government would be taking some risk, because there is no insurance company in the world that could provide full comprehensive insurance to a nuclear power plant, so the tail risk would need to be underwritten by the government, who would probably want something out of the deal.

Buying government bonds is certainly a form of "investing in the Government", but it is certainly not socialism. It might fund social schemes such as hospitals, but its not socialism, and neither would a nuclear power plant, at least not any more than a Toll road owner is socialism, in fact its kind of the opposite of socialism.
 
Last edited:
Tesla Model 3 owners got quite a large update to the cars software today, Which also included a little Xmas Holiday bonus light show.

 
The reason I see it as socialism is simply that it's intentional wealth redistribution.

Taking the UK's Hinkley Point C (under construction) as an example:

Plant revenue per unit of production once complete is as agreed with government and indexed to inflation.

Debt acquired by the company to finance the project is guaranteed by government.

Insurance is provided by government at taxpayers' expense over and above the plant's agreed revenue per unit of output.

There is no intention that the operation will be profitable, a point known and accepted prior to commencement.

The major risk carried by investors is that of government defaulting on the deal either outright or by some backdoor method.

I'll accept technically perhaps that isn't socialism but it sure isn't something free market capitalism would do without the taxpayer funds being available.

Cost of the plant is expected to come in at about £22 billion so just over $40 billion AUD.

Getting a fair way away from EV's directly however....
 
It's still 100% capitalism, even though it is not totally "free market", capitalism doesn't have to be a free market in all situations, it a bit like a five cent piece is a coin, but not all coins are 5 cent pieces.

Basically if the nations productive capital is mostly held by private entities on a for profit basis, its capitalism, even some prisons in the USA are privately owned, as are parts of the military, thats a move towards capitalism, not away from it, But thats a chat for another thread.
 
average capacity of a nuclear plant "444 civilian fission reactors in the world, with a combined electrical capacity of 396 gigawatt (GW" so tad below 1GW per reactor with 85% use due to maintenance, etc
ok so at most one GW
solar energy per sqr meter in australia 1.5 MWh (https://arena.gov.au/assets/2013/08/Chapter-10-Solar-Energy.pdf)
from that source:I quote"
Australia receives an average of 58 million PJ of solar
radiation per year (BoM 2009), approximately 10 000
times larger than its total energy consumption of 5772
PJ in 2007–08 (ABARE 2009a). Theoretically, then, if
only 0.1 per cent of the incoming radiation could be
converted into usable energy at an efficiency of 10 per
cent, all of Australia’s energy needs could be supplied
by solar energy. Similarly, the energy falling on a solar
farm covering 50 km by 50 km would be sufficient to
meet all of Australia’s electricity needs"
so 2500sqr km receiving 5772 PJ means 1PJ per 0.4 sqr km
1PJ is roughly 275GW so a 1GW reactor could be replaced by solar farm 0.4/275 sqr km- or 1455sqr meter of panels!!
That seems ridiculously small:
a nuclear plant or 39*39m of panels?
If they did not include panel efficiency (low at 20% max..let's use 10%
just 10 small 40x40 meters of PV farm would produce the same amount of energy as a nuclear reactor here in Oz and use less floor space
That is a lot of Tesla charged....
 
qldfrog said:
I saw thaf oneand thought..should i share it?
Then had a bit of pity for the innovators.i do actually like EVs...
Click to expand...
When a bloke set fire to a Jeep because he was pizzed off, it was all over the news, I guess a different set of journalistic rules get applied when it is a Tesla. Lol
 
sptrawler said:
When a bloke set fire to a Jeep because he was pizzed off, it was all over the news, I guess a different set of journalistic rules get applied when it is a Tesla. Lol
Click to expand...
Actually, what the guy did was getting paid for blowing it up, otherwise the most money earning option vs buying a new set of batteries or trading his anchor vs a soon to be anchor
 
qldfrog said:
Actually, what the guy did was getting paid for blowing it up, otherwise the most money earning option vs buying a new set of batteries or trading his anchor vs a soon to be anchor
Click to expand...
Pure $analysis.i doubt he or anyone else will be able to do it again...
 
Listen only if you don't mind being ripped a new @55h0le

 
wayneL said:
Listen only if you don't mind being ripped a new @55h0le

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I can't watch this guy. His attempt of extreme Aussie ockerism grates me to the core. His humorous whinging is overshadowed by his anger at his former employers. His videos are always twice as long as they should be, and his occasional attempts at click bait using woman is amateurish.

Show me someone with less of a chip on their shoulder, please.
 
Well, I have a few challenges with some of his messages too.

However I think his arguments are mostly objective... mostly.

In my opinion one must look past ones challenges with the delivery, and look at the objective information.

I for one, find the delivery amusing... Mostly because not being an ocker, the piss taking is right on the ******* mark.

Occasionally I can even see myself in there and have a good laugh.

So, dude, if you have an objective argument with what he is saying, please present it.
 
I agree, he is super hard to watch, and the times I have pushed through his BS intros to try and find out what he is actually saying I found all his arguments either have rather simple rebuttals or are just nonsense straw man arguments that we have talked about on this thread a million times.

Of course he appeals to the kind of folks that like the status quo, and fear change though.

I can already tell from the intro that he is going to go with the argument that because something isn't perfect, its not worth making a change, eg unless something is completely zero fossil fuels and zero impact to make, then its not worth changing from the 100% fossil fuel models.

They normally want to focus on the steadily reducing coal used to charge EV's, rather than the rapidly growing amounts of Renewables used, they want to focus on the impacts of mining the materials used to make EV's, but choose to ignore the impacts of making regular cars and their fuel, and the fact that the battery materials are recycled and may end up being used for generations.

-------------------------------
If I had to make a guess, I believe this guys biggest problem with Tesla is that it is messing with his core business that he advertises at the start of every video, he "helps you get new cars cheap" but he can't help you buy a Tesla, because they are direct to consumer, So he can't earn a fee from a Tesla sale.
 

Well I don't know how anyone can claim to be or not to be an Ocker. It is usually a term given to you, not claimed.

I happen to know quite a few through my business and my travels, none are so grating as one that tries too hard.
 
Value Collector said:
This video addresses his claims, and has links to the actual scientific studies in the description.

Click to expand...
Some great points in a country by country analysis. But I think the pertinent point as far as the video is concerned, is in relation to Australia.

if we are genuine about reducing overall emissions then we must look at the situation here, and not in Iceland or wherever. Therefore,EVs may increase emissions in our country even if they would reduce emissions in another country.

That would be counterproductive.

As ever, the situation is always far more complicated than the narrative suggests, notwithstanding arguments about the actual narrative.

Thusly, Cadogan's argument as far as Australia is concerned is probably spot on.
 
JohnDe said:
Well I don't know how anyone can claim to be or not to be an Ocker. It is usually a term given to you, not claimed.

I happen to know quite a few through my business and my travels, none are so grating as one that tries too hard.
Click to expand...
Noted, though my request for objective argument, objective argument is completely absent.
 
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...