Electric cars?

[JohnDe]

Everyone knows the equation wth panels. The (subsidized) cost can be paid off in 5 to 8 years.

If it was that simple with EVs, everyone, from Elon Musk down, would be falling over themselves to demonstrate the case.

'Poorer' folks see current EVs as Reverse Robin Hood, and they're right.

As for the the batteries, they're going on fire in the container ships on the way to dealerships!

Not sure who the "reverse Robin Hood" is here. I didn't receive any subsidies when I purchased my EV last year. My partner and I work hard, invest our savings and decided to purchase an EV.

EV ownership is not "that simple", yet. Just like the first combustion engine vehicles were unaffordable to the masses, until mass production created cheaper models. EV's are the same, they are getting cheaper as we watch the news.

The fire on the containership, yes that was a bad situation, almost as bad as







9 of the Biggest Oil Spills in History

 

[Value Collector]

Do you have anything, anything at all to back up that statement?

Energy security?
And where do you think all the solar panels, the wind turbines, the generators, and of course all he EV's come from?
None of it manufactured in Australia.
Mick

Which statement did you want me to back up?

Yes some of the renewable energy equipment is manufactured overseas, but once it’s installed it’s here producing for a very long time, we don’t have to rely on weekly imports which are subject to interruptions and wild price fluctuations.

Eg. I charged my car today using sunshine captured by panels that were installed 4 years ago, it won’t be interrupted by Putin.

 

[Value Collector]

Everyone knows the equation wth panels. The (subsidized) cost can be paid off in 5 to 8 years.

If it was that simple with EVs, everyone, from Elon Musk down, would be falling over themselves to demonstrate the case.

'Poorer' folks see current EVs as Reverse Robin Hood, and they're right.

As for the the batteries, they're going on fire in the container ships on the way to dealerships!

The higher the fuel price and the higher the inflation adjusted cost of maintaining an Ice car the faster the Ev pays for itself.

 

[Value Collector]

If it’s the air pollution statement you want information on, here it is.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW 2016, Begg 2007) has estimated that about 3000 deaths (equivalent to about 28,000 years of life lost) are attributable to urban air pollution in Australia each year (Figure ATM29). The health costs from mortality alone are estimated to be in the order of $11–24 billion per year

Health impacts of air pollution

The major aim of monitoring and reducing air pollution is to reduce its adverse impacts on human health. Other aims are to prevent loss of amenity—for example, because of poor visibility or offensive odour, damage to vegetation, and corrosion of buildings and other infrastructure.

soe.environment.gov.au

 

[rederob]

Everyone knows the equation wth panels. The (subsidized) cost can be paid off in 5 to 8 years.

The subsidised cost can be paid off in 3-4 years.
The unsubsidised cost in 5 -6 depending where you live.

If it was that simple with EVs, everyone, from Elon Musk down, would be falling over themselves to demonstrate the case.

What planet are you on? Elon Musk is splashed across more social media relating to cars than anyone. In fact, some very successful YouTube channels live entirely from plugging Teslas.

'Poorer' folks see current EVs as Reverse Robin Hood, and they're right.

Poorer folk should buy EVs as their lifetime running costs are substantially less than ICEVs and their resale value is nothing short of fantastic.

As for the the batteries, they're going on fire in the container ships on the way to dealerships!

You live in the past. My brother in law tried the same arguments on me until I showed him comparative data.

 

[Value Collector]

Petrol cars are 100 times more likely to catch fire than EV’s according to this, but I understand why some people believe Ev’s will catch fire, because on the rare occasion they do, they are 1,000,000 times more likely to make the news.

Government data show gasoline vehicles are up to 100x more prone to fires than EVs

Aside from the argument that gasoline vehicles operate via combustion, a study shows how prevalent gas vehicle fires are compared to EVs.

electrek.co

 

[rederob]

It will come, boring as bat shyt but there will be one that fills your needs.

View attachment 138777

Wuling minis are nowaday prized for their ability to be customised:

 

[Logique2]

It's poor people's taxes that will pay to upgrade the grid, to cope with the night time peak of charging of the EVs of stockbrokers and bankers.

So poor people ..stump up $50k (minimum) for an EV ..or tough luck. We stockbrokers, bankers and pollies in the leafy suburbs are alright.

I would never have believed that Rederob would be such an elitist, and so dismissive of the plight of under privleged people...

 

[rederob]

It's poor people's taxes that will pay to upgrade the grid, to cope with the night time peak of charging of the EVs of stockbrokers and bankers.

On the contrary. The need needs to be upgraded because of the high level of renewables it must increasingly accommodate.
EV charging will be a blessing as windpower won't need to be curtailed of an evening.

So poor people ..stump up $50k (minimum) for an EV ..or tough luck. We stockbrokers, bankers and pollies in the leafy suburbs are alright. I would never have believed that Rederob would be such an elitist, and so dismissive of the plight of under privleged people...

First, I stumped up under $47K and cheaper models are coming.
Far from elitist, I have been a self funded retiree for the past 7 years and this will be my first new car since then. I did the maths. Buying now won't get me caught in the frenzy for EVs that will come to our shores in a few years time. When that happens I would be lucky to get 10% of my current car's present resale value.

 

[mullokintyre]

If it’s the air pollution statement you want information on, here it is.

Health impacts of air pollution

The major aim of monitoring and reducing air pollution is to reduce its adverse impacts on human health. Other aims are to prevent loss of amenity—for example, because of poor visibility or offensive odour, damage to vegetation, and corrosion of buildings and other infrastructure.

soe.environment.gov.au

Well, firstly the study is quoting figures from studies varying from 2006 to 2010, hardly current.
Then a quick read of the SOE talks about pollution from fires, and a high level of PM causing problems. As they don't define PM, I am going to take a guess and suggest it is particulate matter, which comes not only from diesel ICE engines, but from bushfires, people who burn wood for heating , dust storms, smoke from the 2 million plus smokers , all vehicles that use roads, train wheels, and a few other things.
Modern petrol engines produce very little PM's, and with the introduction of DPF filters on diesel cars and trucks, that part of it has been drastically reduced.
the introduction of EV's wlll not make as big a difference as you suggest.
Mick

 

[mullokintyre]

Which statement did you want me to back up?

Yes some of the renewable energy equipment is manufactured overseas, but once it’s installed it’s here producing for a very long time, we don’t have to rely on weekly imports which are subject to interruptions and wild price fluctuations.

I would suggest that the vast majority of stuff is made overseas.

As for being subject to interruptions and wild price fluctuations, have you not noticed the wild fluctuations in both wind and solar supply, both on a diurnal bases and a seasonal basis?.
Mick

 

[Value Collector]

I would suggest that the vast majority of stuff is made overseas.

As for being subject to interruptions and wild price fluctuations, have you not noticed the wild fluctuations in both wind and solar supply, both on a diurnal bases and a seasonal basis?.
Mick

Fortescue metals are actually building a solar panel factory here in Australia.

Wind and solar can be irregular, but it can be backed up by batteries, pumped hydro and gas,… hell you could even back it up with oil burning power plants if you want and it would still be better than burning 100% oil as we pretty much do now.

If there was an embargo on Australia, our installed electricity capacity would continue generating indefinitely, where as oil shipments wouldn’t, surely you can see the difference between importing equipment and importing the actual fuel.

Fortescue announces 1 GW solar PV module factory in Australia

Fortescue Future Industries has revealed plans to develop a 1 GW solar PV module manufacturing plant in Australia, after confirming that it has acquired a 60% stake in Netherlands-based renewable energy specialist High yield Energy Technologies Group.

www.pv-magazine.com

 

[Value Collector]

Well, firstly the study is quoting figures from studies varying from 2006 to 2010, hardly current.
Then a quick read of the SOE talks about pollution from fires, and a high level of PM causing problems. As they don't define PM, I am going to take a guess and suggest it is particulate matter, which comes not only from diesel ICE engines, but from bushfires, people who burn wood for heating , dust storms, smoke from the 2 million plus smokers , all vehicles that use roads, train wheels, and a few other things.
Modern petrol engines produce very little PM's, and with the introduction of DPF filters on diesel cars and trucks, that part of it has been drastically reduced.
the introduction of EV's wlll not make as big a difference as you suggest.
Mick

When I lived in Sydney, my suburb had a view over greater Sydney, and Easter long week end the sky would always clear up, and reveal how much smog we live with every other day, if you don’t think that a massive chunk of that pollution is coming from vehicles burning oil I don’t think you are being intellectually honest.

I also spend a bit of time in LA each year, the air looks like soup sometimes, and they often request people to avoid using their cars on some days, yet the sky’s also cleared up during the lockdowns.

 

[Smurf1976]

So it does seem a bit crazy to me that when there is a new tech than could be helping to introduce a better standard of living across the board, that any government incentive to help speed up the uptake is seen as being inequality

If the solution to the problem of ICE's is simply to force people to stop driving then that's a shockingly bad solution in my view.

There's simply no necessary reason why the introduction of EV's needs to be used as a tool to drive a further wedge between the haves and the have not's.

Bearing in mind that in the London context people like police, teachers, nurses and so on are in the category of being relatively poor. This isn't about the poor as in homeless of unemployed, just anyone with an 8+ year old diesel car who can't afford an extra AUD $22.46 each and every day they use it on top of all existing costs.

That it irks me is largely because this tactic of associating renewable energy and other clean technologies with unrelated bad things has been the standard approach used by the fossil fuel lobby thus far. EV's will wreck the weekend and renewables will put the lights out they claim - not true due to technology itself but it threatens to be true if politicians us it as an excuse to do things like this.

As I've said many times in regard to the climate change issue - the surest way to ensure it doesn't get fixed is to tie the solutions to it to unrelated things. All that does is build resistance.

None of that's an argument against EV's, it's simply an argument against hitting those who can't afford one for the sake of nastiness. Simply phase in EV's in and orderly manner, there's no need to be whacking anyone over the head in order to do it.

 

[Value Collector]

If the solution to the problem of ICE's is simply to force people to stop driving then that's a shockingly bad solution in my view.

There's simply no necessary reason why the introduction of EV's needs to be used as a tool to drive a further wedge between the haves and the have not's.

Bearing in mind that in the London context people like police, teachers, nurses and so on are in the category of being relatively poor. This isn't about the poor as in homeless of unemployed, just anyone with an 8+ year old diesel car who can't afford an extra AUD $22.46 each and every day they use it on top of all existing costs.

That it irks me is largely because this tactic of associating renewable energy and other clean technologies with unrelated bad things has been the standard approach used by the fossil fuel lobby thus far. EV's will wreck the weekend and renewables will put the lights out they claim - not true due to technology itself but it threatens to be true if politicians us it as an excuse to do things like this.

As I've said many times in regard to the climate change issue - the surest way to ensure it doesn't get fixed is to tie the solutions to it to unrelated things. All that does is build resistance.

None of that's an argument against EV's, it's simply an argument against hitting those who can't afford one for the sake of nastiness. Simply phase in EV's in and orderly manner, there's no need to be whacking anyone over the head in order to do it.

I didn’t suggest anyone should stop driving, but pricing is an effective tool to alter behaviour, sometimes the only other option is rationing, which comes with a whole host of problems.

I also don’t think bringing in an incentive to get more Ev’s on the road would be driving a wedge between the haves and have nots, I think that would be artificial political spin to suggest that.

It should come down to a simple few questions

1, Will replacing Ice cars with EV’s improve certain outcomes for the population of Australia.

2, Is it worth the government investing to speed up the adoption.

If the answer is Yes to both, it shouldn’t matter who the incentive goes to, the point is to get a higher proportion of the new cars to be EV’s

If some hates the idea that some one richer than them might be getting a tax break, well that’s just their own mental issue.

 

[sptrawler]

Rederob has just ordered a new EV for $47k, would making it $2k cheaper change the demographics of who will buy one, I doubt it.
Would having several 100Kw Govt installed EV charge points, in every country town increase the up take, I think it would.
People who are going to spend between $40 and $50k on a car, are more interested in convenience, than saving $2k.
So if you really want high up take you have to hit the $30 to $40k market, the Hyundai i30 range, so then you have to offer $10k incentive that starts getting stupid IMO.
$10k per car is probably 10 x 100Kw charging stations on a Govt contract, so for every car sold 10 more public charging stations could be installed in another town, I know which I think will help the Australian public the most.
As has been said in 5 years time there will be cheaper EV's and second hand ones will be hitting the market, standing around waiting at the one charging station waiting for the owner to return so they can unplug the charge cable, will pizz everyone off very quickly.
I know some say as the demand increases the charging infrastructure will follow suit, but it is like the electricity system, it has to be put in before the load arrives, not when the system fails.
The private sector only want to put in enough to guarantee a return on capital, that is why like in Mandurah over here in W.A a population of 80,000, they have one charge station.
last weekend, I was checking out a Mercedes charging and it was nearly finished, an MG pulled up they were heading down South and needed to top up. I said wont the plug just disengage when the Merc is charged, apparently not, the owner has to come back and unlock it from inside the car.
So that is going to be a far greater problem IMO, than getting more people into EV's ATM.
But hey if there are incentives, there will be more second hand EV's on the market, the early up takers, will be able to upgrade with a bonus.

 

[Value Collector]

Rederob has just ordered a new EV for $47k, would making it $2k cheaper change the demographics of who will buy one, I doubt it.
Would having several 100Kw Govt installed EV charge points, in every country town increase the up take, I think it would.
People who are going to spend between $40 and $50k on a car, are more interested in convenience, than saving $2k.
So if you really want high up take you have to hit the $30 to $40k market, the Hyundai i30 range, so then you have to offer $10k incentive that starts getting stupid IMO.
$10k per car is probably 10 100Kw charging stations on a Govt contract, so for every car sold 10 more public charging stations could be installed in another town, I know which I think will help the Australian public the most.
As has been said in 5 years time there will be cheaper EV's and second hand ones will be hitting the market, standing around waiting at the one charging station waiting for the owner to return so they can unplug the charge cable, will pizz everyone off very quickly.

I am just not convinced the government will be the best at rolling out the network, I just think it has to be private industry, not every town will need chargers, that’s when they will become the broken abandoned stuff no one uses.

As I said before I don’t actually think we need incentives, I just think the government shouldnrush to add taxes.

my discussion above was just laying out that it can be rational to incentivise things (not limited to Ev), and when it’s rational to incentivise things, the income of the people taking the incentives is irrelevant.

for example if the government wants more low cost housing, and incentivises some companies to invest in it with tax breaks, the fact that this deals will make money for rich investors irrelevant, the point is that the housing gets built and put to market.

 

[Smurf1976]

I also don’t think bringing in an incentive to get more Ev’s on the road would be driving a wedge between the haves and have nots,

An incentive to get more EV's on the road is no problem.

It's the idea of taxing existing ICE's off the road that I see a very major problem with.

If someone's driving a 10 year old ICE and can't afford to pay yet another tax every time they use it well then they're not going to be able to afford to buy an EV either. Given the actual prices involved, that's a decent chunk of the population.

Whilst that's referring to a situation in London, I've little doubt that there are at least some who'd jump at the chance to do the same in Australia if they could get away with it. The same issues arise anywhere - expensive transport is a barrier to social mobility, it stops people taking a job if they can't afford to get to it, and a very definite problem in that sense.

From a purely technical perspective, economics is a big part of all this. Give someone an unlimited budget and it doesn't require any real engineering brilliance to come up with an EV that works. Trying to do it cheaply is the real challenge.

Same with electricity itself. 100% renewables at any price is a straightforward exercise. 100% renewable at a price everyone can afford is very much harder.

 

[sptrawler]

That's the good thing about opinions, everyone has one and in a lot of ways everyone is right, from their point of view.
I know things are different on the East coast, but anyone buying an EV in W.A is going to have to buy one with a 400-500klm range, which means they will be in the $50-$70k bracket.
People who live in Perth and don't travel will use public transport and a cheap ICE vehicle, anyone who travels needs the 400-500klm range, as there are only single charge stations in most towns.
If you have to travel 600-1,000klm it will add at least a day to your trip, just to allow for either a charge station being OOS or being used when you arrive and someone else waiting, that will not be acceptable in todays world.
People just wont buy them, it is easier to stick with what they have.
I did a run to my sons place last weekend, it is about 155 to 200klm depending on the route, I've ordered an EV with a 450klm range, the last thing I want is to have to worry about making it home or being stuck at a charge station while some wanker is off having dinner, or worse still waiting for a tilt bed truck because the one charge station is stuffed.
While the missus sits there tutting her head off and tapping her bloody foot.

 

[Value Collector]

An incentive to get more EV's on the road is no problem.

It's the idea of taxing existing ICE's off the road that I see a very major problem with.

If someone's driving a 10 year old ICE and can't afford to pay yet another tax every time they use it well then they're not going to be able to afford to buy an EV either. Given the actual prices involved, that's a decent chunk of the population.

Whilst that's referring to a situation in London, I've little doubt that there are at least some who'd jump at the chance to do the same in Australia if they could get away with it. The same issues arise anywhere - expensive transport is a barrier to social mobility, it stops people taking a job if they can't afford to get to it, and a very definite problem in that sense.

From a purely technical perspective, economics is a big part of all this. Give someone an unlimited budget and it doesn't require any real engineering brilliance to come up with an EV that works. Trying to do it cheaply is the real challenge.

Same with electricity itself. 100% renewables at any price is a straightforward exercise. 100% renewable at a price everyone can afford is very much harder.

Just for some context, the London congestion tax predates the whole Ev debate, it was introduced in 2003, and it’s purpose was to reduce congestion and pollution by getting people on to public transport, so the tax was there regardless of Ev’s coming in, so it’s not an extra tax that will make Evs harder to get, it incentivises people to move to ev (or the bus or tube)

——————————
Most people, especially the people on tight budgets you mentioned borrow to buy their cars.

Now if they know that by getting an Ev they no longer have to pay the £15 daily congestion tax + save on fuel + save on maintenance, then they can afford higher loan payments and buying an EV would be less of a problem for them.