octave

The lithium battery types seem to have best life if not fully discharged - I believe they like shallow cycles. The current (sorry for the pun) hybrid vehicles are all use lithium batteries, and work on a 'partial discharge - then top' up usage, and it seems to work.

The nickel cadmium batteries seemed to have best life when deep cycled.

 

I suspect that the EV might be quite happy to have short runs and a top up each night.

 

At least, that's how I understand it. I stand to be corrected.

I think that is about right. my son has a 5 year BMWI3 which I spent the last 2 weeks driving and he just plugs it in every night. He is only using a standard 8amp charger. It is set to charge automatically when the off-peak tariff kicks in. The cost on off-peak is $1 per 100km. At 5 years the battery has only lost 500 wh. He is trading it in on a Tesla 3 when they become available in NZ, I can't wait to drive it.

I believe regarding batteries that there are software limitations imposed, when it says it is empty it is not actually totally flat and the charging regime is controlled for longest battery life.

I have a hypothesis. Please don't think I am trying to make political points. The perceived headline of each parties campaign could be perhaps summed up this way. One party promising to put more money into hospitals and schools and to tackle future problems but perhaps they won't cut tax and may reduce some benefits vs the other party saying we won't spend more on those things but we will make sure you get a few extra in tax relief. This is an oversimplification but perhaps some people are too embarrassed to tell the pollster that they place there own self-interest above more social orientated goals. To put it more crudely if someone publicly offered me $50 and said you can keep it or help improve education or the health system I would find it hard to say "nope I want the $50" As I say just a hypothesis with no evidence.

The arguments used by those who doubt the evidence are very similar to the arguments presented by the anti-evolution crowd i.e. the mainstream scientists have it wrong and are involved in a conspiracy and only a few individuals can see the real truth. I can give the denial case no more respect than I give the anti-evolution folks. Even though the oil companies are dragging their feet (although I sense this is changing) they do not deny the role of burning fossil fuels in climate change.

At the very least the doubters must admit that their view is an extreme minority. I have already asked this many times but if we can't trust the mainstream science organisations where do we go for reliable information Breitbart? Fox news? Andrew Bolt?

Another question is, how does this conspiracy work? Who tells our BoM what temperatures to report. Does NASA tell ESA or JAXA how to interpret their satellite data? I do have as a casual acquaintance (a client) who is a Professor of atmospheric physics, is he part of the conspiracy? From whom does he receive his instructions?

I wonder about battery efficiency. The Hyundai Kona gets over 400km from full charge, I see the Nissan above will get 270ish. So what if you don't use it, do only 50 a day and charge it each night how will the batteries fare. For best condition and longevity of life should you wait till Battery is low before charge.Maybe they should bring out a cheaper commuter with 100km range for day to day. Most families these days have two breadwinners and if they can afford, 2 cars. A little run around and a family car.

I think people don't necessarily plug their car in every night.

There is certainly a component of human induced climate change. It just isn’t a threatening change within the overall changes that are always taking place ad always have taken place. There is no immediate threat. The statistics do not support a threat. The alarmist arguments are based on complex computer modelling and I reject that work. I have used computer models in the past in my work and know that the complex ones are good for convincing people who don’t understand their limitations, but are misleading to those using them for prediction.

I have put this point before but I will give it one more go.

Unless you are 100% right you must concede that there is a chance that you are wrong and must, therefore, consider the consequences of doing nothing. Your position (if it were widely held) would mean that we wait until it is a problem so large it cannot be denied. Only then do you start to tackle it but of course if some of the worst predictions occur it will be too late.

My position is this: my level of certainty is high but not 100% I, therefore, have to consider the small chance that the whole thing is a hoax. I ask myself what are the negative consequences of taking measured but urgent action now. If it is a hoax then history will look back at the time when we paid 7% more for our electricity (according to the ACCC) when we could have just kept burning coal (although CO2 is not the only bad thing about burning coal). The coal will still be in the fossil fuel bank, perhaps as a gift to our grandchildren to use as they see fit.

You may be very sure about your position but you surely have to admit that the consequences of doing nothing for a real problem are more problematic than the consequences of doing something for an imagined problem.

It really does not matter what you or I believe, we are changing the way we power our society just as we have at various times in the past and will again in the future. I am not even sure if governments will lead the way, so much progress is being made by private enterprise for example

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDvKJIm2WU8:421

We have plenty of evidence from the email scandal

No, we don't. This event "climategate" was the subject of many enquiries. Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia

But of course, I guess you will say this is part of the conspiracy

I believe Shell has not denied that these papers are genuine. You suggest that those studies may be an early attempt to understand etc. OK so what do they believe today? Perhaps we could delve into what Shell thinks now.

From Shell's 2018 report Disclaimer - Shell Annual Report 2018 (click on the enter report button)

Climate change and energy transition

Shell has long recognised that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the use of fossil fuels are contributing to the warming of the climate system. In December 2015, 195 nations adopted the Paris Agreement. We welcomed the efforts made by governments to reach this global climate agreement, which entered into force in November 2016. We fully support the Paris Agreement’s goal to keep the rise in global average temperature this century to well below two degrees Celsius (2°C) above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5°C. In pursuit of this goal, we also support the vision of a transition towards a net-zero emissions energy system. Shell agrees with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1.5°C special report, which states that in order to limit warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, the world economy would need to transform in a number of complex and connected ways. Meeting this challenge would require an even more rapid escalation in the scale and pace of change in the coming decades than was foreseen in the Paris Agreement.

Society faces a dual challenge: how to transition to a low-carbon energy future to manage the risks of climate change, while also extending the economic and social benefits of energy to everyone on the planet. This is an ambition that requires changes in the way energy is produced, used and made accessible to more people while drastically cutting emissions.

We believe that the need to reduce GHG emissions, which are largely caused by burning fossil fuels, will transform the energy system in this century. This transformation will generate both challenges and opportunities for our existing and future portfolio.

We welcome and support efforts, such as those led by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), to increase transparency and to promote investors’ understanding of companies’ strategies to respond to the risks and opportunities presented by climate change. We believe that companies should be clear about how they plan to be resilient in the energy transition. In 2017, we joined the Oil and Gas Preparer Forum, initiated by the TCFD and convened by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. The forum´s objectives are to review the current state of climate-related financial disclosures, to identify examples of effective disclosure practices and make proposals on how disclosures may evolve over time. The Shell Energy Transition Report published in April 2018 (2018 SET report) described the energy transition and considered Shell’s resilience against future scenarios. The 2018 SET report followed our discussions with the TCFD about increasing transparency to help investors understand climate-related risks and opportunities. Our approach to the energy transition as described in the 2018 SET report, in combination with the Shell Sustainability Report (April 2019) aims to complement this Report in responding to TCFD recommendations, including discussing the energy transition and Shell´s portfolio resilience.

OK what about Exxon ExxonMobil’s four decades of climate science research | ExxonMobil

I could go on

You say that NASA is lying to generate more funding, even though it seems pretty obvious that more funds could be gained by supporting Trump's beliefs on the matter. I do note however that you do not seem to apply the same scepticism to those few geologists who disagree with the evidence but also seem to have worked or still work for the fossil fuel industry.

If as you say NASA is not reliable as well as ESA JAXA indeed these organisations Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the is too long to detail however I can list the non-commital organisations, American Association of Petroleum Geologists and the American Institute of Professional Geologists Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

And Opposing - Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[24] no national or international scientific body rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[23][25]

If all of the bodies mentioned are involved in a conspiracy and therefore cannot be trusted I would be interested to see your list of trusted sources?

In the end, I can't convince you of anything you don't want to accept and I have no wish to. I believe passionately in the scientific method and the power of peer review to work towards the truth. I have little time for anti-vaxxers and evolutionists and flat earthers. What these people all have in common is that they dismiss data collected and analysed by many scientists throughout the world and then peer reviewed in favour of individuals who claim that the data is faked. They search hard for any fragment of data that they feel may cast doubt.

By the way, do you know who Hill & Knowlton Inc. Inc. are? They are a public relations company that has been engaged by the Tabacco industry and surprise surprise also the oil industry as well as the asbestos industry and other dubious causes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill+Knowlton_Strategies#Controversies

meanwhile in China First phase of China’s biggest flow battery put into operation by VRB Energy

I don't own shares so don't get franking credits, my money was accrued other ways, not through fiddling, I agree with you on the franking credits, just so you know My money was earned fair and square and no I will not share it with lesser people who don't think ahead, 51 years in Aus and I have seen what labour did financially in the time they were in office , labor themselves have served the top end of town and their rich friends as well as Libs but personally I have always done well under Libs not labor

I am personally thankful for the superannuation guarantee and also Medicare. I have never minded paying tax to support others such as pensioners and the medical treatment of others. I am not wealthy but I guess supporting my community when I can and drawing from it when I need help just seems to be a happier healthier way to live.

since the election was called I have been on the ground door nocking letter box dropping and at a prepoll boothhave been abused told to get a job that that f/w wont get in and the most of the crap came from take a stab in the dark

 

yep if you said labor and the greens YOU are the winner :gaah:so it just goes to show the mentality of the sheep the followed shorten and dr de idiot

 

according to shorten and greens many who have saved and put money away for that rainy day have to give it to the bludgers

 

the persons that vote labor or greens should have a sighn on the gate saying that they want more taxes more costly electricity genital mutalation

 

oh by the way me mates wife who has a mouth cancer HAS PAID OUT OF POCKET expences zero neil

Geez, Neil, your side won and you are still angry and unhappy. Winning gracefully is just as important losing gracefully.

Octave,far from it i am living the dream,building an aircraft,volenteer in a school for underprivileged kids,look after and adore my 4 1/2year old grandaughter 2 days and drive for old folks bus 1 morning si not angry at all

That is good to hear.

oh dear scot wins the towels are on there way for those off you that are crying go scotand by the way your free solar panel and wind turbines are on there way out neil

Neil, I can only speak for myself but I think you overestimate the importance of who wins or loses to me. My daily life does not change much either way regardless of Lib or Lab government. I am still having a happy life so I will forgo the towel but thanks for the offer. So congrats to you (and the large banks) you must be so relieved:smile:

And all the labor pundits on this forum are hiding ,got nothing to say?

Oh come on Gareth, give us a break only just got out of bed. As far as hiding goes, one side wins and one loses is nothing to cry about. I will always be progressive because I believe it is the only way to go and I do not want to go back to the past as SOME conservatives seem to want to. I also want our country to prepare for the future not hide from it. My wife and I have just moved into semi-retirement thanks to our super, my now parents now in their 90s live on the pension because during their working life superannuation was a privilege that was not available to them until compulsory super.

Anyway, I am as happy and contented today as I was yesterday and the day before. How are you? Your posts seem to always have an angry edge to them.

Study by Exxon 1982. The idea that climate change is a hoax propogated by people who want to bring down society is just not logical.

https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/1982 Exxon Primer on CO2 Greenhouse Effect.pdf

If we halved our coal production tomorrow from 6% don’t you think the rest of the world would pick up that 3% in a flash? And our economy would be stuffed.

Would our economy be stuffed? Annual update finds renewables are cheapest new-build power - CSIRO

I know you will dismiss as being part of a conspiracy.

A mythical global catastrophe is being used for political ends. If we listen we will be shelling out “ compensation” for imagined impacts.

1988 Internal Shell Report "The Greenhouse Effect"

What political reason did Shell have to produce this document?

A mythical global catastrophe is being used for political ends. If we listen we will be shelling out “ compensation” for imagined impacts.

Can you explain what the political ends are?

"I'm also concerned about Millenials. I wonder how many of them, fed up with the shenanigans they have witnessed as they have grown up, will waste their voting opportunity by drawing dick and balls, or writing witty comments on their ballot papers "My grand-kids Don't want to vote at all. saying it's a wast of their time & tax payers money.

 

A vote today " for this party" means that "this party" gives it votes to THAT PARTY,

 

Grand son's words.

 

spacesailor

My son is 28 and is very interested in politics, even listens to parliament. His peers are also interested. Often preconcieved notions older folks hold regarding younger people are not factually accurate. Look at the massive increase in young voter enrollment.

I'm also concerned about Millenials. I wonder how many of them, fed up with the shenanigans they have witnessed as they have grown up, will waste their voting opportunity by drawing dick and balls, or writing witty comments on their ballot papers. For all the time that these young people have sat through 'Stranger Danger' instruction and the like, virtually none have had any introduction to the machinery of government and elections. I'd wager, too, that if you asked them to have a go at reciting our Constitution they would start "We, the People ...."

Apparently a record number of young people have now registered to vote. A huge mistake the conservatives made was insisting on a plebiscite for same sex marriage rather than just voting in parliament. This meant that many young people enrolled to vote who perhaps otherwise would not have. I guess there are many young people who do not have much knowledge or interest in poitics however the young people I mix with are interested and knowlegable

High number of young voters create record enrolment rate of 96.8% for election

@octave - wasn't aimed at you personally - I have heard on Aus Radio that virtually no-one has a land line service anymore - I was taking this to mean they only have mobile. Over here, there are mobile providers that will do broadband, but the cost of the land line service is a miniscule add on to the fixed line rental. I have a deal where I get unlimited super fast broadband (Fibre - so not too fast, I guess); unlimited national an international calls to all but the most expensive countries to call, mobile unlimited calls to the EU, unlimited data, text and nternational roaming (didn't pay a penny more for the calls I made/took while in Aus) for £90/month. If I knocked off the land line service (including unlimited national/international calls), it would save me not quite £10/month...

I guess without a land line service, some in more remote areas would need to have their mobile phones use the wireless connection of home... How much more is the land line service?

We lived in the bush for 20 years and mobile was not an option. We had dial up then upgraded to ISDN and then finally satellite.

I thought I would clarify my first post because it may have caused confussion. I have a fixed line but no phone service.

[Q

The price of petrol is expensive in NZ but it costs just $80.00 a year to register a car and that includes CTP which is the ACC levy. (ACC is a government system to cover workers compensation & accidents etc. The right to sue has been removed by law.) Here the registration & CTP cost is $ 700.00 and up to several thousand depending on your age and the vehicle. You can buy a lot of fuel for the extra 65 cents a litre so for majority the overall cost is actually less to run a car in NZ than in Australia.

Yes quite true, this is one of th reasons my Australian son is now a Kiwi. His household has I think 5 cars, all suited to different purposes.

So I am staying with my son in NZ at the moment, and he has lent me his BMWI3 EV. I have been driving it long enough now to get comfortable with it, in fact the first trick is accepting how easy it is to drive. At first, it seems very strange, press a button and the screens come to life, toggle the switch in to drive and off you go.

The acceleration is rather impressive not only in terms of how quick it is off the mark but how the accelerator works smoothly throughout it's range. Lifting of the accelerator is like applying the brake so you dont coast up to an intersection but gradually lift off, in fact you can drive most of the time without even touching the brake, the regenerative braking does the work.

We have driven up some extremely steep hills and we found that it felt as if we were on the flat. In an ICE you are aware of the engine working hard. The other day there was an accident on our route home and the traffic was alternating between a crawl and a stand still. This is a good vehicle for this situation. I was aware of all the other vehicles around us idling away burning fuel.

This I3 is a 2014 model with a range extender. The range extenders is a petrol motor (2 cylinder, base on a BMW motor bike engine) This engine will automatically start when the batteries get to 7% I believe although we have not had this happen. You can also set the range extender to hold a set charge.

The new models no longer have the range extender but have a larger battery bank. When the vehicle returns home at night you just plug it in. It does not immediately charge (unless you instruct it to) but starts changing when the electric price drops and it is good to go in the morning.

My son has several cars and usually lends us a BMW 5 series which is very thirsty. We of course pay for our fuel and always return it full which in NZ is very costly (about $2.15 a litre at the moment) It was amusing offering to pay for the electricity we used as when charged off-peak it costs 90 cents per 100km ($2.70 during day rate). My son suggested I could buy him a cup of coffee every couple of days. The maintenance costs are very low, occasional servicing of the extender (which hardly ever gets used) Brakes last a long time since they are not used very much. Tyres are expensive though.

I would love a car like this but at this point it is not in my price but like other items such as mobile phones PCs etc it is only a matter of time.

But this is the well-established greenhouse effect, not anthropomorphic climate change. I dont know when that was first proposed, perhaps in the 1950s?

"Högbom found that estimated carbon production from industrial sources in the 1890s (mainly coal burning) was comparable with the natural sources.[24] Arrhenius saw that this human emission of carbon would eventually lead to warming. However, because of the relatively low rate of CO

production in 1896, Arrhenius thought the warming would take thousands of years, and he expected it would be beneficial to humanity.[24][25] "

How can you not have a landline of you are getting NBN - don't they use the land line to deliver it?

Not sure whether you are addressing this to me. To clarify, I mean there is a physical land line, I connect to ADSL but there is no phone service associated with it. The only cost is included in the monthly $69 internet fee. The performance is pretty unimpressive though.

not for the generations alive today, but for our future generations.

A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit

Havent had a chance to read this carefully yet but seems interesting.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies Cost U.S. More than Defense Budget: IMF Report – Rolling Stone