octave

Infrastructure is no where near what it would need to be and neither is the storage tech

I agree that the infrastructure in this country is way behind many other countries but that is why it is important to prepare for the future. Just about all car manufacturers have announced timetables to move towards EV, hybrid or fuel cell technology, the question is will we in this country be a sort of third world car country where we are using technologies that other countries are moving away from.

The Labor policy is for 50% of NEW vehicles to be EV by 2030 that is in 11 years time, seems like quite a long time frame time. I believe Norway has reached 50% recently. Countries like China are aggressively pursuing EV s not because they are hippy greenies but because they have to to keep their larger cities livable. In fact, China produces 43% (in 2016) of EVs.

Infrastructure is no where near what it would need to be and neither is the storage tech

What sort of range do you suggest EVs need before they are competitive with IC cars?

What level of infrastructure is required before you would see it as viable?

There is always a problem with rolling out infrastructure for the future. Perhaps the answer is to instead of subsidies to EV buyers perhaps subsidies go towards improving the infrastructure. We can end up with a situation where we say that there are not enough EVs to justify infrastructure improvements and there is not enough infrastructure to allow people to conveniently charge their EVs.

In 2017 there were 476 dedicated EV charging stations and more coming online all the time. Many EV drivers charge at home overnight, which is, of course, slower but fine for the daily commute to work.

I think what it comes down to is that you believe that an EV is not right for you and the last thing I would do is to try and convince you that it was the right thing for you. I looked at buying an aircraft some years ago but decided it was economically irrational for ME. If the Labor party's incentives are successful then you will still be able to purchase one of the 50% of cars that will still be IC, I don't really see the problem other than the use of subsidies. Personally, I am happy to subsidise the modernisation of our transport systems, certainly more happy subsidising EVs than other things that attract subsidies.

Given the fact that subsidies for EVs in the US are quickly phasing out, it would seem that Ford's $500 million investment and partnership with Rivian must indicate they see a future in EVs.

In Australia, at this point, there are no subsidies that I am aware of, in fact, cars over $61 884 attract a luxury car tax

See this is still the chicken and egg argument..you currently need coal fired power to power the charging stations so if the discussion is ONLY on the EV as a tool then thats fine but the bigger picture and all the hyperbole about EV is the "green" side of them. We don't have hydro here so we cant use "natural" power when the sun goes down as there is no bulk storage for renewables. I see the lot of this all tied together but in different ratios of course

Yes, an EV is only as clean as the electricity generation method. If you live in Tasmania then it is very clean. This varies from state to state. The point is though that an EV gets cleaner as the grid gets cleaner. An IC car starts its life as clean as it can be and degrades throughout its life.

Most states have a growing renewables sector, therefore, the situation is changing. What about states that are heavily coal dependent, does that make an EV a bad choice? Here is a pretty thorough analysis

I have read that Australia has 22 days supply of fuel. Any disruption to the delivery of crude oil would be a big problem. We import loads of crude oil yet our power stations are mostly powered by fuel produced locally, whether it be hydro, solar, wind, or coal. It seems to me that green issues aside there are other benefits.

I am involved in tech and I just cant get excited about EV.....well not for my usage anyway.

No problem with that, it is a matter of what suits you, at some point in the future perhaps it will suit you. Not only am I saying it makes sense for many but not all it would be undoable to change the whole fleet in a short time.

I drive way too many long km stretches for them to be practical. Fine if your a city dweller whose life revolves in about a 30km radius.

I think that is a little tough. I can fully understand that in your circumstances it may be too difficult but to say "it is OK if you stay in the city and only go 30k" is not quite accurate

You can now drive an electric car right around Australia without range anxiety

EV has a long way to go yet as far as I am concerned.

Absolutely fine, I won't be getting one until my present car is done. l did not get an early mobile phone but waited until they were cheaper.

Subsidies are always tricky because some subsidies are not so easy to see. The car manufacturers in this country were heavily subsidised which no doubt fed into the end price for the buyer. Governments built highways. Early aviation was subsidised. There is this idea that EVs must fully compete with IC cars from day 1. If we did this with many technologies they would never get off the ground. Vehicles that would suit you are available but not at a price that would be economically viable for you.

I will go out on a limb and say that EVs are technically superior to IC cars in every sense but the range and filling time. In terms of filling the time it is more about a different model of refuelling. My car has been parked all night, if it were electric it would be full now however I am about to go out and I will have to stop at the servo to fill up.

The range continues to improve as battery technology inevitably improves. The price of batteries continues to fall.

I am not particularly interested in selling the idea to anyone because I think the change is inevitable given the efficiency of an electric motor compared to IC engines:

"Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17%–21% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels.” An electric motor typically is between 85% and 90% efficient."

How we power those electric motors is an interesting question, whether battery or hydrogen fuel cell or perhaps both will be used or something else.

EVs are not going away and will continue to increase its market share.

I am familiar with the Michael Schellenberger article. I do have a link for a critique of some of his points but I am just heading out and I don't want to post it before I have reread both articles. I will agree though that the answer is not to change all IC vehicles for EVs.

What was it like to drive, Octave? Did it take much getting used to? Was the limited range restrictive? Did you charge it where you wee staying, and were there any special requirements for recharging?

Range - As an early Leaf not huge but we were driving it around town. The young guy who owns it charged it at his place (for free). Very easy to drive, at driving speed you can forget it is electric but when you stop at the lights the first few times it is a bit disconcerting due to the lack of sound. New Zealand is well ahead on charging stations even out of the cities.

We are heading over there again in 2 weeks but since our last trip, my son has bought a BMWI3 so we will be driving that. My son has a Tesla 3 on order so looking forward to driving that but the delivery date is uncertain. The Leaf is pretty nimble with good acceleration compared to similar IC cars.

The interesting things is that the leaf owner and my son are massive petrol heads. My son owns racecar that he races in motorsport regularly but for his daily drive the I3 is the logical choice, the I3 is charged at my sons home and I believe cost $3-4$ a week. Petrol is pretty expensive in NZ. He does enjoy the I3 but is looking forward to the Tesla. (yes unlike me he has more money than god) Maintenance is extremely cheap except the tires are unusual and quite spendy.

I may try and make a road test type video in the I3 if I get around to it and I will post it here.

Whilst I am enthusiastic about EVs, like many here I am not ready to buy one. I don't think the idea of everybody suddenly changing to EV would be practical. It is a bit like any change in-car technology, it was only a few years ago that I got a car that had airbags. By the time I am ready for a new car I suspect that second hand EVs will be much cheaper.

Another (for the RICH)"Lotus Type 130 all-electric hypercar confirmed

 

Lotus reveals $3 million electric hypercar

 

Type 130 name confirmed, first silhouette"[ATTACH]4035[/ATTACH]

 

spacesailor

Yeah, supercars of any type are for the rich. Luckily as with most things, we buy there is a price range to suit most people. Here is the Nissan leaf I drove around in last time I was in NZ. This vehicle was loaned to us by an employee of my son. It was bought second hand for $14 000.

[ATTACH]50029._xfImport[/ATTACH]

I thought I said "UP to $130,000"

So what are petrol driven cars "priced up to"

If you don't want to buy an EV then don't. Only you can decide what is a rational choice for you. For many, it is the rational choice. By the way, it is not yet the rational choice for me.

The EV 's are priced up to $130,000. Enough change to fuel your $ 60k to 80k car for as long as you keep it.

$135 000 really??? where did you get that price from? As I said my son bought a second-hand BMWI3 for $35000 Brand new Leaf 50K, 2013 Leaf $23888. https://www.carsales.com.au/cars/nissan/leaf/ Space no one is urging you to buy an EV it probably would not suit you but to say that the average EV is $130000 is incorrect. Even a standard Tesla model 3 is $49500 and the Performance model is $76000. Yes a top of the line Telsa model S may be around that price but that is a luxury car and I am assuming you would not buy a luxury car.

The proposed cure is worse than the disease.

What is the proposed cure?

The issue with carbon about the rate at which we take from the ground and transfer to the atmosphere. The Earth and ocean can re-absorb carbon but the problem is the rate is just too high. The carbon in coal and oil we burn took millions of years to form and we are burning in just a few hundred years. I am not suggesting that we should stop all activities that release carbon but rather to use other methods where they exist and to develop new ways.

At the moment there are no alternatives to airline travel on the horizon. I am not suggesting we ban all air travel, but doesn't it makes sense that the carbon balance would be more favourable if we could decarbonise road transport and save that precious carbon output for the things that at the moment can only be done that way. Likewise, as you rightly point out petrochemicals are extremely useful to us and will be for the foreseeable future. Oil is also a finite resource. Should we really continue to burn vast quantities of the raw material for plastics drugs etc?

It is not all or nothing

There are no simplistic green answers to the problem, so you need to be very sure that there actually is a problem.

Yes, it is a complicated problem. In terms of being very sure that there actually is a problem, I think the weight of evidence says there is. There may be disagreement with the severity of the problem but the physics is well understood. What I am suggesting is not that we go back to the way we lived in the 1700s but that we fast track the new technologies that are coming anyway. I am sure that you would agree that we will not be driving petrol or diesel vehicles in 50 years time, so why wait until the oil runs out to develop new ways of powering vehicles (and making plastic)

Just like maintaining a healthy weight is most easily achieved by tackling the problem early rather than waiting until health problems become totally obvious. Putting on too much weight causes chain reaction of health problems which become harder to fix. If too much ice melts we change the albedo of the planet which then allows more heat to be absorbed. There is a huge amount of co2 and methane trapped in permafrost which could be released as the permafrost melts.

How do we ever get to a stage where everybody accepts the evidence? There are still some that do not believe that smoking has any health problems associated with it. There are companies whose main concern is profit for the shareholders.

My question is other than a few individuals, who is it that does not accept the evidence. ExxonMobil seems to accept the evidence.

Some seem to suggest that if the evidence is correct then we must stop all activities that release greenhouse gasses. This to me is nonsense. To go back to weight, the answer is not to cease eating but to balance eating with energy expenditure. We need to balance carbon release with carbon storage.

It may surprise you to hear that I am an optimist. I believe once humans recognize the need they will do what needs to be done but the earlier we do this the less disruptive it will be.

At $8,000,!Same for me even though my Delica was $20,000, Only $12,000 with trade-in.

 

The wife's Pajero was about the $12,000 mark, but still prefer the Deli.

 

How long to get the new EV's down to the level we the public could afford to pay, without the Business rort's that let the others get away with such a lot.

 

spacesailor

Depends what you mean by the public. Many people buy more expensive cars than you or I. my son bought a 4-year-old BMWI3 for around 30K. Whilst this may seem like big money for you or me it is cheaper than at 60k to 80k Sure you or I might not be able to afford either of those vehicles this does not mean that a car over 20K is too expensive to be viable. My son uses this EV as a daily drive to work and it costs him between $3 and $4 a week to charge. My son is quite a petrol head and does motorsport but the rational choice for him to drive to work is an EV

"the atmosphere is quite finite. Half of the total number of molecules is below 18,000 feet, (6 kms)"Yet we burn our atmosphere, for any excuse, every time I see a rocket launch I wonder how much air gets burnt at the same time.

 

Every Jumbo takeoff see's a ton of fuel burnt, with it's huge plume of pollution trailing behind, !.

 

The EV car's hopefully will save a little of the air (we breath) by Not burning it, & exhaust gas wont "GAS" us.

 

So bring on EV's, they're Just too pricey for me.

 

Any loan or gift EV will be very appreciated.

 

I wont hold my breath. LoL

 

spacesailor

Space prices are dropping and it is predicted that they will fall more rapidly in the near future.

Electric cars cheaper than petrol/diesel from 2022, as battery costs plummet | The Driven

At the moment I would not buy one (but I have never spent more the$8000 on a car)

Consider the first mobile phone in Australia which cost $5000 in 1981. I thought it was cool but assumed I would never own one. My first PC cost me $1200 in 1982 16k of RAM and programs loaded by cassette tape and it did bugger all.

There is no reason not to believe that the price of EVs technology will not follow a similar trajectory.

It seem to me that in the climate debate and the squeaky wheel (ie the radicals)

I have no interest in radical opinion and I think it is a red herring. I think the problem on both sides is getting information filtered through popular media. If someone suggests that the data is flawed because it has been adjusted, that as a proposition is interesting but requires evidence. I posted an admittedly long and dry video about how the data is altered and why and the fact that it is very often altered downwards. The link is provided to the raw data which by the way without being altered still shows warming. I don't expect to change anyone's mind and really it doesn't matter what some individuals think, the science is accepted by most. Of course, the nature of science is that as we measure more data we come closer to the real situation.

It is frustrating to try and post on this subject. You get howled down. It’s like the Salem witch hunts.

Not howled down but is it not reasonable to question statements made by Breitbart editors etc? If I was to suggest that smoking was not detrimental to health it would be fair enough for people to question what evidence I am relying on. To simply say that the majority of scientists are making it up is a proposition that requires evidence and explanation. It is not howling down to ask what evidence someone is relying upon to support their assertions. I always watch or read everything that anyone post if I am going to comment yet I do not suppose people read or watch what I post, that is fair enough but it does not make for a reasonable dialogue.

but on every measure of temperature, sea level, glaciers and so on I find that the facts are different than the numbers presented by alarmists.

It is quite right to be sceptical of some pronouncements and some are prone to presenting the worst-case scenarios however the data is available. In the video, I posted the link was provided to the raw data as well as the homogenised data and the software used to analyse it.

I don't personally care what any individual thinks however I get rather annoyed at the notion that the theory is just a foolish notion that has no evidence. The point in Phil's article that I questioned (and I only chose one point) was that it cited 1 study from 2015 to suggest that real scientist like the NASA folk have disproved it, this is misleading. I did read a summary of the study and it most definitely does not say what the author thinks it says. There is also a paragraph which foresees the deliberate misuse of the study. The fact is NASA believes it has sufficient evidence as does as far I can see pretty much every reputable scientific organisation. You know who else has studied it? The petrochemical industry.

1988 Shell Confidential Report “The Greenhouse Effect”

ExxonMobil climate change controversy - Wikipedia

It seems very unlikely (although not impossible) that just about every scientific organisation in the world plus the petrochemical industry would all have it so very wrong. So what if they are wrong? Petrol is going to run out sooner or later, we could wait until oil does start to run out before we start developing new technologies to drive our vehicles and to make our petrochemicals. Digging up coal and sending around the world in huge ships cannot, in the long run, be the most efficient to create electricity.

The notion that all of those who accept the evidence are people who want to bring down capitalism is a little hard to believe, whilst those kinds of people do exist (and they piss me off) I don't think that the folks at NASA are a bunch of hippies trying to bring down society. Another group who takes climate change seriously are the US military

UPDATE: Chronology of U.S. Military Statements and Actions on Climate Change and Security: 2017-2019

As to where I stand on this, I believe the evidence is overwhelming. I do not think we need to dismantle our way of life but to modify it in ways that hopefully do not create too much disruption. Consider electric vehicles. Whilst I would not say that they are the total solution, they do make sense even if you ignore the pollutants they produce. The model for private transport we have at the moment is that we buy our vehicle from overseas and we power them with petrol. Petrol starts its a journey from the drill site to the tanker ship. After it arrives in Australia we refine it and stick it in a truck and drive it to a distribution point where us motorist buys it. A petrol station is the only option for the purchase of petrol. An EV whilst it is also imported sources its fuel locally. It can be refuelled at home. The electricity can come from renewables, coal, nuclear, hydro etc . It is extremely versatile. I recently read that Australia has 22 days worth of crude oil stockpile at any one time. This is roughly how long it would take for things to break down if supply was cut.

I don't want to live a life without modern conveniences but what is required is to not cling to old ways of doing things but rather forge ahead to the next era. Fossil fuels have been good but that does not mean that we cannot continue to advance.

when you have people adjusting the tempeture to read lower temps to make a case for warming shore make sence for a hotter area

Neil, this video explains in great detail how and why it is done, it presents the raw data before adjustment and even gives you links so that you can download the raw data.

You may dismiss this and choose to accept other sources of information but this explanation does not just make statements, it supports its assertions with links to the raw data.

sigh, I mentioned sport and the other things to make the point that essentially all human activities are in some way pointless whether it be interplanetary research or stamp collecting. I was not particularly making a point about sport. Although I do agree with most of the points made. Now, what about folk dancing.

Why do the electric vehicles have to be the same shape as gasoline powered cars. It should be easy to get e better streamlined shape.

I imagine that one reason is that the streamlining required for an EV probably dosn't vary much from an IC car. Car companies that also produce IC cars probably don't want to deviate too much from what they are already making. Many car buyers have conservative tastes and want something similar to their old car.

Audi has opted for small cameras instead of side mirrors and many vehicles have the door handles which retract into the body of the car.

If you look at the concept cars being displayed at auto shows many of them are quite different in shape to the past.

There are some aerodynamic advantages that we don't tend to see or think about such as the flat underneath of the vehicle due to battery pan.

In a couple of weeks, We are going to NZ to visit my son, this is his daily drive car that he will be lending us. BMWI3 I am very much looking forward to driving it.

[ATTACH]50021._xfImport[/ATTACH]

Homewood: In fact, according to NASA, the Antarctic is actually gaining ice.

Let me just pick one point out of the many because frankly I can't be bothered debating fringe beliefs and let's face it the denier side has lost and will increasingly look more ridiculous as time goes by.

By the way, you neglected to attribute this article which was by James Delingpole who amongst other things is the executive editor of Breitbart London and is a journalist with no scientific qualifications as far as I can see. James Delingpole - Wikipedia The criticisms are by Paul Homewood. There does not seem to be any information about Homewood's qualifications but I would assume if he had any he would be keen to quote them.

You may think it foolish of me but I am going with NASA, you know the folks who can send a probe past Pluto with pinpoint accuracy as well as just about every other reputable scientific organisation.

The study referred to above is from 2015 and must be read carefully. What does NASA say in more recent studies

The decline has slowed lately but never the less still a decline.

The author of this paper Jay Zwally also says this "Zwally said the ice sheets are reacting to climate warming, the question is when receding started and how far it would go."

This paper is one of many papers, the question is where does the scientific consensus lay.

Wintertime Arctic sea ice growth slows long-term decline: NASA – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (2018)

UW glaciologist gets first look at NASA’s new measurements of ice sheet elevation

Arctic Sea Ice Is Growing Faster Than Before, But There's A Catch

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

The BBC are not a scientific organisation the best they can do is quote the science. I think it is reasonable to quote NASA so what does NASA say? Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet If you want to convince me you will first have to discredit the weight of NASA evidence, can you do that?

Phil, you are entitled to your opinion but that is all it is an opinion. I am not a physicist or an atmospheric scientist. I am sceptical by nature in fact in the 80s and 90s I was an active member of the NSW Skeptics society. For me, it is not about politics it is about the weight of evidence.

What if certain gases do not behave in the atmosphere as physicists expect. We will have moved on to new technologies slightly earlier than strictly needed, so what.

Anywhere but here Is subject to cosmic rays and all sorts of other deadly radiation. Anything you take to MARS is only going to be useful until it fails. No one will come back.. I like it here. Lets fix it up a bit and look after it as we should. we have evolved to it's conditions over a B***y long time, like every other thing that's alive today.The orbiting space junk is now a big danger. to spacecraft. Even a chip of paint can kill you at the sorts of speeds they are going at, if you are outside. It doesn't take us long to fill everywhere we go with rubbish. Just chuck it and leave it for others to clean up. Bunch of little charmers aren't we?. We don't deserve a planet. Nev

I guess it is a matter of personal philosophy. We are essentially doomed, our time will be up one way or another. Human existence is really about finding something interesting to do until the end. Some people like us like to fly little aeroplanes which is a useless activity in the whole scheme of things. You could say of almost all human activities "we should not waste time or money on it until we fix all other problems". Sport, art, travel, literature etc are not strictly useful although people enjoy occupying their time with these activities. Although it is extremely unlikely that I will travel to Mars or even into earth orbit just as I probably won't go to Antarctica but I am glad I can experience it vicariously. If we were to draw up a list of activities to cease doing until we totally fixed up all the other problems I suspect that space exploration would be way down the bottom given the small expenditure (and massive indirect benefits). I vote to abolish sport, warfare and folk dancing until we fix everything else up.

I wonder how much work is being done to develop food production in space? Reducing the amount of food that has to be freighed up there might save squillions.Matt Damon did it on Mars, so it must be easy...

I was going to jokingly suggest potatoes but it seems the answer is at least to some degree potatoes.

NASA Plant Researchers Explore Question of Deep-Space Food Crops

Considering the massive cost of getting each kg of material up there in the first place, a smarter solution would surely be to collect it all up and remanufacture new hardware in space

I was watching a short youtube doco on food aboard the ISS, apparently, when a new shipment arrives they get some goodies like fresh fruit, it has been calculated that it cost $10000 to get one apple to the ISS. It is estimated that the cost of the entire station is $160 Billion dollars, the most expensive machine ever built.

well please explain the battery disposal when it is no longer serviceable

Tesla launches battery recycling at Nevada Gigafactory

BMW sets up end-to-end battery recycling in Europe

Formula E signs on to complete battery recycling

Volvo reuses bus batteries for solar storage

If you are inferring that I was unaware, this is not the case. I have keenly followed all space stories for decades and those of Russia China, India, Japan and recently, Israel.

I grew up watching the Apollo missions, they were, of course, awesome but clearly could not continue in that form due to the inevitability of an accident and the enormous expense. This is not how we do things these days. Firstly we expect space travel to be safe and cheap. The good old days were neither safe or cheap. Mars will obviously take longer than the Moon.

I am not sure what you mean by "wasted years" After Apollo, there was Skylab, Mir etc. then the space shuttle. Some people say the space shuttle was a failure but it did make space flight somewhat more routine and enabled SSI to be built. It was a shame that the US has spent some years without its own launch system but during those years they have been developing new spacecraft which are about to carry humans.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree, I see solid incremental progress perhaps not at the breakneck speed of the past. Soon we will have not just one spacecraft to carry humans to space but three.

space exploration is now very low in most peoples' priorities

Perhaps but this does not mean that progress does not continue. In the past public interest has been crucial for government funding but what we have now are wealthy individuals and their companies. Musk and Space x, Jeff Bezos and Blue Origin, Richard Branson and virgin. We may not have a space race between countries but we do have a Billionaires space race.

Because of the Apollo was fully taxpayer-funded we were always treated to news stories showing achievements. Now that these wealthy individuals and companies are funding research and testing there is less of a need to push the PR. They are quite open about the progress they make but mainly you have to have an interest to be aware of it.

Space X has successfully fired a rocket motor powered by methane and oxygen rather than hydrogen. There are many advantages to this fuel but the most exciting one is that there is plenty of methane on Mars. It is proposed that autonomous fuel factories could be sent to Mars ahead of a manned mission in order to provide fuel for the return journey.

In the future, we will look back at the moon landings as mere short hops. The problems of a Mars mission are so huge that progress may seem slow but the hardware for a Mars landing is being developed now.

The ISS is impressive, but hasn't broken records set by the Soviet Salyut and Mir space stations decades ago.

This is not correct.

Mir was launched in 1986 and re-entered in 2001 a total of 15 years ISS was launched in 1998 and has been continually occupied since 2000. Whilst they are thinking about the end of ISS this is not just a matter of scrapping it. There are plans to reuse many of the modules. ISS has surpassed Mir in duration, size number of occupants etc.

International Space Station - Wikipedia

There are also plans for other space stations and indeed space stations specifically designed to aid interplanetary space travel.

Space research may not be exciting to the public but it is happening. I remember when a rocket launch was a huge event now it happens so often that we almost don't even notice it. I usually watch rocket launches live on the ESA or NASA sites as well as regular video from ISS.

When I was a teenager I was obsessed with astronomy. I still have some of my old books which showed Pluto as a pinprick of light, little did I know that in my lifetime I would get to see detailed pictures of the surface taken by a space probe. Black holes were theoretical objects only seen in books as artists renderings and now we can see a picture of one.

I think it is all too easy to fall into the trap of thinking the past was better than the present. There is no past time in which my life would have been more interesting or easier than today.