octave

The idea of shopping centre carparks with solar panels and charging stations is already a reality. Electric vehicle fast chargers have landed at Elizabeth City Centre

I agree. This is already starting to happen. There are a few that have already been in operation for a few years shopping centres such as Chadstone in Victoria and Elizabeth in South Australia. I am familiar with the one in Elizabeth SA, as I visit this area 4 times a year. Elizabeth Shopping Centre – Solar Car Park Shade and Membrane Structures Australia

This looks like similar to the unit i this vid. In this case, it is connected to the grid and when the battery is full and or demandis low it can sell back to the grid. Also, this was installed in 3 hours.

I believe Tesla already has a Megacharger for their semi trailer at their factory, and that they are building 46 in the US that canoutput up to 1.2Mw https://evchargingstations.com/chargingnews/tesla-develops-46-megacharger-stations-for-semi-trucks/ https://kempower.com/solution/megawatt-charging-system/

I do get your point, but I think the 5-minute charge is unnecessary. I am guessing that a charging station will not allow large numbers to charge simultaneously, and it will come at a cost. By the way, no Tesla can charge at that rate anyway; few cars can. It does not seem to be a killing blow to the adoption EVs Interestingly, BYD who I believe is pioneering 5 5-minute charging, don't believe there is much demand for it at the moment, especially given the cost-to-benefit analysis.

Yeah I get that. I think, though, that it is setting the bar very high. You must be able to refuel in 5 minutes flat. The long trip I did with my son's Tesla we never charged it to more than 80%. Each stop coincided with a piss stop or lunch or coffee. Other than lunch I don't think we stopped for more than 10 or 15 minutes. Sure, there are those for whom this would not be good enough. Some folks want to drive for hours without a stop. I guess the point I am making is that the naysayers construct these edge cases where they need to charge in 5 minutes, but this I would suggest, is rare. I get that charging 10 Teslas in 5 minutes simultaneously would be a bit of a stretch; however, I doubt that this is going to be how people charge and that it would be price prohibitive. The video from the charging station at Schengen is interesting. It takes about an hour to charge for a whole days driving. The taxi driver gets an hour a day to relax. The cost is a fraction of the cost of petrol and the historically polluted air of this city is improving. This sounds like everyone is winning.

OME have a look at some of the videos I have posted.

"Large batteries are increasingly being used to support EV charging stations, providing several benefits like reducing grid strain, enabling faster charging, and enabling grid stability through Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) technology. These batteries can act as buffers, storing energy during off-peak times and discharging it during peak times, or when there is a high demand for charging, helping to manage the load on the grid". https://www.power-sonic.com/blog/battery-buffered-ev-charging/

Some very large charging stations, Shenzhen 637 chargers. these are not superchargers but yes all these taxis do charge at once (30 40 or 50 Kw) Merkingen Germany 250 chargers of various capacities. Barstow California 120 superchargers

Are you saying it takes 1Mwh to put 100Kwh into the battery?

How do you arrive at that figure? EV charger efficiency typically ranges from 85% to 95% for Level 2 charging, and slightly lower for DC fast charging. This means that for every 100 kWh drawn from the grid, 85-95 kWh are effectively stored in the vehicle's battery. The efficiency can vary based on the charger type, age, and maintenance. Elaboration: Charging Efficiency: This refers to how effectively electricity from the grid is converted into energy stored in the vehicle's battery. Level 2 Charging: This is the most common type of charging for home and public charging stations. It generally has a high efficiency, typically between 85% and 95%. DC Fast Charging: While DC fast charging can be quicker, it may have slightly lower efficiency compared to Level 2 charging. Energy Loss: Energy loss during charging primarily occurs as heat due to the conversion of AC power from the grid to DC power required by the battery. Factors Affecting Efficiency: Charger type, age, maintenance, and the vehicle's on-board charging system can all affect the overall efficiency. Importance of Efficiency: Higher efficiency means less energy is wasted during charging, potentially leading to lower electricity bills and reduced environmental impact.

I cant think of any country that is pushing for immediate EV adoption. Most countries have targets for 2030 to 2035, and this only applies to the sale of new vehicles.

Is it impossible to build a factory that has large power requirements in a country town? Some countries have a high EV uptake. Is Norway's grid collapsing? Are there enormous queues to charge? Certainly, Norway is not a vast country, although it is quite hilly and cold, which doesn't help. The premise that we don't have enough power rests on the idea that things never change.

Sure, at the moment, the grid could not support universal EV ownership. But are you saying that the grid has reached its ultimate capacity? Once upon a time, travel in remote areas in petrol cars was difficult. We are comparing a mature petrol distribution system with a developing charging network. Elsewhere in this forum, people have expressed an opinion that Australia should get back into manufacturing. We could say we don't have the power or grid to support lots of factories. This would be short-sighted. You build the grid you need. I don't believe there is any scenario where the number of EVs on the road increases massively in a short time. If you drive around the outskirts of most large cities, you will see vast estates being built. All of these houses require electricity. The grid has to grow to meet demand, and it will. As far as EV adoption goes we are way behind many other countries. This means the experiment is being done for us. Are other countries' grids with greater EV adoption collapsing? If enough people are driving long distances in the country and the facilities are insufficient, isn't this then a business opportunity?

I agree that it does get more difficult. We have picked the low-hanging fruit. On the other side, there is innovation. The grid used to be a one-way street; however, now the grid is much more complex. I take from the grid and give back to the grid. Coming innovations, such as vehicle-to-grid, will be important. Net zero is not just about generating electricity; it also covers carbon removed by natural methods and things such as carbon capture and storage. I view the net-zero target as aspirational. (I would like to lose 10kg by the end of the year, but 7kg would still be good.) If renewables truly are going to double the price of electricity or cause regular blackouts, the public will not tolerate it, and it will be modified. Technology continues to advance. When we built our solar power house in 1990, the most efficient and cost-effective light was quartz halogen bulbs 20w each or 30w (12 volts), where we needed more light. My present LED lights are super efficient compared to the older technologies. I remember paying $595 per 60-watt solar panel; now you can get about 400 watts for about $200. My present solar system (grid-connected) did receive subsidies. Yes, this did come from the taxpayer; however, I am not the sole beneficiary of this. A good example is during hot weather. My solar is powering my aircon and some else's. In other words, during times when a lot is asked of the grid, I am contributing to the grid. The same goes for batteries. I would suggest that if a new coal-powered power station were to be built, it would require substantial subsidies from the taxpayer.

Just skimming through a report from Energy Networks Australia suggests that prices went up in 2024due to high gas prices. "Electricity residential prices (real $2023) are forecast to increase significantly by 2024 due to volatility in international gas prices. » While prices are forecast to stabilise by 2030 there will be slightly higher network prices due to higher input costs. » Prices rise again between 2030 and 2040 associated with firming the system to enable the transition to renewable generation. » Energy sales from electrical vehicles will help reduce network prices by FY2050, helping to bring down energy prices through improved utilisation. However, this will be offset by the need for transmission investment to connect renewable zones." Of course, changing the way we generate and distribute power will have some up-front costs but sticking with the old does not seem to be a viable option. I note that Bluescope is quite active in renewable projects for it's own operations. I disagree with the notion that we are rushing at breakneck speed towards renewables. In 2013 14.76% of power was from renewables and in 2024 it was a little under 40% Yes Australia does only produce a small amount of the total CO2 however if you added the emissions from all of the countries that produce under 2% it is a meaningful contribution. Also do we want to be a backwater that relies on old technology? Whilst China is a huge polluter it is also adopting renewables at a fast rate. It is like turning around a super tanker, but it is happening.

You do have to factor in the different ways people refuel EVs. My son only uses a public charger when on a road trip, perhaps once or twice a year. It makes no sense to pay 60 cents a kWh at a public charging station when he can do it at home for 5 cents a kWh. If we are talking time to refuel, the EV only requires you to put the plug in when you get home from work.

I would agree that it would be impossible to be 100% renewable tomorrow. The history of renewables has been that when it was 5% the naysayers would claim that this was the limit and the grid would become unstable. Every year, the percentage of renewables grows. I believe it is now almost 40%. This, of course, is not evenly spread. Tasmania, for example, is 100% renewable (mainly hydro). There are several countries that are at or extremely near 100%, so it is possible. Of course, many of these countries have natural assets that make it easier. The naysayers often have a point, but that point was valid several years ago. It reminds me of folks who criticise EVs for only having a minuscule range or for taking 8 hours to charge. These are valid arguments if it were 2005. The old arguments often don't get updated as technology inevitably improves. In 1990, we built a house and designed and installed a simple solar system. Our house ran on 12 volts, although later we added an inverter. It was expensive and a little bit like camping. As the years went by, technology improved and became cheaper. In our house, now we are connected to the grid; however, we generate about twice what we use. The next step will be a battery. This does not mean we could be free of the grid again because there is a seasonal aspect to the power we generate. This may change as battery tech continues to advance. In this country, there is a huge potential for renewables. Whilst it is not always sunny everywhere, it is usually sunny somewhere and likewise wind. With modern HVDC and uHDC transmission and improved storage technologies, renewables become more and more viable. Where we are at the moment, with around 40% being renewables, means the EV you charge off the grid is 40% (on average) free from fossil fuels. I can only see this as a good thing. Next year, it might be 45% free of fossil fuels.

This is worth watching. It critiques another clip that compares an EV and an IC on a road trip and points out how dishonest it is. This clip does contain facts and figures so it can be fact-checked.

PM I have seen countless articles like this. Journalist drives........ and finds that......... Sometimes these journalists make expensive choices in the route of recharging facilities in order to prove a point. Do you notice this article gives very few details or route or Kwh cost or even charging times. Because of this it is difficult to draw any conclusions. I have some personal experience. In April, we did a road trip the length of NZ North Island with my son in his Tesla. I know what it cost and I know what charging stops were made and for how long. This article goes on to sing the praises of diesel in a way that makes me wonder who is behind the article. Even at best, this article makes the claim that it believes diesel is best for LONG DISTANCE. My son charges his car once or twice a week for the work commute. It costs 5 cents a kWh to charge at home overnight. The power in his location is exclusively hydro, so relatively clean. Now, if it could sound like my son is a smug EV driver who hates IC cars, this could not be further from the truth. He loves cars of all sorts but accepts change. He owns a Tesla 3P, Honda S2000, Mazda Lantis (which is purely a motorsports car), and most recently has acquired a Porsche Cayenne (an older one). As he says, he "loves his IC engines" but he "accepts that things are changing." Back to diesels. Diesels are terrible in the city for emissions. Diesel exhaust To summarise, I think you would surely agree that the article is very short of facts and figures, the authorship is unclear and it obviously flies the flag for diesel. Even if the conclusions are accurate, so what? It at best compares one particular type of journey, which for many people is rare. To draw conclusions, you would think that they would have quoted the kWh price of charging rather than just saying Tesla Superchargers are expensive. Perhaps they compiled tables of data, but it would be nice if they shared this information.

PM have you fact-checked those points?

Several countries are consistently ranked as having very low crime rates, with Iceland, New Zealand, and Japan often topping the lists. Other countries with low crime rates include Denmark, Ireland, Austria, Singapore, Portugal, Slovenia, and Switzerland. These countries generally share strong social cohesion, effective law enforcement, and often have strict gun control laws. Here's a more detailed look: Iceland: Often cited as the safest country, Iceland has very low levels of conflict and militarization. New Zealand: This island nation is known for its peaceful environment and low crime rates. Japan: Japan's strict gun control laws contribute to its low crime rate. European Countries: Many European countries, especially in Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, etc.) and Western Europe (Switzerland, Austria, etc.) are known for their low crime rates and high levels of social well-being. Singapore: Known for its strict laws and efficient law enforcement, Singapore also consistently ranks high in safety. Factors contributing to low crime rates include: Strong social safety nets: Many of these countries have robust social welfare systems that address poverty and inequality, which can be drivers of crime. Effective law enforcement: These countries generally have well-trained and well-equipped police forces with high public trust. Strict gun control: Many of the safest countries have very restrictive laws on firearms, which can reduce both violent crime and accidental deaths. Cultural factors: Some countries have a strong cultural emphasis on community, cooperation, and respect for the law, which can also contribute to lower crime rates.

The United States has some pretty harsh prisons and draconian sentences. The question is, has this led to lower rates of crime?

I upgraded to Win11 partly because I have a couple of computer experts in my family. One good reason for me to upgrade is that as the software I use has more features added to it, the operating system required also increases. This does not seem to be a problem between 10 and 11 (as far as I know), it is easy to end up with an antiquated operating system. I do find the automatic saving of data on OneDrive annoying, although I believe you can disable it. OneDrive has been useful over the past 18 months due to a legal situation with the drug-dealing neighbours, whereby my doorbell cam footage has been used in a legal case. It was imperative to store these files both on my PC and off-site. I do think that every version that comes out meets with complaints, and then, often, sometime later, when these folks have finally upgraded, this version becomes the one that they don't want to move on from. In terms of spying, I kind of assume that my PC is never completely private. Of course, it is an individual choice, and it does depend on what you use your PC for. There are features that I now use that would not be available to me if I did not upgrade (not so much 10 to 11, but if I were stuck back on 8 or 7)

Historically low overall homicide rate The AIC released two reports on statistics emerging from its National Homicide Monitoring Program, a database that has been in operation since July 1989. The institute reports 232 overall homicide incidents were recorded by Australian state and territory police between 1 July 2022 and 30 June 2023, which resulted in 247 homicide victims. The Australian homicide rate (0.87 deaths per year per 100,000 population) remains historically low. There has been a 52 per cent reduction in homicide incidents since 1989‒90, indicative of a long-term downward trend in unlawful killings. The report reveals police, prosecutors and courts are doing a good job, with 90 per cent of cases being resolved through the justice system. That is, only 10 per cent of homicide incidents in 2022‒23 were not “cleared,” meaning cases where an offender has yet to be identified, a suspect has not yet been charged, or a person is declared missing and police believe it’s linked to foul play.