octave

I think I have made this point many times. I have often made to point that no one here will be forced to go EV because it would be impossible to make that huge change in a short time. Throwing away every IC car that still has a few years left in it is not desirable from an energy-to-build perspective. Again using Norway as an example they are aggressively EV and have been for a few years and have got to around 25%. We are a lot less aggressive in this country so it will take years and years before we are anywhere near Norway's figures. Again I don't have strong feelings about whether an individual is for or against buying an EV. I am interested in factual arguments. For now and for quite a few years into the future we will all have the choice to buy an EV or an IC. I do believe that it will not be bans on IC that be the major factor in the mass uptake of EVs but it will simply be the cheaper more convenient choice. Many of the criticisms of EVs are a little old hat. For example, cartoons showing someone pitching a tent whilst waiting for their car to charge are based on bygone days. Likewise cartoons that show an EV plug ultimately into a coal-fired power station are also out of date. I am not suggesting you post this kind of stuff but it is a constant in my mail/social media. Again I think there is plenty of expertise from adequately qualified people. I guess as a counter-argument I could suggest that the anti-side is often guilty of "pushing an agenda without knowledge of recent developments in new technology. In terms of pushing an agenda, I rarely start these conversations I usually read something and think, "Well hang on that doesn't seem correct" and I feel the need to toss a few facts in. As a blatant example, someone here (not you OME) suggested that to blow the horn on a Tesla you have to use the screen. This is false. We discussed tyres being horrendously expensive. I asked my son (who has read some of this thread) about tyres and he sends me a link to the tyres he uses which are pretty much the same price as for IC. If I am a zealot then I am a zealot for well-researched opinions backed with evidence. Whilst I would acknowledge that there are EV zealots I would suggest that there are as many if not more anti EV zealots. I find it hard to understand the passion that some people have. There is a thread on this forum about motorcycles. I am not a fan of motor cycles and I don't have any ambition to ride one however I have no interest in going on that thread and arguing about whether motorcycles are too dangerous or noisy.

The present electrical system certainly would not sustain 100% EV adoption. The present system will never be sufficient for the future. As an example it is often said that Australia should do more manufacturing rather than just shipping raw minerals overseas. One could say that we don't have the power system to support that so lets not do it. Th point is that history is not over. The grid has always grown to meet our needs. Although Norway is blessed with hydro I don't believe it has had to rebuild its poles and wires. The neighsayers seem to think that those in favour of the transition to EV have not even given a thought to how ERVs will be charged in the future. There are plenty of scientific papers on the subject and experts even here in Australia such as Blorn Sturmberg at ANU School of Engineering. Norway? I guess if you are just sitting back and scratching your head and saying but how they...........? There is a wealth of good quality information out there. It is actually intellectually stimulating to take on new knowledge and not just dwell in the past. Here is a video that you might find interesting. Yes, Norway has enormous supplies of hydro and other renewables but they have not totally rebuilt their grid. Two cars and many more can be charged simultaneously.

OME maybe if you are genuinely curious you should do a search for bi-directional charging and V2G (vehicle to grid). The old model of the grid is like the water system. The water flows one way from the reservoir to the tap in the house i.e. electricity flows from the power station to the house. The modern smart grid is more like the internet, electricity flows both ways. This gives the individual the opportunity to buy electricity and sell electricity. The neighsayers seem to present a situation where EVs are only a draw on the grid. Renewables need storage. This is where grid batteries come in. Imagine when most cars are EV. A 70 to 100KWh battery at almost every house. These things are not just stupid ideas but they are being put into practice mostly overseas at this stage. It is true that 20% to 80% is optimal however in if my son is going on a road trip you do charge perhaps the night before to 100%, It is not my practice to fill my petrol-driven car to its full fuel capacity because it does not make sense to drag around all that extra weight. At the other end of the scale, I usually don't run it down to near-empty.

I would think by now that real-world experience and statistics would be interesting. I believe in Nowray around 25% of the car fleet is EV. I would imagine that the accident rate would be similar to other comparable countries. The question I would ask is are there significant numbers of first untrained first responders being injured? Indeed there should be statistics about how many accidents result in significant battery damage or fires. Anyone helping out after an accident in any vehicle should be cautious. I had a van I was driving catch fire. The engine was under the seat so the cabin quickly filled with smoke. There was little I could do about it. The fire brigade arrived and they all had breathing equipment not available to me or any other bystanders. The idea that educating the public about EVs obviously good. I am sure in the early days of petrol-engined cars the public had to learn the dangers of flammable liquids.

I dont know about IC cars and fuel during crash tests but EVs do have batteries during test. The tests can evaluate fire hazard either caused by thermal runaway – when lithium-ion batteries experience rapid uncontrollable heating – in ruptured EV batteries or gas tank leaks of internal combustion vehicles. None of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crash tests of EVs have sparked any fires. New Car Assessment Program crash test reports yield comparable findings. While real-world data analysis on vehicle fires involving EVs is limited, it appears that media and social media scrutiny of EV fire hazard is Electrified vehicles (including battery electric, fuel cell and hybrid-electric vehicles) are subjected to the same ANCAP crash protection and crash avoidance tests as any other vehicle rated by ANCAP. Some additional elements are monitored by ANCAP as part of the testing process: • The output of the high-voltage battery is monitored. High voltage batteries are fitted with a ‘safety cut-out’ that will rapidly disconnect the battery in the event of a crash. We monitor the output to record if and when this cut-out operates. • The vehicle body is checked safely for any highvoltage immediately after the crash. If the safety cut-out were to fail and a damaged high-voltage wire was to be in contact with the vehicle body, then a person touching the vehicle could be injured. Test technicians use insulated gloves and stand on a rubber mat to ensure that the vehicle has no high voltages and is safe to touch. • The battery is examined for any sign of damage, such as intrusion into the battery unit, leakage of fluids, fire or abnormal heat. We can all play our part to ensure the future of the Australian vehicle fleet is both safe and green. Safety and environmental performance are top-of-mind considerations for new car buyers today, and ANCAP encourages all consumers and fleet buyers to consider the safest green vehicle they can afford. Safe and green: Environmental outcomes should not come at the cost of safety.

Yes, they do, why wouldn't they?

No that is not right.

In what sense?

It would have an electronically operated handbrake as do many modern cars regardless of how they are propelled. I found the handbrake on the Tesla to be very user-friendly and effective. What is an electronic handbrake?

I think there are places in Australia that are suitable for some types of geothermal Although Australia has no volcanic structures, there is significant potential for geothermal energy to be extracted using hydrothermal and hot fractured rock processes. From what I can see the problem is not that it can't be done but that ii is at this point uneconomic. Geothermal energy in Australia Australia has considerable geothermal energy potential, however the electricity produced is not financially viable in Australia due to three challenges: finding it: identifying suitable geothermal resources flowing it: producing hot fluid from the geothermal reservoirs at a high rate financing it: overcoming the significant up-front capital costs associated with enhanced geothermal system technologies and the cost of transmitting electricity from remote locations.

It is legal if fixed I think. Obviously, you can't use other functions. I do not know about this particular vehicle but I know in the Tesla you can set the screen as you like it if you find too much information to be distr5acting. My son often has his screen act like a huge rearview mirror using the rear camera, pretty useful. It is reasonable to question whether having this many screens is necessary. Using a phone as a navigational device/GPS while riding is prohibited unless it is secured in a commercially designed holder fixed to the vehicle. All other functions (including video calls, texting and emailing) are prohibited. The penalty is a fine of $545 applies.

Whilst that particular project may not have been successful this does not reflect in geothermal power. It does work overseas. Either our location is unsuitable or perhaps we are just not innovative enough. United States* – 3,900 MW (updated our numbers as per the notes below) Indonesia – 2,418 MW – with a last minute addition for 2023 at Sorik Marapi Philippines – 1,952 MW – updated numbers by DOE Turkiye – 1,691 MW – corrected numbers based on official license numbers by the Turkish authorities New Zealand – 1,042 MW – based on official numbers by the national regulator Kenya – 985 MW – addition of the first 35 MW of three plants at Menegai coming online in 2023 and some updates by numbers reported by KenGen (the country is inching closer to joining the Geothermal GW Country Club) Mexico – 976 MW – no change, yet updated numbers from the Ministry of Energy Italy – 916 MW – correction of our reporting of early 2023. Iceland – 754 MW Japan – 576 MW – corrections of plants and number based on official government numbers.

I agree with every word jerry didn't say.

As Nev points out brakes on an EV last for ages due to regen braking. As far as tyres go, I think perhaps in earlier times there were fewer tyre choices. Tyres for a Tesla are not super expensive and there seems to be a wide choice. Buy Tesla Model 3 Tyres from $169 I think they have the potential to wear out quicker depending on driving style.

Yes in fact if you chose the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 (not sure how many numbers you chose in lotto) you have the same chance of winning as any other combination of numbers. If you toss nine heads in a row the odds of the tenth throw being heads or tails is still 50/50. This feels odd but it is the "Gambler's Fallacy" What Is the Gambler's Fallacy? The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy, occurs when an individual erroneously believes that a certain random event is less likely or more likely to happen based on the outcome of a previous event or series of events. This line of thinking is incorrect since past events do not change the probability that certain events will occur in the future.

Pretty good I would think think. Certainly, they are used for commercial purposes. One example is this sports stadium. Europe’s largest energy storage system now live at the Johan Cruijff Arena

This is an interesting interview with Jim Farley CEO of Ford discussing EVs. I realize this is quite long but even the first 5 minutes is enlightening.

EV batteries can and are being recycled. It is early days and there aren't too many depleted battery packs. They are simply too valuable to ditch. Apart from that, second life batteries for stationary uses are in high demand. 1. Global Top 10 Lithium-ion Battery Recycling Companies [2023] 1.1. American Battery Technology Company 1.2. American Manganese Inc. (RecycLiCo Battery Materials Inc.) 1.3. Ecobat 1.4. Ganfeng Lithium Group Co., Ltd. 1.5. LG Energy Solution Ltd. 1.6. Li-Cycle Holdings Corp. 1.7. Lithion Recycling Inc. (Lithion Technologies) 1.8. Redwood Materials, Inc. 1.9. Retriev Technologies, Inc. (Cirba Solutions) 1.10. Umicore N.V.

Electric car battery charges in under five minutes in track test

So it seems that the longer they wait the more radioactive decay has occurred meaning radiation levels are lower, This makes the job cheaper and less hazardous.

According to the World Nuclear Association, there are 3 methods of decommissioning. Immediate Dismantling (or Early Site Release/'Decon' in the USA): This option allows for the facility to be removed from regulatory control relatively soon after shutdown or termination of regulated activities. Final dismantling or decontamination activities can begin within a few months, depending on the facility. Following removal from regulatory control, the site is then available for re-use within a decade. Safe Enclosure ('Safstor') or deferred dismantling: This option postpones the final removal of controls for a longer period, usually in the order of 40 to 60 years. The facility is placed into a safe storage configuration until the eventual dismantling and decontamination activities occur after resudual radioactivity has decayed. There is a risk in this case of regulatory change which could increase costs unpredictably. Entombment (or 'Entomb'): This option entails placing the facility into a condition that will allow the remaining on-site radioactive material to remain on-site without ever removing it totally. This option usually involves reducing the size of the area where the radioactive material is located and then encasing the facility in a long-lived structure such as concrete, that will last for a period of time to ensure the remaining radioactivity is no longer of concern. Each approach has its benefits and disadvantages. National policy determines which approach or combination of approaches is adopted or allowed. In the case of immediate dismantling (or early site release), responsibility for completion of decommissioning is not transferred to future generations. The experience and skills of operating staff can also be utilised during the decommissioning programme, which may be undertaken by the utility or handed over to a specialist company, with transfer of licence and accumulated funds. Alternatively, Safe Enclosure (or Safstor) allows significant reduction in residual radioactivity, thus reducing radiation hazard during the eventual dismantling. The expected improvements in mechanical techniques should also lead to a reduction in the hazard and also costs. In the case of nuclear reactors, about 99% of the radioactivity is associated with the fuel which is removed following permanent shutdown. Apart from some surface contamination of plant, the remaining radioactivity comes from "activation products" in steel which has long been exposed to neutron irradiation, notably the reactor pressure vessel. Stable atoms are changed into different isotopes such as iron-55, iron-59 and zinc-65. Several are highly radioactive, emitting gamma rays. However, their half life is such (2.7 years, 45 days, 5.3 years, 245 days respectively) after 50 years from closedown their radioactivity is much diminished and the occupational risk to workers largely gone.