Jump to content

Aussie take battery technology to the next step


Recommended Posts

A bloke in Queensland has developed a new battery case, which I see as a game changer because it will allow fast recycling of lithium batteries. Many years ago when getting my first lifepo4 cells for my home, got an offer from the supplier to go to china and they would teach me how to rejuvenate lifepo4 cells back to 100%. Back then was full on playing music and didn't have the inclination, time or money to do that and now this bloke has made it easier.

 

Had my lifepo4 house pack for 14 years, it's only 700ah and use between 8-12kwh daily. Had my bus pack (480ah) a year longer and a 120ah portable the same time and that gets used most days. They still hold 100% capacity which still amazes me and have 3 spare cells that old, which have never been charged and they still stand at 3.2v per cell after all that time. What I really love about them is all the usable energy in a nominal 12v pack, sits above 13v. None of my packs have ever dropped below 13v and they are full with a couple hours of sunlight.

 

"Dominic Spooner’s startup Vaulta is working on a reusable battery casing to create less waste and a lighter product"

 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/18/lightbulb-moment-the-battery-technology-invented-in-a-brisbane-garage-that-is-going-global

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We have bought two battery vacume cleaners,  the batteries of one are kaput !.

The newer one is about a third down from its ' New' run time.

So l,m not impressed with battery technology.

And as for Agm batteries, they don,t like over heating so l,ve got a dozen dead ones.

That did,nt survive our hot summers. ( shed temp just under the 50 degree  ).

spacesailor

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen, and gathered up enough, buggered Li-ion batteries (a lot of them came with item lots from auctions) to know that the lifespan of many Li-ion batteries, is not what many Li-ion adherents claim it is.

Battery-powered tool batteries seem to have short lives. I bought a pile of rechargeable Li-ion AA and AAA batteries a few years back, with the aim of reducing the constant cost of buying replacement alkaline and MnO² batteries.

 

They were a poor investment, and their output was overstated, along with their lifespan. The manufacturers claimed 2000-3000 recharge cycle life. I reckon we were lucky to get 500 recharge cycles out of them.

In the meantime, the price of alkaline batteries dropped and their performance seemed to improve, so it became economic again, to keep buying alkaline batteries - which policy I still carry out.

 

The caravanning and 4WD mobs are always raving about their Li-ion batteries - then they start admitting their purchase cost was 5 times the cost of a deep-cycle VRLA battery. But the average VRLA battery gives at least 5 yrs lifespan with proper use - and that means you'd need to get 25 years use out of an Li-ion battery to make them economic. I personally believe all the Chinese batteries are over-rated in their output and lifespan claims - and they're all still way overpriced.

 

A factor in the overall cost of Li-ion batteries that is yet to be determined, is what the eventual cost to all of us is, in terms of recycling and waste disposal costs of Li-ion batteries.

I already see plenty of Li-ion batteries going to landfill, and the cost of recycling them is enormous and doesn't appear to be cost effective. Yet the humble old L-A is fully recyclable, and more than 90% of L-A batteries worldwide are currently recycled, and this is easily and effectively done with L-A batteries .

 

From the CSIRO website ...

 

Only 2 per cent of Australia's annual 3300 tonnes of lithium-ion battery waste is recycled.
This waste is growing by 20 per cent a year, and could exceed 100,000 tonnes by 2036.
If recycled, 95 per cent of components can be turned into new batteries, or used in other industries.
By comparison, of the 150,000 tonnes of lead-acid batteries sold (in Australia) in 2010, 98 per cent were recycled.
The majority of Australia's battery waste is shipped overseas, and the waste that remains is left in landfill, leading to potential fires, environmental contamination, and risk to human health.

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

So l,m not impressed with battery technology.

That's because just about everyone, doesn't know how to use lithium batteries to get the best out of them and neither do manufacturers, installers and suppliers.

 

Lithium is not lead acid, it's totally different chemistry and technology, sadly manufacturers and resellers persist on using 19th century lead acid charging procedures and parameters. This destroys lithium fast, what should give you are least 20 years of service ends up lasting a couple of years. Plus each lithium chemistry has different voltage and charge requirements. Lithium ion and lithium poly, have 3.7v nominal voltages, lifepo4, uses 3.2v.

 

If you want long life out of your lithium, keep them between 35% and 80% charged. Phones I keep between 80% and 40% all the time, as there is not much real usable energy above 80% SOC and 40% DOD. Have a li-ion battery from 2008, which was my first lithium and it came with the Video camera I bought back then to record band etc. It is still in the camera, have never discharged it below 50% DOD or over 80% SOC.

 

If you could buy adjustable charge controllers, for phones and other domestic gadgets using lithium then you could control them and get really long lives out of them. But manufactures and sellers, recommend using lead acid charging. This is becuase of the  insanity of constant consumerism and throw away economics.

 

For my lifepo4 cells had built dedicated adjustable lifepo4 charge controllers and am seeing the results of that approach. You should never take your lifepo4 cells over 4v and never below 3v, they should be charge at bulk rates until full, no float, temp control or other crap and never keep them fully charged when not using them. Unlike lead acid, which loses charge fast when sitting, lifepo4 don't see to lose charge at all and seem to be able to sit at 70% SOC for years. Could go on, but have to cut some wood before the rain come back and the sun goes away.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Dax said:

That's because just about everyone, doesn't know how to use lithium batteries to get the best out of them and neither do manufacturers, installers and suppliers.

Very true

 

45 minutes ago, Dax said:

If you want long life out of your lithium, keep them between 35% and 80% charged.

My son owns a Tesla and by default charges it to  80%, the only time it is charged to 100% is immediately before a long road trip. I use the same routine with my ebike battery.

 

46 minutes ago, Dax said:

Phones I keep between 80% and 40% all the time,

 I don't do this and this is why my phone batteries tend not to last. 😒

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the problems is that a lot of devices that use them don't give an indication of % charge, so unless the manufacturer designs a charging unit to not charge over 80% and the item to cut out when the battery reaches 30%, then the best you can do is guess.

 

I try and buy portable power tools that are electrically powered - therefore need a battery. At the moment, it is just drills and saws. Both of my chain saws have lights to indicate charge remaining, but nothing to indicate charge level when charging. My drills have no indications except a light goes out when on the charger when it is fully charged, and the drill slows down rapidly when it is approaching being drained. To be fair, the life out of the batteries so far has been pretty good, though one of my drill#s batteries has completely died, but after a few years.

 

Could it be that the manufacturers don't want us to when to recharge and to what level to speed up the decaying process?

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a Samsung Galaxy Note 4 phone (completely obsolete, according to tech gurus - but it works just fine for me), and the battery percentage remaining indicator is the most unreliable and untrustworthy feature of the phone.

 

I can go for a couple of days without charging, and the battery meter will say, for example, "38% remaining". But next thing, the phone has shutdown due to no battery life left, or it sends out a warning that there's 5% battery life left, and it needs to shut down. My missus' phone is the same model, and it does the same thing. I don't always charge to 100%, and I rarely run the battery down to low percentages of life remaining, so I don't know what the answer is.

 

The phone is about 4 yrs old and the battery is still original, and it does still provide satisfactory levels of performance. I just wish the battery indicator was more accurate and more reliable. Its unreliability probably makes me charge it up more than it might actually need.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I,ve bought a couple of Asus laptops, second one because the battery had failed after maybe 3 years, the second didn,t last that long, so a third battery.

I opend one of the failed battery s & found it was full charged but some electical gizmo didn,t let it power the laptop.

Second battery is exactly the same !, fully charged yet reading ' flat battery ' when in the laptop.

Now the wifi won't connect to this newfangled  NBN.

spacesailor

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see if these new nano-diamond batteries get up and running. Having a battery that doesn't go flat for a few thousand years will be handy for a lot of devices. It would be good if they could build them big enough to power housing and industry.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Could it be that the manufacturers don't want us to when to recharge and to what level to speed up the decaying process?

Of course, it's all about turnover. Lots of phones today the batteries are glued in so you can't change them and have to buy a new phone.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dax said:

Of course, it's all about turnover. Lots of phones today the batteries are glued in so you can't change them and have to buy a new phone.

Not in the crappy phones I  buy.  An advantage of being a little behind is that when I got my last phone, the phone I retired was 7 years old.  When i chose a lowly model the sale assailant warned that it was quite a slow phone but compared to what I was used to it was magic.

 

I note that Biden recently signed a "right to repair" order.  The right to "repair to repair" movement is also active in Australia.

 

https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/biden-right-to-repair-order-good-news-for-people-who-always-break-their-phones/

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-10/act-right-to-repair-movement-growing-in-australia/100283348

 

 

There is also a great grassroots movement that is good to get involved with.   "Repair Cafes"   here is my local one. 

 

 https://geelongaustralia.com.au/recycling/news/item/8d904a1860b0934.aspx

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, octave said:

Not in the crappy phones I  buy.  An advantage of being a little behind is that when I got my last phone, the phone I retired was 7 years old. 

Still have 3 phones operating, one is well over 15 years old with its original battery, use that purely for band work as no need for the internet and the screen is to small to use. One is about 6 years old and the still functions but wouldn't handle Signal or 4G at all and now sits in a cupboard and still has its original battery. Got a new new one, which has 128G storage, android 10 and was cheap, but failed to realise had a glued in battery.

 

vet it will take decades for our government to introduce right to repair legislation and force multinationals to provide full documentation to the public. As well as include all electric goods must be up-gradable have 10 year life guarantees and be fully repairable.

 

Won't happen, all you have to do is follow the donation trail to know why.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dax said:

Won't happen, all you have to do is follow the donation trail to know why.

I disagree things, do change gradually.  Consider appliances that now are labeled for energy use. Modern appliances have become much more energy efficient. I believe that a scheme is being considered whereby stickers similar to energy consumption but in relation to repairability.  This need not be provided by the company itself but by third parties.  

 

I believe it is crucially important maintain optimism, without it we may just as well give up. If it is too late then why not buy all the latest tech.  I think there are many people who believe that they doing good merely by pointing out the obvious problems that we need to tackle.  Many of these people don't want to consider the solutions but merely want to whinge and whine.

 

In talking about things like climate change I have often been confronted by people who reluctantly accept the science but think that we can't change it so what is the point?

 

You perhaps might find the growing trend towards considering repairability to be insignificant but I would rather put my energy towards being part of that change.    

 

Even if the government wont or cant introduce right to repair legislation there are other means.   We should all be making it clear to manufacturers that we do care about repairability, I know I have written to manufacturers before.   A modern television or computer monitor uses a lot less than in days gone by, not out the goodness of their hearts but because people demanded it.

 

Being morbidly pessimistic is not  the solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, octave said:

Being morbidly pessimistic is not  the solution.

There is a massive difference between pessimistic, accepting reality and doing something about it. Most claim to be optimistic, yet do nothing to change their lives and approach. That's why nothing changes, everyone is either not ready to change, refuses to or wants other to do it for them.

 

I accept reality and do something about it, that's why I live the lifestyle I do. All my electrical stuff I repair myself or get someone to do it, but trying to find those people still repairing electronic equipment, is pretty hard where I live and expensive.

 

Things like this battery casing, are positive steps forward, but our government will do nothing and it will end up in the bin or sold to overseas interests, just like every thing invented or developed in Aus. Don't think people know the real difference between being optimistic and pessimistic, they live in pure hope and will continue that way until forced to change and governments won't change, there is to much money in it for them with the current throw away society.

 

I'm very optimistic about the future, because I'm prepared for it. But not optimistic about world societies future, because no one will do anything but either moan and groan, make out they are doing something, but in reality they are waiting for someone else to do it for them. That's why I get into the latest tehcnology that comes along that will help provide a better future for everyone.

 

The technology we develop is brilliant, but how we use it is disgusting and that goes for lithium batteries.  These batteries will last for decades treated properly, but when you try to tell people how to get the best out of them, they ignore you, attack you and claim manufacturers and suppliers know how to use them. So they don't last, people moan and groan about that, but do nothing to change it and they never will.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Dax said:

Most claim to be optimistic, yet do nothing to change their lives and approach.

 

And many who are pessimistic also do little. 

54 minutes ago, Dax said:

All my electrical stuff I repair myself or get someone to do it, but trying to find those people still repairing electronic equipment, is pretty hard where I live and expensive.

 

An that is admirable and also what I try to do. The point is though we could say one person's actions can be pretty meaningless in the whole scheme of things but large numbers of people can change things.  To me it is important to not only make personal changes but to inspire others to adopt change. You dismissed my post growing "right to repair" movement.   I understand your point that many companies do not want their products to be repairable but they probably didn't  want them to be lower energy users or to have to have an end of life recycling strategy.    In the mid 80s car manufacturers were forced to produce unleaded vehicles this had made a difference. In the next 10 or so years we will see ICE vehicles begin to disappear.   When I read about right to repair legislation I don't think "it'll never work" I think how can I pressure my local politicians to go down that road, or how can I pressure the businesses I purchase from to go down that road.   When I read about the "repair cafe" movement I wonder how I can get involved, even if not directly I can always suggest to friends who are equipped to be involved or perhaps referring friends who have items that they think can only be thrown away.

 

Most people have a reasonable understanding of the biggest problems we face but don't really know what they can do about it.  No individual can make a huge difference alone.   Others believe it is too late so, "what the hell, may as well do whatever we like."  I think that the average person does have some understanding of the problems but feels there is nothing they can do and this is quite true as an individual.    

 

Coal power stations are no longer being built in this country partially because of the difficulty of funding these projects.    Many people would like to hasten the age of coal power but perhaps unknowingly are actually investing in coal through their superannuation or their bank or even their insurance company.   This is something I have dealt with in my personal situation and I am always happy to encourage others to do the same.  My own money will not change much but collectively it does have an effect.   

 

The actions of one person are irrelevant other than inspiring others to change.   Dax perhaps you could inspire us?

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, octave said:

The point is though we could say one person's actions can be pretty meaningless in the whole scheme of things but large numbers of people can change things.  To me it is important to not only make personal changes but to inspire others to adopt change.

One persons actions aren't meaningless, if many followed their example. You can't get large numbers of people to change things if they have no example to follow and its that one or two people who provide the example, governments don't, they do the opposite.

 

Inspiration comes from example, but ideological humanity only follow deluded inspiration and always waits for the majority to do something, but they majority are waiting for the majority to inspire them, unless it's for personal gain without giving anything up and that won't change.

12 hours ago, octave said:

When I read about right to repair legislation I don't think "it'll never work" I think how can I pressure my local politicians to go down that road, or how can I pressure the businesses I purchase from to go down that road. 

The only way to pressure politicians is with money or mass protest and the same with business, neither are going to change if it costs them anything or reduces their power base. As for repair legislation, I have never seen it as not being able to work, just not being able to happen because of vested interests and only the deluded would think fervent ideologues would change if it meant a lose for them, or go against their ideologies. History is all the proof you need to see that reality and as long as ideological humanity is around, it will never change.

 

 

12 hours ago, octave said:

Most people have a reasonable understanding of the biggest problems we face but don't really know what they can do about it.  No individual can make a huge difference alone. 

You read every day suggestions of what can be done to mitigate the worlds problems, yet there is never any change, just loads of empty hope someone else will do it. An individual can make a huge difference to their lives alone, the internet is overflowing with idea's and ways to improve society. If all individuals did one or two things to change societies direction, it would improve things, but its much easier to sit back pass the buck and do nothing.

13 hours ago, octave said:

 

The actions of one person are irrelevant other than inspiring others to change.   Dax perhaps you could inspire us?

Not me, gave that up decades ago when realising no one would listen or do a thing, other than try to blame me for approaching life responsibly. Even today, people still laugh at me for using seed oils for fuel, not eating any animal products, processed foods no chemicals in my house or property or never buying from coles/woolworths and other monopolies, duopolies.

 

If you can't find inspiration within yourself to make a change to the world personally, so our children/grandchildren have a decent future, there are no words for that form of gross irresponsibility and selfishness. I take responsibility for my footprints on this planet to the best of my ability, what others do is their problem and 99.9999%, will do nothing.

 

Last century was the century of irresponsibility, this century is the century of responsibility. If we don't take personal responsibility for our lives, we will be relegated to the past where most of us belong with the primitive self centred mindset enveloping the planet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dax said:

One persons actions aren't meaningless, if many followed their example.

Yes that is my point. When I say one person actions are meaningless I am saying that whilst sorting  recyclables  is obviously a good it does not change the carbon footprint of the world by a meaningful  amount however if you  can convince many others that it is worth the effort then you begin to have meaningful change. Saying you don't believe there can or will be change is the the a great motivator.

 

2 hours ago, Dax said:

The only way to pressure politicians is with money or mass protest and the same with business

 So protest,   By the way I think this notion is not correct, yes these may be ways to force governments to change but not the only way.  Governments also want to be reelected.   Why did governments legislate to remove lead from fuel? 

 

  Many things have changed for better the since my younger days,   In the eighties from my house at Kurrajong Heights I  could see the city of Sydney bathed in is usual yellow haze and pollution levels were reported on the weather reporto TV.   You pretty much threw bottles, tin and paper away. Recycled paper was something we ordered from a specialty seller and friends thought we were nuts for bothering.  Finding a bank that had a policy of not lending to certain industries was unheard of.   Most houses had an incinerators to burn grass clippings and cardboard etc.   Nobody either new or cared how much energy an appliance used.  It is a pretty grim outlook to say NOTHING has changed for the better.

 

My wife works voluntarily with a small group that helps other groups campaign.   Things like how to make contact with a MP in the most effective way such that they have to go on the record with their answer.     Most recently she has been working stopping a huge gas terminal being built near here.  The government IS in a bit of a quandary weighing up voter sentiment against party philosophy and fossil fuel mates.   There appears to be a reasonable chance at success here, certainly enough to keep working on it.   She has also done some work with unions that are worried about their workers.  The old fashioned us and them adversarial way no longer works. 

 

You don't really effectively change things by purely venting your angst.   Pointing out to politicians that this facility may well not have a long future due to things like the proposed EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism.   I guess you feel my wife is foolishly wasting her time because nothing will ever change?

 

2 hours ago, Dax said:

If you can't find inspiration within yourself to make a change to the world personally, so our children/grandchildren have a decent future, there are no words for that form of gross irresponsibility and selfishness. I take responsibility for my footprints on this planet to the best of my ability, what others do is their problem and 99.9999%, will do nothing.

 

I am not looking for inspiration I have done plenty.  I take responsibility for my carbon footprint which is pretty low.  I also invest in new cleaner  technologies, I bank with a more responsible bank, I produce enough electricity for myself and put a couple of mWh back into the grid for others to use.  We limited ourselves to one child. It is foolish through to believe that by ourselves we are making a material difference.   We need to inspire others to change and whilst doomsaying may influence some most people want to know how they can make a difference.

 

Every year renewable energy grows, it gets cheaper and better.  There is a clear path to fossil fuel free cars.  Rolls Royce and Airbus are working on alternative fuels.  

 

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on methods though.  Perhaps your method may work for some people who need to be scared into action but many many people just want to know what they can do. If it is too late then what is the point.

 

As I say I am not asking you for inspiration, what I am saying is that rather than being a doomsayer you could perhaps also be a repair guru or a fuel from vegetable guru.   It is more useful and perhaps personally satisfying to be a positive influence on people.

 

Glue phone batteries?  Yep that sucks but whinging into thin air does nothing to change it.   Why not get together with others and write to a wide range of phone manufacturers and ask them if their product contains a glued battery. Make it clear that there is a good size market for people who do not want this.    Learn how to circumvent the problem.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=glue+phone+battery&rlz=1C1CHZO_enAU915AU915&oq=glue+phone+battery&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30l2j0i390.5239j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#kpvalbx=_lgP2YJzaAaz6z7sP4eWv2AU92

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, octave said:

It is a pretty grim outlook to say NOTHING has changed for the better.

It's a fact, when you and I were young, there were around 11 million in the country and 3 billion on the planet. Now there is over 25 million in Aus and 8 billion on the planet and you call that a change for the better. It's not better change, but worse change, no excuse, platitude or apologetics will change the true reality.

 

However looking at it from a wider perspective, the changes the planet is undergoing are positive changes. It will bring about a massive reduction in humans, which will be of great benefit to the planets environmental future, it's only negative for humans, but positive for the planet in the long run.

1 hour ago, octave said:

You don't really effectively change things by purely venting your angst.   Pointing out to politicians that this facility may well not have a long future due to things like the proposed EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism.   I guess you feel my wife is foolishly wasting her time because nothing will ever change?

Spent years trying to get politicians to listen round the country, as have many others and not one took any notice, Even put together a manifesto of what could be done to change our direction 20 years ago to a couple of politicians I knew, one laughed saying we could never do that and the other got very irate saying that sort of approach is not an agenda their party would ever contemplate.

 

Couple of years ago joined a new political party who claimed to represent the people, but any suggestions or policies which I presented were rejected as taking away power from the party. My idea was to put the entire government system online and have the people vote for all policies in a referendum style governance, which would get rid of the party system and put government in the peoples hands completely. Total rejection, some very angry people who couldn't see past their ideological egos and it cause uproar when some who supported my policy approach, the party folded not long after.

 

As for change, there is one single constant in the universe and only one true reality, that's change. You seem to only see change which will benefit humans as being positive, I see change that benefits the future of the planet as being positive change. Change that just benefits humans, I see as negative change because the reality is, ideological humans are just another destructive animal on the planet and of no significance whatsoever to a viable future for life here. In fact ideological humans are a liability to the future and the only negative on earth, they are just about the only animal that kills for pleasure, ego, greed and gluttony. Just about all other life forms lives an ethical life and only kill for food and protection, the complete opposite to the deranged approach of ideological humanity.

1 hour ago, octave said:

As I say I am not asking you for inspiration, what I am saying is that rather than being a doomsayer you could perhaps also be a repair guru or a fuel from vegetable guru.   It is more useful and perhaps personally satisfying to be a positive influence on people.

Most certainly not a doomsayer, leave that to the religious and other ideologues. What I post are verifiable scientific fact, not airy fairy empty hope of could've, should've and maybe if we did this. I've done it, people see how I live and are amazed and think it's wonderful but not for them. They don't have the time, make excuse after excuse, then continue their latte urban life as usual, doing nothing but more of the same.


Present people with deluded far fetched ideas with empty promises of success at the end and they flock to you, just look at religion and other ideologies for proof of that, they are all far fetched and delusional in the extreme. Present people with logical, rational positive ideas, that require changes to their approach to life and they want nothing to do with it.

 

As for asking phone manufacturers to use replaceable batteries, retail business today is run on consumerism, market turnover and profit growth, nothing else. It's also the worlds political parties agenda, asking them to give up what keeps them in power, is like asking for them to drop their belief in non existent gods of war, that they claim are peaceful and loving, The facts on all their beliefs and approaches, is the complete opposite. But the facts surrounding the viability of our future, are reality in action, positive for the planet and negative for ideological humans.

Edited by Dax
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dax said:

My idea was to put the entire government system online and have the people vote for all policies in a referendum style governance,

But you tell me that 99.9% don't care so why would you think that putting everything referendum would make change for the better.  The point is I can write to a politician and demand that all ICE vehicles by banned from tomorrow, which would be great but we know it is impractical.  Change has to be actually workable.    The fact that you could not persuade a politician to adopt your plan doesn't mean much.  

 

35 minutes ago, Dax said:

You seem to only see change which will benefit humans as being positive

 

The changes I mentioned were around air pollution, recycling, making it it more difficult for companies to fund  new fossil fuel, projects, taking lead out of petrol.  Although I see all of these as being a net benefit to humans they are also good for the planet in terms of pollution.    To be clear are you arguing that taking lead out of petrol is not a good thing?  

 

  Many people are afraid of change to a cleaner way of doing things because they feel they may lose their job or be forced to live a harder life.   There are many examples where groups or cities or societies are making great change certainly in  energy use.  The Orkney Isles is a great example of what can be done. I guess you think it is just futile foolishness. 

 

26 minutes ago, Dax said:

t's a fact, when you and I were young, there were around 11 million in the country and 3 billion on the planet. Now there is over 25 million in Aus and 8 billion on the planet and you call that a change for the better. It's not better change, but worse change, no excuse, platitude or apologetics will change the true reality.

 

I have never said that every change since my childhood has been positive but you seem to be say that every change has been negative.   

42 minutes ago, Dax said:

As for asking phone manufacturers to use replaceable batteries, retail business today is run on consumerism, market turnover and profit growth, nothing else.

Absolutely correct.  In the end a business has one aim and that is to sell as many of their product as possible.    One consumer has little power many consumers have the ultimate power.   I guess part of what I am saying is that pointing out problems is useful in the beginning but what is really important is finding solutions.    I suspect that most people would share your annoyance at for example some manufacturers gluing in batteries.    Informing the world of my annoyance of non repairable tech is fine to a point but when I am confronted with a problem I don't just continually restate it I work out what I can do about it and perhaps what others can do about it.    

 

https://grist.org/climate/why-frances-new-repairability-index-is-a-big-deal/   Now I am not saying the right to repair movement is going to single handedly save the world but jeez if you cant see any good in it, if you think it is stupid and futile then what action is useful?   

 

Back many years ago my wife did a degree in environmental science.  This involved being aware of the current environmental standards regarding pollutants. It is a fact that during that time acceptable levels have consistently been lowered.   I think most of us would agree that the pace of change needs to be faster but to argue that NO progress has been made seems a little inaccurate. 

 

The way we attempt to push society what we see as a better direction is in the following ways.

 

The work my wife does with "intelligent" lobbying and her working hard to understand the details (not just say ooooh we should do this - that would be cool)

We invest in what we see as appropriate clean technology that is better for people and the planet.

We do not invest indirectly in certain business areas such as fossil fuels.  By indirectly I mean we do not put our money in a bank that lends to companies in these areas.  Which bank you put your money in is important if you want to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

We purposely downsized in terms of house sixe. We now live in a small low energy premises.

We have gone solar (not for the first time in our lives).        Our low carbon electricity generation is meaningless unless many others do the same.  To this end we have helped 2 other households where they were keen to go solar but overwhelmed by the decisions and paperwork and we are looking to help other.

We pay more per kWh for the small amount of power we need to buy in order to support renewable generators.

We get most things delivered because we see this as more efficient for a cars on the road point of view. These days our local transport is mostly by bike. In the past we lived on a country property and had to drive a 200km trip 5 days a week just to get to work, this was not very sound from a carbon point of view. 

We only had one child.  I am constantly amazed that people will lecture about population although they still chose to have multiple children.

 

I gather you believe all these actions are meaningless.    You must surely agree that with big complex problems the answer is to tackle it on as many fronts as possible. 

 

By the way I keep mentioning leaded fuel because it is something I am sure we all remember.      If I can pose a question,  why did we move away from cars that required leaded petrol?   Did companies just decide to do this or did governments legislate?    

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, octave said:

But you tell me that 99.9% don't care so why would you think that putting everything referendum would make change for the better. 

To have a decent discussion, don't change what is posted to suit your reply. I said, 99.999 people will do nothing, that doesn't mean they don't care. Of course they care, but do nothing because there is nothing presented to them they can follow and that can only come from those in power.

 

17 minutes ago, octave said:

Change has to be actually workable.    The fact that you could not persuade a politician to adopt your plan doesn't mean much. 

Couldn't persuade the politicians because it was workable, fully costed and each policy supported every other policy I put together and covered every aspect of society. Presently policies are devised to support vested interests and economic/profit growth, not sustainable technological, environmental and sociological growth. The current approach is totally unworkable, as anyone can see by the state of the planet and human societies worldwide.

 

For anything to work and make a real difference, you need to have policies which cover all aspects of society and fit together with every other policy so they support each other. Currently polices are devised on political agenda and vested interest and ideological demand, none are designed to support other policy aspects of society. There are simple workable logical answers for ever problem society faces, no one wants to hear them or how they could work, It's just more of the same and we will appease our guilt complexes by doing a little bit here and there, but refuse to change so that it makes a real difference.

 

25 minutes ago, octave said:

Now I am not saying the right to repair movement is going to single handedly save the world but jeez if you cant see any good in it, if you think it is stupid and futile then what action is useful?   

Again you attribute words to me that are not true, repairing commodities is very useful and have never said otherwise, or would. You can make all these little things a priority, but they are insignificant in the wide range of extremely essential changes needed to stop the collapse of life giving support systems. We've been on this trip of just doing the little things and feeling good about them for decades, but doing nothing about the real issues determining the future, is the real problem and the results of that approach are already in.

 

32 minutes ago, octave said:

I gather you believe all these actions are meaningless.    You must surely agree that with big complex problems the answer is to tackle it on as many fronts as possible. 

Again you gather wrong, all your actions help, but in the big picture, they are meaningless. Just as my approach to life is helpful, but in the big picture, meaningless other than for myself and those close to me.

 

I chose not to address your comments about leaded petrol, because the answer is very simple and should be known by most. However as you are pushing it, here's the answer.

 

They removed lead from petrol because of the huge growth of lead in the environment, which was contaminating land, schools, homes and business resulting in a rapid rise of lead induced illness in people and especially the young. They either got rid of lead from fuel, or paid the cost of rising health costs and lose of political power. The fossil fuel industry backed it because they feared the huge legal costs they would face from growing lead poisoning, just as the tobacco industry faced.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dax said:

o have a decent discussion, don't change what is posted to suit your reply. I said, 99.999 people will do nothing, that doesn't mean they don't care.

The point I am making is that would a party that pledged  to immediately wind down the fossil fuel industry be elected.  Sure you and I would vote for this party but would they be elected?    One for the things my wife does is training people on who to interreact with their local MP.   People naively believe that they just have storm into their MPs office and rant and rave and thump the desk.   In the example of stopping the Gas facility being built the local MP (who is personally onside with us) will say OK that makes sense but tomorrow I will have a union rep in here accusing me of being anti job,    What I am saying is that people rightly or wrongly have conflicting beliefs or requirements.   What I want to happen is not necessarily what another voter want, this is the tightrope a politician walks.  We need to convince enough people to want what we would see as the right thing so that the MP will act in order to receive a "majority" vote at the next election.

 

19 minutes ago, Dax said:

Again you gather wrong, all your actions help, but in the big picture, they are meaningless.

That's what I said.   Individual actions are meaningless in that my low carbon footprint will not tip the climate one way or the other.    If I can convince enough people to reduce their carbon footprint then that can be significant.I imagine you would agree with that.   It is a hard sell to tell people that world is more than likely doomed but you should still sort your recycling.

 

23 minutes ago, Dax said:

They removed lead from petrol because of the huge growth of lead in the environment, which was contaminating land, schools, homes and business resulting in a rapid rise of lead induced illness in people and especially the young. They either got rid of lead from fuel, or paid the cost of rising health costs and lose of political power. The fossil fuel industry backed it because they feared the huge legal costs they would face from growing lead poisoning, just as the tobacco industry faced.


Timeline of Lead Phase-out

1970: Congress passes the Clean Air Act. The EPA is formed and given the authority to regulate compounds that endanger human health.

1973: EPA mandates a phased-in reduction of lead content in all grades of gasoline.

1974: EPA requires availability of at least one grade of unleaded gasoline, in order to be compatible with 1975 make and model year vehicles. Lead damages the catalytic converters used in these new vehicles to control tailpipe emissions. Catalytic converters are still used in vehicles today.

1996: EPA bans the use of leaded fuel for on-road vehicles (leaded gasoline was down to 0.6 percent of 1996 gasoline sales). Lead is still used in some aviation fuels.

Thanks to coordinated efforts, lead is now absent from gasoline in most of the world. Following the lead phase-out in the United States, the oil refining industry chose to construct additional refining capacity to produce octane from other petroleum products, rather than from renewable sources such as ethanol.

 

I don't believe fuel companies or tobacco companies change out of the goodness of their hearts but rather do what they need to do to keep operating.  I seem to remember at the time that car manufacturers were complaining and telling us that cars would be more expensive and wouldn't last as long etc. 

 

The phase out seems to have been driven through legislation.    Whilst you may be cynical about whether right to repair legislation can achieve anything useful and you don't wish to waste your time on it, surely the fact that it is even being talked about is a small step in the right direction. Most of us can walk and chew gum at the same time i.e. working towards change in one are need not prevent us from working in other areas.

 

I would be interested in you prescription for change?  What would Prime Minister Dax do if elected to office?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, octave said:

I would be interested in you prescription for change?  What would Prime Minister Dax do if elected to office?

This is only a short brief and it would be a series if things, because you have to start at a point so everything flows together and it won't cover everything

 

First change the education system from turning out economic clones to teaching the young how to live life properly, diet, health, biology, sex, law, the normal 3 R's, food growing and remove all religious teachings. When they reach the age of 16, give them 4 years of work experience in all aspects of state and federal government services, including  transport, police defence, hospitals and emergency services. Set up properly it would cover just about all types of employment, when they finished they would be ready to decide on a career, or continue their education. They would become trained responsible citizens, this would remove youth unemployment and most youth crime, lifting a huge burden off society resources.

 

Next offer the farming community a chance to have a long term environmentally friendly income for the foreseeable future, but getting them to grow seed oil crops. Not just cooking oil crops, but dedicated seed oils which can be used for fuelling heavy transport initially and producing biodegradable plastics and other products currently coming from fossil oils, which don't pollute and are completely recyclable. This country sends over $50 billion dollars a year overseas to pay for our fossil fuels, which doesn't include the many billions of dollars of subsidies we give fossil fuel companies, that money never comes back. Keeping that money in the country will drive the economy and fuel proof Aus for the future, there are a number of seed oil producing plant which are easy to grow just about anywhere. One of those is the common wild radish, which grows just about anywhere and provides around 50% oil. Things like canola, only provide around 22-28% oil.

 

Next, nationalise all essential services and natural resources, as the money made from those belongs to all the people, not just a few morons ripping us off and only sell fully value added good overseas. It would also give us control of our lithium supplies and that would allow us to develop state of the art energy storage. Take control of the CSIRO and cut its ties with overseas companies and governments, making it concentrate on research and development of environmentally safe technology.

 

Start and electrical conversion industry, by subsidising the manufacture and conversion of current ICE vehicle to EV. It would start with converting all government vehicles to EV, whilst developing the technology and develop large numbers of small business and industry. This would reduce unemployment dramatically, and with having young people trained in so many areas and all would be working because the change would create jobs galore. With growing automation, we need to develop jobs that people will enjoy and contribute to society in meaningful ways, we can use automation for all the heavy ans repetitive type of work. Small business and industry is the only way to turn the economy around, same with tariffs government used to protect Aussie industry, business and farming. Now they support the opposite and push the destruction of small business and real competition. The only way you can get real competition is more players in the game, lots of small business reduces prices and creates huge numbers of jobs. All produce should be auctioned so there is real competition ins the country.

 

There are tens of millions of cars and trucks in Aus, new EV's will take decades to have everyone in one. Converting current vehicles will be cost effective for everyone particularly with government subsidies and very low cost loans. We could convert the entire transport system to electric within a few years with the right incentives and approach, waiting for new EVs to take over, will take at least 2 decades and probably 4 decades. You should be able to book your car in, drop it off and pick it up later that day as an EV. They would raise the car, disconnect the body and sit it down on the Ev chassis. if that can't be done, then the drop the running gear take out the engine and replace with EV parts. Would love to take my cruisers in and drive them out as Ev's with 1000+ range, I'd have it covered in solar cells, with banks of super capacitors sucking in every ounce of energy from the sun and regen braking, feeding it directly to the drive system and into the batteries as needed. Longer battery life and if it's a sunny, maybe a full days range. Oops, got bit carried away.

 

Next would shut the doors to Australia for new settlers, until we have our society on a decent working path, the last thing we need is bigger strains on our infrastructure, hospital and health systems which can't cope now. Control wages and prices, so we develop an economy that actually works for everyone and the future. Everything we use should be recyclable, and fixable with real manufacturers guarantee which personally would be a minimum of 5 years and small subsidies for manufactures who provide longer life times with no real increase in cost. Establish a people owned bank and insurance coverage for all based on individual situations, not cross the board escape clauses.

 

Put government online, available to all registered citizens who would use a fully secure separate operating system developed and built in Aus. there;s a lot more to it than that but it's workable and would allow Aus to operate outside any from of interference, as you'd have it heavily watched 24/7

 

There's to many subjects to cover, but there are answers for them all and all are right in front of us. Better go charge my batteries

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK a few thoughts,  There is a lot here I do like although I would possibly disagree about how it could be implemented.   Don't get the idea I am putting down your ideas I am merely questioning some details.

 

35 minutes ago, Dax said:

First change the education system from turning out economic clones to teaching the young how to live life properly, diet, health, biology, sex, law, the normal 3 R's, food growing and remove all religious teachings.

I am not sure we can say say all education is about turning out economic clones.   I am quite familiar with the music degree course at various institutions and if anything they fail to prepare students for the economic realities of working in the arts.  This happens to be an area that I have knowledge of but those surely applies to other areas as well.  Diet, sex, law whose version of this do we teach, should diet be vegan vege, carnivorous?   I certainly would agree that learning about alternatives would be worthwhile.  Remove all religious teachings, as a staunch atheist I would agree with that however I have no problem with teaching about the different religions in a kind of social studies way.

 

42 minutes ago, Dax said:

When they reach the age of 16, give them 4 years of work experience in all aspects of state and federal government services, including  transport, police defence, hospitals and emergency services.

 I can see some merit although I do have trouble with compulsion. We homeschooled our and did not follow any set curriculum believing that was not the government's business to dictate what he learned. Note now 31 highly successful and well adjusted. 

 

45 minutes ago, Dax said:

They would become trained responsible citizens, this would remove youth unemployment

 

i am not sure that in itself this would remove youth unemployment but I am open minded about that.

 

So far we seem to have a lot of government compulsion and this does not sit well with me.

48 minutes ago, Dax said:

Next offer the farming community a chance to have a long term environmentally friendly income for the foreseeable future, but getting them to grow seed oil crops.

 

It is not an area I know a lot about although I do believe there are pros and cons to biofuels.   This would hardly be surprising as every idea has pros and cons. I will leave that discussion for another day though. I agree with the point about fossil fuels. 

 

52 minutes ago, Dax said:

Next, nationalise all essential services and natural resources, as the money made from those belongs to all the people, not just a few morons ripping us off and only sell fully value added good overseas. It would also give us control of our lithium supplies and that would allow us to develop state of the art energy storage. Take control of the CSIRO and cut its ties with overseas companies and governments, making it concentrate on research and development of environmentally safe technology.

When it comes to private versus' public ownership I sit somewhere in between.    Whilst it may make sense for governments to own or have a  controlling interest in some areas the notion of governments owning all business  (not you have said all business) I suspect would be too much for most Australian.    We have seen what other countries have done in the past with state owned car companies or other factories.  I would be looking for examples of success stories from other countries before I would support partially or wholly nationalised economy.

 

When you say take control of CSIRO what does that mean, take control from who?  I would likewise be concerned with cutting ties with other countries.  I don't think being insular and pulling up the drawbridge is in anyone's interest.  This is especially true when it comes to the Covid era with regard to vaccines.  

 

1 hour ago, Dax said:

Start and electrical conversion industry, by subsidising the manufacture and conversion of current ICE vehicle to EV. It would start with converting all government vehicles to EV,

.   

This is of interest to me however I think that it is certainly not that easy.   I say this because I went a long to a local group who get together and work on one person's car to convert it to electric.    The one thing I learnt is that conversion is expensive and time consuming.  I could not just drop my old ford focus on to what they refer  in the EV industry  as a skateboard.    ICE cars a generally heavy  compared to your average EV (minus battery pack)  There are loads of problems. I would love to do it.       I watch a youtube channel called Fully Charged https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzz4CoEgSgWNs9ZAvRMhW2A  Ther are many episode which follow the conversion process.  Generally it is only ecnomically viable (at this stage) with higher value classics cars.    I have invested in some EV companies and I follow the in and outs of the industry.   One constraint to growth is battery supply,  At this point there are already too many EV manufacturers for the supply of batteries.  It is not just a question of raw materials but even huge companies like Tesla with their Gigafactories are constrained by battery supply.   Yes we could start making our own and I would love to see this and would absolute support it but realistically this will be a slow process.  Big companies like Samsung did not just start manufacturing huge amounts of batteries overnight.    As much as I don't want to present the same argument as the anti EV crowd, power to charge these vehicle will have to come from somewhere.   I don't believe electricity is a huge issue given the likely progress of the change over however could we supply that amount of power cleanly tomorrow, I doubt it.

 

Don't get me wrong Dax I am an EV enthusiast, I  cant wait for the changeover but there are practicalities.  We should be going faster than we are though. I think Norway is an example to follow.

1 hour ago, Dax said:

Control wages and prices, so we develop an economy that actually works for everyone and the future

 

mmmm Sounds a little like a command economy.  I charge a certain amount  for the music lessons I give and I don't really want to be told how much I should charge. If I charge too much I may have too few students.  On there other hand I do charge more than some other teachers because I am f****** good at it (in my humble opinion)

1 hour ago, Dax said:

verything we use should be recyclable,

 

Sure where possible although again is it that simple?   Some items can be recycled but the environmental cost may be many times the original cost of the item. This is the biggest problem, you probably can recycle everything but sometimes at great cost and energy, 

 

 

1 hour ago, Dax said:

Establish a people owned bank and insurance coverage

Actually my bank is a people owned bank  I bank with Bank Australia which does not have shareholders in the traditional sense. Australia Banks shareholders are in fact the customers.   Any profit goes back to the customers as if they were shareholder

 

Who is Bank Australia owned by?

Bank Australia is proudly customer owned. This means that we have no external shareholders profiting from you, our customers.

Instead, we return our profits to our customers through pursuing our purpose of doing good for people and the planet as well as offering competitive and fair rates, fees and services.

 

1 hour ago, Dax said:

Put government online, available to all registered citizens who would use a fully secure separate operating system developed and built in Aus. there;s a lot more to it than that but it's workable and would allow Aus to operate outside any from of interference, as you'd have it heavily watched 24/7

 

 

OK so Dax you become PM and you put government online and have people vote then all of your ideas are subject to the will of the people.   It could be that the people don't accept you solutions but that is democracy I guess

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all of us, are online !.

Probably half of my kin, were knocked off ' their ' internet by the compulsory Nbn.

No house phone, no fax, no emergency call button, most go to ' free wifi ' area,s.

spacesailor

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...