Electric car thread

[Marty_d]

I didn't watch it, but read the fact checking of it.

What an example of terrible journalism.

Unsurprising though given the presenter previously worked for Shell.

[Siso]

Hmmm the ABC!

[octave]

5 minutes ago, Siso said:

Hmmm the ABC!

The mistruths are easily provable.  I am happy to go through them one by one.

[kgwilson]

The Nickel mining story was aired 6 months ago. Almost all of the nickel is for the stainless steel industry, not EVs. The presenters fossil fuel bias and links have been well established. Channel 7 had to close comments within a couple of days as almost all were highly critical of the claims made. NMC batteries for EVs are now in the minority but even so 98% of all minerals including lithium, cobalt and nickel are recovered in battery recycling so are not wasted and reduce the need for expanded mining.

 

LFP is now the dominant technology for EV batteries but sodium batteries are becoming available and making major inroads in to the battery storage industry. They are also between 30% & 60% cheaper given the abundance of sodium & ease of extraction. Start with evaporating sea water to get NaCl, common salt, separate the 2 elements and you have sodium and chloride. 

[facthunter]

Cl  ( the element) is Chlorine, Sodium and Chlorine are both highly reactive and nasty substances to life forms.  Nev

[pmccarthy]

"The presenters fossil fuel bias and links have been well established." Why do we keep seeing such attacks on sources rather than on the information? In my opinion, many if not most journalists have an anti-fossil fuel and nuclear bias that is obvious to see and affects everything they write. But there is no point in saying so every time a source is quoted. 

[facthunter]

Why trust a KNOWN and proven to be, Biased source? Surely FACTS are what we need. Not propaganda by Vested interests.  Somewhere between the arguments lies the truth? Not necessarily. Confusion is also Practiced by devious sources.  IF you Post or link stuff here Be Prepared to OWN it  if you don't state otherwise.  Isn't THAT reasonable? AI is going to Make this task more difficult in the futeur anyhow.. Nev

[octave]

1 hour ago, pmccarthy said:

"The presenters fossil fuel bias and links have been well established." Why do we keep seeing such attacks on sources rather than on the information?

PM, the media watch segment does note the journalist's history; however, its main thrust is about mistruths.  The journo says "it (cobalt) has been the key element in practically every storage battery on the planet" Whilst cobalt was a common ingredient, this is no longer the case. This should have been pointed out, but that would detract from the purpose of the story.

 

If the problem is cobalt, then why limit criticism to its (diminishing) use in EVs and renewables?  My understanding is that about a third of all cobalt is used in laptops and smartphones as well as jet engines, medical implants, car tyres and pigments. But this would not fit the narrative.

 

Whilst the vast majority of EVs and storage batteries are now LFP those other uses still remain, but this seems to be OK. 

 

I am intending to buy an EV within the next year and I am only considering LFP (which is pretty much the vast majority), so there is no story here.  Awareness of the problems with cobalt is fairly recent, so I certainly would not point at someone in their EV or hybrid (Corolla Cross?) and yell, "blood battery".       I am also keenly aware that cobalt is used in my phone, PC, etc.

 

 

 

[Marty_d]

1 hour ago, pmccarthy said:

"The presenters fossil fuel bias and links have been well established." Why do we keep seeing such attacks on sources rather than on the information? In my opinion, many if not most journalists have an anti-fossil fuel and nuclear bias that is obvious to see and affects everything they write. But there is no point in saying so every time a source is quoted. 

Feel free to point out when a journalist actually has worked for a solar panel or wind turbine manufacturer for 2 years.

[old man emu]

Cobalt is an essential trace mineral for ruminants (cattle, sheep, goats) used by rumen microorganisms to synthesize vitamin B12 (cobalamin). It is critical for energy production, glucose synthesis, protein metabolism, and growth. Deficiencies cause severe loss of appetite, anemia, "wasting disease," and poor productivity, with young, rapidly growing animals and sheep being most susceptible.

 

https://csiropedia.csiro.au/cobalt-deficiency-and-the-cure-for-coast-disease/

[facthunter]

Most of the PEOPLE who Pay Journalists and control what they say are Pro Coal and Oil Nuclear and wars. and "despise" Unions who represent workers and strive to Improve their conditions. The Farmers Have their Federation. The franchise Chemist Warehouse has Plenty of clout, Too Much??  . Wars make money and sell Papers.  The little Man can keep quiet and think himself lucky  to not starve. Slaves  were the Foundation of America's system, don't forget . How ironic that the downtrodden still don't Matter..  Nev

[facthunter]

 One trace element of Many for Plants and Animals (People).  Iodine is lacking in Most soils and zinc supplements are often added to other sprays that go On Leaves (Foliar) . Another one is selenium and copper. Some of these are "Essential" trace elements. Nothing to do with Vitamins, which are another story. Nev

[pmccarthy]

2 hours ago, Marty_d said:

Feel free to point out when a journalist actually has worked for a solar panel or wind turbine manufacturer for 2 years.

If they have worked for the ABC, does that count?

[facthunter]

I think you're not allowed to watch the ABC here, are you.?  Nev

[Marty_d]

2 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

If they have worked for the ABC, does that count?

Nope. That's a balanced news organisation which actually fact checks.

[octave]

4 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

If they have worked for the ABC, does that count?

The ABC is not above  manufacturing hatchet jobs against EVs 

 

AI summary:

 

"In April 2026, the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) faced intense criticism from electric vehicle (EV) advocates following a 7.30 report focused on the difficulties of long-distance EV travel. 

Primary Criticisms of the Report

Advocates and experts, including The Driven, accused the ABC of adopting a "petrol tank mentality" and producing a "hit piece". Key points of contention included: 

YouTube +1

Choice of Vehicle: The report featured a 2021 Hyundai Kona, an older model with slower charging speeds, which critics argued was used to unfairly represent the entire modern EV market.

Poor Timing: The segment was filmed during the Easter long weekend, the busiest travel period of the year, which naturally led to atypical charging station queues.

Lack of Context: Critics argued the report failed to mention that roughly 95% of EV charging occurs at home, rather than at public fast-chargers.

Technical Exaggeration: Claims that using Bluetooth audio or cabin heating significantly drained the battery were labelled as "ignorant or deliberately misleading"

 

Review of ABC story by the Driven

 

“Petrol tank mentality:” ABC’s 7.30 report on EV charging problems rated a fail

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 15 hours ago by octave

[kgwilson]

I watched this program on the ABC & could not believe the stupidity of the reporter. He borrowed an EV & knew nothing about the cars capability. If he did he'd know that the satnav will tell him all of the chargers within range & guide him to one. You cannot fill a petrol car in 2 minutes & pay for the fuel etc. He should have already downloaded the apps before leaving. He was at an Evie 350kW charger & if he already had the app & registered the vehicle as most people do, all you do is plug the charger cable in to the car, it charges, you then click stop remove the cable & drive away. You are automatically charged & details are stored in the app.

 

Everything Sam Evans said is spot on. I felt like complaining but then thought why bother. Anyone with half a brain & an interest in going Electric will make their own mind up. I did & it was the best car purchase decision i have ever made. My fuel cost is zero as I charge from my solar panels. When going long distance I check the location of chargers on route & know the range. The car has a longer range than my bladder so when I need to charge I take a break & have a bite to eat. If it is down to 20% charge 20 minutes later it is at 80%. This is usually quicker than than I am. Often I will go & unplug & move the car so someone else can use the charger.

 

It is coming up to 3 years & 45,000 km since I bought my MG4. First service in 2 years & nothing had to be done except update the software. The only downside is that the new facelift model is now 10k less than I paid but now EVs are no longer an expensive way to get in to a new car with the latest small models cheaper than their petrol equivalents.

[Siso]

The ABC's Sarah Fergusons fact check about renewables don't make electricity prices more expensive delivered to the consumer.. Of course they do. An intermittent source of electricity requires a lot of extras including the energy company's not being sure on what income they are going to get from there assets so the price goes up. The non intermittent generators which we still need have had there production cut but they still need to cover there costs and profit margins so they put there prices up to cover worse case scenarios, again because we can't really predict whats going to happen with the weather and there is all the extra infrastructure that is needed. Name me one country that has had their electricity prices stay the same when they introduce large amounts of weather dependent generation? I think I saw Australia's price increased 30 % in the last 12 months or so and heard on the radio this morning that AEMO are about to announce the next supply charge rise.

 

So yes the ABC is not any better than any other broadcaster.

Edited 4 hours ago by Siso

[Siso]

Then we could add the extra shots they put in the we heard from the helicopter footage during the war. Something we would expect other broadcasters to do. This is not acceptable from our taxpayer funded national broadcaster. What else have they mislead us about, but haven't been caught out yet?

[Marty_d]

Nobody gets it right 100% of the time, but the ABC are head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to accuracy.

[octave]

Here is just one of the mistruths from a formal complaint that is being lodged about the Channel 7 story.

 

3.4 Environmental Misinformation (Koala Treatment)

Broadcast Claim: The program alleged that wind farm clearing involves euthanising koalas with “blunt force instruments” [4].

Verified Fact: The Clean Energy Council (CEC) has confirmed this practice has never occurred in any Australian renewable project [1]. Its inclusion in a prime-time broadcast without evidence constitutes a failure to present factual material accurately under Section 3.3.1.

 

Yes, they are claiming with no evidence that koals are being beaten to death in order to build wind farms.   This comes from a viral claim several years ago and has no evidence.

What astonishing overreach.   I am confident that they know this to be untrue, but know a small number of viewers will believe this claim.

 

According to AI

 

In Australia are koalas killed to build windfarms

 

Short answer: No—koalas are not routinely killed “to build wind farms” in Australia.
But like any land development, there can be impacts on habitat, and that’s where most of the real issue sits.

Here’s the clearer picture:

1) The viral claim about killing koalas

You might have seen claims that koalas are being “clubbed” or deliberately killed for wind farms. These have been widely circulated in politics and media, but:

• A fact check found no evidence of koalas being killed during construction of a major wind farm (Clarke Creek).
• Companies involved said they use wildlife spotters and strict “zero harm” policies to avoid injury to animals.
• Claims about workers killing koalas were publicly repeated but later debunked or unsupported.

So the idea of routine or intentional killing specifically for wind farms is misleading.

---

2) What does happen in reality

The real issue is more mundane (and still important):

• Wind farms (like any big project) may require clearing land, which can remove koala habitat.
• Environmental laws require:
  • surveys before clearing
  • relocating animals where possible
  • minimising harm

Developers often pause work if wildlife is present and bring in ecologists.

---

3) How big is the impact compared to other threats?

This is where context matters:

• Since 2012, mining has cleared far more koala habitat than renewables.
• Agriculture (like land clearing for grazing) is even larger again.
• Scientists consistently say the biggest long-term threat to koalas is habitat loss and climate change, not wind farms.

---

4) Important nuance

• There are legitimate concerns about renewable projects being built in sensitive habitats.
• Some proposals have been criticised or modified because of risks to koalas and other species.
• But that’s about where projects are built, not deliberate killing.

---

Bottom line

• ❌ Koalas are not being systematically killed to build wind farms
• ⚠️ Some habitat can be cleared, which affects them
• ✅ The bigger threats are land clearing (especially agriculture), mining, and climate change

---

If you want, I can break down one of the specific controversies (like Clarke Creek) so you can see exactly how these claims started and what’s actually in the documents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[old man emu]

No koalas around the proposed site of the windfarm near me. However, it would be good if they got rid of the pigs and foxes. I mentioned in another thread that BEFORE approval was given for construction a two-year study of flight patterns of bats and birs had to be conducted. I can't see the developers killing off bats and birds.

 

I suppose a good anti-windfarm claim could be an application of the butterfly fluttering in the Amazon causes hurricanes in the Carribean. 

[facthunter]

Bull$#!t baffles Brains.  We are drowning in it. Nev

[onetrack]

Quote

The ABC's Sarah Fergusons fact check about renewables don't make electricity prices more expensive delivered to the consumer.. Of course they do. An intermittent source of electricity requires a lot of extras including the energy company's not being sure on what income they are going to get from there assets so the price goes up. The non intermittent generators which we still need have had there production cut but they still need to cover there costs and profit margins so they put there prices up to cover worse case scenarios, again because we can't really predict whats going to happen with the weather and there is all the extra infrastructure that is needed. Name me one country that has had their electricity prices stay the same when they introduce large amounts of weather dependent generation? I think I saw Australia's price increased 30 % in the last 12 months or so and heard on the radio this morning that AEMO are about to announce the next supply charge rise.

You obviously haven't studied what is happening in W.A. The W.A. State Govt has thrown multiple hundreds of millions (possibly billions by now), trying to keep W.A.'s coal-powered power generation going.

W.A.'s coal powered electricity comes from two coal power stations at Collie. Muja (owned by the W.A. Govt) provides 85% of W.A.'s coal power, and Bluewaters, a privately-owned power station, provides the other 15% of W.A. coal power.

 

First, about 10 or 12 years ago, it was $380M of W.A. taxpayers money sent down the drain trying to refurbish a rotted out Muja power station, under a State Liberal Govt.

Like trying to restore a rotted-out vintage car, the more they repaired, the more corrosion they found. They gave up and called it a day before a billion or two went down the drain trying to fix the wreck of a power station.

 

Enter Griffin Coal and Premier Coal. Griffin Coal is one of W.A.'s major coal producers. It has lost $1.3B since 2011. It is owned by an Indian corporation, it has been in receivership for several years, and it's almost certainly facing bankruptcy.

But the W.A. Govt keeps pouring endless amounts of money into Griffin, to ensure it has adequate coal to keep the W.A.-Govt owned Muja coal-fired power station going. Over $300M at last count.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-01-21/roger-cook-extends-griffin-coal-financial-lifeline/106250998

 

Then we have Premier Coal. Premier (privately owned - by the Chinese) has too much coal, and can't sell what it produces, so the W.A. Govt pours money into Premier Coal to ensure hundreds of Collie workers don't end up unemployed.

Despite all that subsidising, Premier have just announced around 70 to 100 jobs are to go at the company as they "readjust production" to suit the declining coal market.

 

All this State Govt money going into coal-powered electricity production in W.A. means power prices aren't rocketing, and the power cost rises are being kept to an acceptable level.

But the subsidies are a major burden on all W.A. taxpayers, and a hidden cost to W.A.'s coal-fired electricity production. So much for the "cost burden" of going over to renewable energy.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-04-22/collie-job-cuts-coal-mine-merger-push/106591996

 

 

 

[Siso]

Tell me anywhere in the world where a large penetration of intermittent generation has made energy cheaper, stay the same or rise at the rate of inflation. I haven't studied the WA situation , but a quick read sounds like they are getting more intermittents and they still need the coal because the wind doesn't always blow or the sun shine.