Electric car thread

[octave]

By the way, I just learned that emergency charging from RACV is from a battery pack, not a petrol generator. 

[onetrack]

I can honestly say I've never seen an EV stopped by the side of the road after running out of charge. After all, you get plenty of audible and visual warnings in them, as regards low charge.

But I've seen plenty of broken down and run-out-fuel IC cars and utes, parked by the side of the road!

[kgwilson]

NRMA also have a battery on their vehicle to transfer energy to an EV. Battery to battery can be very high speed so it does not take long to get enough charge into the empty EV battery to enable it to get to the nearest charger. using a generator would take hours to get very little energy in the EV unless it was a massive generator capable of 150 kW plus. I don't know of anyone who has run out though.

 

EV owners are good planners, partly because the public charging network has not kept up with EV sales. Also because the cars software knows the range and can list all the chargers within range. State & federal governments are now putting a fair bit of effort into improving the number of chargers particularly in regional areas. There are plenty in large centres and along major highways. 

 

Installing chargers is a lot easier than  building a petrol station & once built at huge cost it has to be supplied with fuel. Portable units are being installed in the outback. They have a large battery and solar panels & get delivered on the back of a truck. Several companies are supplying these to Outback farms etc. Larger ones have a small solar farm & big batteries to supply several vehicles at once. NRMA have one in the NT somewhere with 4 chargers.

 

Public EV charging is only in its infancy & some of the early ones were very unreliable. Not so now & there are plenty that are capable of 350 kW way more than almost all EVs can receive.

 

I am off on a 350km round trip tomorrow. The battery is fully charged (free from my solar system) & I won't need to top up anywhere. If I did though there are heaps of charging options. I just hit the go to button & the Satnav guides me to the neared public charger & lists all within range. Simples.

[facthunter]

When you run a diesel out it of fuel it will get air in the system will have to be Bled properly. Sometimes even changing a fuel filter has to be done by a competent person with the right equipment. Contaminated Fuel  with water can cost thousands of dollars. None of this with EV's No turbos , No EGR Valves. No air cleaners No Mufflers to rot out. No

need to warm the engine or watch it on a hot day. No starter Motor, gearbox or clutch to wear. Reduced Brake wear. Servicing reduced to tyres and windscreen wiper Blades. No fumes No tuning. . Dramatic revolutionary change.  Nev

[Siso]

16 hours ago, kgwilson said:

Installing chargers is a lot easier than  building a petrol station & once built at huge cost it has to be supplied with fuel. Portable units are being installed in the outback. They have a large battery and solar panels & get delivered on the back of a truck. Several companies are supplying these to Outback farms etc. Larger ones have a small solar farm & big batteries to supply several vehicles at once. NRMA have one in the NT somewhere with 4 chargers.

Again people are looking at just the cost of one part of it like the whole intermittent thing. eg intermittent energy is the cheapest form of electricity which it is until you start adding the storage, extra transmission etc. etc.. As we get more electric vehicles the charging stations are going to get bigger. If you have say 10 350kW chargers at a station that's a maximum demand of 3.5 MWs. The wind farm I worked at had 3MW turbines, we had 3 phases coming down an 80m tower of 70mm2 copper at 33kV (Vestas have their transformers in the nacelle.). 9 wtgs(27MW) in a string had 500mm2 aluminium going back to the Sub. At lower voltages you need bigger cables. The current distribution  network will have trouble coping with the extra load. You could put battery's at the charging station to buffer this a bit or reduce the output of the charger , but there goes your cheaper than a petrol station and fast charging. Still like electric cars by the way. It is the way of the future but like net 0 it is not going to be as easy or cheap as it first appears.  

[Siso]

Bled 100s of diesels, not that hard, bit messy though. Electric cars will have problems as well, the manufacturers will see to that. They make a lot of their money on spare parts. They still have motors, bearings, gearboxes, power electronic components

Edited 8 hours ago by Siso

[octave]

32 minutes ago, Siso said:

Again people are looking at just the cost of one part of it like the whole intermittent thing. eg intermittent energy is the cheapest form of electricity which it is until you start adding the storage, extra transmission etc. etc.. As we get more electric vehicles the charging stations are going to get bigger. If you have say 10 350kW chargers at a station that's a maximum demand of 3.5 MWs. The wind farm I worked at had 3MW turbines, we had 3 phases coming down an 80m tower of 70mm2 copper at 33kV (Vestas have their transformers in the nacelle.). 9 wtgs(27MW) in a string had 500mm2 aluminium going back to the Sub. At lower voltages you need bigger cables. The current distribution  network will have trouble coping with the extra load. You could put battery's at the charging station to buffer this a bit or reduce the output of the charger , but there goes your cheaper than a petrol station and fast charging. Still like electric cars by the way. It is the way of the future but like net 0 it is not going to be as easy or cheap as it first appears.  

 

 

You’re right that once you add storage, transmission and upgrades, the system gets more complex and costs go up. But that’s exactly what the modelling already includes. The CSIRO GenCost report looks at the whole system—firming, transmission, everything—and still finds wind and solar backed by storage are cheaper than building new coal.

 

On EV charging specifically, high-power sites do create local demand spikes, but that’s not unique to renewables—it’s a grid planning issue. In practice, most charging is spread out (home, work, off-peak), and fast chargers often include batteries or smart load management to avoid huge grid upgrades. So yes, there are costs—but they’re manageable and already being factored in, not a dealbreaker for renewables

[Siso]

I know you wont like the source but here is another view.https://www.cis.org.au/commentary/video/the-csiro-report-that-proves-coal-is-cheaper-than-renewables-zoe-hilton/   Why has every country that has gone the intermittent generation got the most expensive power? Germany, Denmark, UK. Which countrys successfully are transition to net 0 with intermittent energy have cheaper power. Real world situations arent supporting the modelling. The modelling can be made to look like anything the government want it to be. The ISP has nothing to do with cheapest energy, just cheapest way of doing government policy. CSIRO give 30 years of life for a nuclear plant which is just plain wrong!. 

[octave]

12 minutes ago, Siso said:

I know you wont like the source

 

Correct, it is a well-known right-wing think tank. I would also be sceptical of a left-wing think tank.

 

The video poses the question, "if renewables are cheaper, why do they require subsidies?"  The assumption here is that building new coal or nuclear plants would not rely on any subsidies. It very much would.

If low renewables meant cheaper power, countries like Italy or Poland should have low prices—but they don’t. The biggest driver in Europe has been gas dependence, not renewables.

 

• Italy (lower renewables than Germany, high gas reliance)
  → consistently very high electricity prices
• Ireland (significant gas dependence)
  → also high prices
• Poland (coal-heavy, relatively less wind/solar historically)
  → not cheap, often still high due to coal + carbon costs

In terms of being directly attributable to renewable, yes, there is truth there.  In 2020, I had rooftop solar installed.  I had an upfront cost of $3500 plus a 4-year low-interest loan with payments of around $40 a month for 4 years. If they added to my reduced bills, then it looks like solar would have vastly increased the cost of my electricity.  My philosophy here was that in order to save money, I had to spend money up front. My system has definitely paid for itself, and I am now unbothered by the price of electricity. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We are in a phase of great change (just like when I got rooftop solar).    

 

I regularly go for a bike ride past Geelong docks and also the oil refinery. On one side of the road, there are enormous stacks of wind turbine parts, blades and tower components as well as the nacelle structures that are awaiting delivery to the site. On the other side of the road, it is the refinery that is noisy and stinks (and recently caught fire). This is quite a contrast.  

It is quite exciting to live in this time of change. Sure, there will be hiccups and missteps along the way. I suppose going from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age had its challenges.

As solar and battery technology improve in efficiency and cost, it is undoubtedly doing fewer people will need to be connected to the grid, giving people economic benefits as well as autonomy.    

 

 

[octave]

Just getting back to the Centre for Independent Studies, I do wonder exactly how independent it is. I will leave it to others to decide whether this information is relevent or not.

 

"The CIS also keeps almost all of its corporate funders secret. While it receives at least $800,000 from corporations, its policy is only to identify sponsors where they agree. [7] Companies which have been publicly disclosed and confirmed by the CIS as its funders include:"

• BHP Billiton
• Shell
• ICI - now a subsidiary of Orica
• Vincent Fairfax Family Foundation [8]

Some of the individuals who fund the CIS include [9]:

• Dame Elisabeth Murdoch - Mother of media mogul Rupert Murdoch
• Neville Kennard
• Robert Champion de Crespigny

In June 2006, the Australian Financial Review reported that a 30th anniversary dinner attended by 600 supporters with the keynote address by Prime Minister John Howard raised $2.5 million. The CIS is aiming to raise $10 million as a capital fund to underpin the centre's operations.

Former Funders

• McDonald's Australia
• Philip Morris
• Pratt Foundation
• WMC (once known as Western Mining Corporation, WMC was taken over by BHP Billiton).

 

[nomadpete]

I like this girl.

This youtube discusses the issue of EV battery degredation, which is surrounded by urban myth and misinformation. I especially note in the comments - there are a lot of anti-EV trolls simply bagging out EV's.

 

 

[octave]

I follow this YouTube channel closely. She is highly qualified, and I do like that she is particularly tough on new ideas and willing to point out the flaws in new technologies.

 

There are a lot of EV baggers out at the moment; this is probably due to the surge in sales lately.  I think because the algorithm classifies me as pro-EV, I get some absolutely ridiculous posts or links. 

 

Nearly one in six new cars sold last month was electric, as demand for battery-powered vehicles continues to grow.

 

 

 

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Octave the sources of funding are absolutely not relevant! Thank goodness someone is funding independent thought and studies. I suspect, but obviously cannot prove, that the destruction of established Western energy systems is an outcome of massive political/green propaganda directed over decades primarily by China and Russia. I will not live long enough to find out the truth. 

 

So much of what is stated on this forum derives from that propaganda. To take one example, the myth that China is going green. China is selling US the solar panels and wind turbines. Meanwhile what is it doing? The following is from an AI query:

 

As of early 2026, China has 59 nuclear power plants in operation and 28 additional reactors under construction, totaling more than 32 GW of new nuclear capacity. Recent projects include the Lufeng Nuclear Power Plant in Guangdong province, where construction of Unit 1 has begun using the CAP1000 pressurized water reactor design, while Units 5 and 6 are already under construction with Hualong One technology. China’s nuclear expansion is part of a broader strategy to reduce reliance on coal, with the Lufeng plant alone expected to save 15.77 million tons of coal annually and cut 42.69 million tons of CO₂ emissions. The country also plans to deploy nuclear reactors at retiring coal sites under the “Coal to Nuclear” (C2N) program, leveraging existing infrastructure to accelerate construction and reduce costs. 

 

Despite nuclear growth, China is simultaneously experiencing a resurgence in coal-fired power construction. In 2024, construction began on 94.5 GW of new coal capacity, with an additional 3.3 GW of previously suspended projects resumed, marking the highest level of coal construction in a decade. This expansion is driven by domestic investment and energy security concerns, even as China works toward its dual-carbon goals of peaking emissions by 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality by 2060. Coal still accounts for over half of China’s electricity generation, and the country has about 1.2 TW of coal-fired capacity, with roughly 100 GW slated for retirement in the next five years.

 

China’s energy strategy reflects a dual approach: rapidly expanding nuclear power to reduce carbon emissions while maintaining coal capacity to ensure energy security and meet growing electricity demand. The C2N initiative exemplifies this approach by converting retiring coal plants into nuclear facilities, taking advantage of existing grid connections, cooling systems, and land. Advanced nuclear technologies, including Generation IV reactors and Hualong One designs, are central to this transition, enabling higher efficiency and integration with existing coal infrastructure.

[octave]

2 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

I suspect, but obviously cannot prove, that the destruction of established Western energy systems is an outcome of massive political/green propaganda directed over decades primarily by China and Russia.

And you think CSIRO are gullible fools falling for this. Why does NASA or CSIRO? Are they dumb, or are they complicit in this "conspiracy" 

 

I do understand that China is a mixed bag, although it is interesting to note that CO2 emissions in China have remained flat for 21 months.

 

"China's CO2 emissions have potentially peaked and remained flat or slightly falling for 21 months as of early 2026, despite producing over 35% of global emissions. This plateau is driven by a massive surge in renewable energy, including record solar and wind installations, despite increased chemical industry output"

 

 

I would add to that nuclear as well.  I am not anti-nuclear, although I am sceptical about the economic on this country.

 

I’m not a climate scientist, so I can’t personally evaluate every dataset or model. The only way I can form a view is by looking at the balance of evidence from institutions and experts who work in the field.

That’s the same approach I use for everything else—medicine, engineering standards, even things like aviation safety. For example, I accept the scientific consensus that vaccines are safe and don’t cause autism, because the overwhelming published evidence supports that.

So I’m struggling with why climate science should be treated differently. If I’m not meant to rely on the major scientific bodies and the weight of peer-reviewed research in this case, what alternative method should I use to decide what’s true?

And how would I know that method is more reliable than the one I use everywhere else?”

 

 

 

 

 

[octave]

Yes, China is not only building wind farms in 2025 and 2026, but it is doing so at a record-shattering pace, comfortably maintaining its position as the world's largest investor and developer of renewable energy. [1, 2]

Key Trends for 2025–2026:

• Record Growth: In 2025 alone, China added 120.5 GW of new wind capacity, fueling a record global year for wind energy additions.
• Massive Scale: In 2024, China added more wind turbines and solar panels than the rest of the world combined.
• High-Speed Development: Wind power capacity in China reached 580 GW by August 2025, and industry representatives are aiming to add at least 120 GW annually between 2026 and 2030, which is roughly double the average annual installations from 2020–2024.
• Offshore Dominance: By 2025, China remained the world leader in offshore wind, with installed capacity exceeding 38 GW and significant projects in coastal provinces like Jiangsu, Guangdong, and Fujian

[pmccarthy]

If you accept "climate science" 100%, do you also accept that nothing Australia does in drawing its power from coal, oil, nuclear, solar or wind in the next century will make any measurable (ie greater than 1%) difference to global temperatures for the next few hundred years? Because that is what climate science tells us. So, we need to balance that reality with the impact our decisions right now have on our economy and our natural environment.

 

And if, like me, you do not accept the "climate science", then our current destructive actions are simply abhorrent.

[octave]

1 minute ago, pmccarthy said:

If you accept "climate science" 100%, do you also accept that nothing Australia does in drawing its power from coal, oil, nuclear, solar or wind in the next century will make any measurable (ie greater than 1%) difference to global temperatures for the next few hundred years?

This presupposes that we are the only country attempting to cut CO2.  Yes, our share is small, but all of the countries that contribute under 2% make cuts adds up to 30% (I am happy to back that figure up)

 

4 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

And if, like me, you do not accept the "climate science", then our current destructive actions are simply abhorrent.

How are these actions abhorrent? 

When you say you don't accept the science, are you saying that CSIRO is incompetent or part of the malicious conspiracy that you alluded to?

 

I approach climate science like any other area.  I have had people tell me that vaccination doesn't work or causes autism, etc.  I reject this because I can see what CSIRO says.  Being extra cautious, I can cross-check this with other respected sources.  This seems to me to be a solid method of determining what the likely "truth" is. If you believe this is a flawed method, then suggest a better method.   If the outliers in climate science are right, then why not the outliers in medical science or any other field?   Vaccine sceptics also tend to cite "grand conspiracies."

[facthunter]

Climate deniers are becoming less as a % all the time and enthusiastically supported by the Less reliable ( and even highly misleading ) sources of information spreading ,manyfalsehoodswith their own Vested Interests to be served.  Evidence of Anthropomorphic Climate change is vast and Increasing .  This all started with the Industrial Revolution.  Look up the Amount of carbonaceous Fuel consumed throughout the World and try to convince ME it does  no harm.  I trust Science and fact based statements. Even the Oil companies KNOW as well as Insurance companies and those who need to know. People who Know it's Happening but aid the deniers are Pretty low in my estimation. Anti-science clowns like Tony Abbott have cost this country Billions. He consulted George Pell and Rupert Murdoch and famously said "Science is Just Another Belief.".   Nev

[facthunter]

 Siso there's no highly loaded bearings OR rapidly reversing loads etc in an electric Motor. Reciprocating motors are just trying to fling themselves apart and have Large Pressures and thermal stresses. and critical Lubrication issues.. The electric Motor is Near 100% efficient and can also GENERATE electricity to recover power. Nev