Electric cars.... convince me

My mate ran out of fuel in his diesel SUV in the rain, towing a caravan, on the highway, poor sod. It didn't stop me buying one. I can watch a fuel gauge.

All lithium ion batteries have an inherent fire/explosion risk. there's lots of vids out there of scooters, mobile phones, you name it. It happens either through physical damage or when the conductors grow tendrils which eventually touch each other and short circuit.

Solid state batteries will fix this, as there is no liquid inside, no tendrils can form, and nothing will short even with physical damage - you can saw one in half without it discharging. Toyota has the first patents and a big lead on solid state batteries, in testing now and expected to be in production cars in 2025. they will have other benefits inc longer range and faster charging as well.

www.drive.com.au/news/toyota-hybrids-to-adopt-solid-state-battery-tech-by-2025-report/

Might have been raised by others?

EVs run high voltages. In the case of an accident is there anything that first responders need to know about?

I ask the question because repair shops for EVs require dedicated safe areas, protocols and work safe clothing etc for technicians.

Select to expand quote

jn1 said..

GavGav said..
Amusing to read all the same questions / comments / opinions from people who think they are the first to ask / think of the same lame questions that have been answered many, many times before. It is like you think you're a geniuses for thinking it up. Like a "gotcha" moment.

Yes, your right, EVs won't save the planet, but they are much better alternative on a number of fronts.
There is more to it than reducing the CO2 emissions. Lots of bad stuff comes out of the tailpipe.
You see it in the smog on a cold still day with an inversion layer holding it down.

If you think the pollution a ICE car produces isn't bad for you, why don't you pipe it into the cabin instead of spewing it out the back for the person behind, or the kids walking past on the way to school. Saw it today picking up a nephew from day-care on a busy inner city street. A large bus taking off from the lights and a big plume of smoke billowing out across the playground where the kids were. Crazy stuff.

Yes, the current EVs won't suit everyone and they are costly. But like anything new, it will improve.

Wife has had a EV for 2 years and done 40,000 km on it in that time. $350 in "Servicing" (Check this, check that... not replace this, replace that)
Most of the charging from excess solar via a smart charger, so only costs the loss of feed in tariff which will eventually be abolished anyway.
There is something really nice not having to go to the petrol station and pay someone when you can just make it for yourself.

It is just a matter of time before there will be something to suit 95% of use cases. For the rest, dino juice...
Looking forward to an EV van that is affordable so I can swap out the diesel. Probably Hyundai will be the first.

But, you know what........ doesn't matter what yours or my personal opinion is, they are here now and only going to improve and nothing will stop it.

Take is easy. Most of us on this thread are not professional engineers or scientists. Nor is this thread a peer reviewed scientific report. We are just discussing; pub talk etc, yes ?

Will your wife's EV get you to Beachport SA and back ? (plus other excursions in the area ?). This is probably ok for just you, but what if everybody is doing this ?. Would tourists expect the Beachport caravan park to become the power network for GPSTC speed week ?. Would it become a free for all to charge up EVs with no planning/notice to the Beachport power network ?. How would Beachport power network cope with all these cars needing to charge up at the same time when for 11 months of the year it is nothing ?. Would you expect the Caravan park and network to invest in their infrastructure for just one month of surge activity ?. This is just an example of Beachport SA (Lake George), but I hope this highlights the challenge we face in AU that is different from a small country or a city. Again, I am not an engineer or scientist.

As you said, these technical challenges will be solved over time. I myself look forward to my first electric bike or car that has the range, reliability and convenience of petrol powered vehicles. I just don't think EVs or the infrastructure is there yet, that's all.

There are a few scientists showing that resources will never be enough to go full EVs. They could become a luxury thing for a few. There are several physics reasons, energy invested into developing renewables is just NOT there. Renewables have a high dependency on fossils, and we also have to add scarcity of materials. The only way is using less energy. Local activity, less trips. It will not be something we will decide, but nature will. I don't know if you can read Antonio Turiel's blog (in Spanish only) full of deep articles about this. He also wrote a new book worth reading, Petrocalipsis. An English blog worth reading is "Ourfiniteworld" by Gail Tverberg.
Elon Musk is shortsighted in this one: he tried to solve the auto industry problem, when he could have solved the human transportation one (where cars will have a marginal space).

Some say that the source of the problem is that you can't grow forever in a finite space (earth). And that capital expects a return rate that is incompatible with those limits: for example, it is accepted that a country needs 2% growth to be OK, yearly. I haven't done the math but 100 years of that growth rate (what capital asks for) means a country will be about 196 times bigger. We don't have that resources capacity, sorry. So, the solution seems to be to change capitalism. hence, a problem that has no solutions is not a problem and there is wind outside.

Select to expand quote

Harrow said..

JPBARNA said.. it is accepted that a country needs 2% growth to be OK, yearly. I haven't done the math but 100 years of that growth rate (what capital asks for) means a country will be about 196 times bigger. We don't have that resources capacity, sorry. So, the solution seems to be to change capitalism. hence, a problem that has no solutions is not a problem and there is wind outside.

Why does a country *need* 2% growth? What's wrong with maintaining the status quo?

Capital (shareholders) expect a return on their investment. The more money you have and put into investments, the more you expect in return for it (I say a generic you. not me or maybe yourself). While energy was abundant and cheap (fossil) it was posible to extract / transform / sell. We even created this system where everything is manufactured in China and travels around the world. This will not be possible in the future. Capital creates "virtual" businesses (finance rules the economy, kudos to the NFT bunch), but eventually the physics pose a limit to what you really can create and sell because if energy is expensive, you have to invest more money extracting / building / selling than what you sell finally (hence oil companies had reduced 90% their investment in. oil exploration). "Stationary" is impossible for capitalism because there's a limit to money creating money (if you can't get the resources to transform whatever amount of money you have, you can't increase your wealth infinitely). So, I say 2% as an example but is in the ballpark of accepted grow ratio for any economy to maintain some kind of "good" state. Is stationary possible? Physically and socially absolutely yes, but not under capitalism. Capitalism is only 200 years old, maybe things will change in some way in the future again. I'm afraid that change will not be agreed upon. but crisis and violence based so. a good day is a windy one by now.

Select to expand quote

JPBARNA said..

jn1 said..

GavGav said..
Amusing to read all the same questions / comments / opinions from people who think they are the first to ask / think of the same lame questions that have been answered many, many times before. It is like you think you're a geniuses for thinking it up. Like a "gotcha" moment.

Yes, your right, EVs won't save the planet, but they are much better alternative on a number of fronts.
There is more to it than reducing the CO2 emissions. Lots of bad stuff comes out of the tailpipe.
You see it in the smog on a cold still day with an inversion layer holding it down.

If you think the pollution a ICE car produces isn't bad for you, why don't you pipe it into the cabin instead of spewing it out the back for the person behind, or the kids walking past on the way to school. Saw it today picking up a nephew from day-care on a busy inner city street. A large bus taking off from the lights and a big plume of smoke billowing out across the playground where the kids were. Crazy stuff.

Yes, the current EVs won't suit everyone and they are costly. But like anything new, it will improve.

Wife has had a EV for 2 years and done 40,000 km on it in that time. $350 in "Servicing" (Check this, check that... not replace this, replace that)
Most of the charging from excess solar via a smart charger, so only costs the loss of feed in tariff which will eventually be abolished anyway.
There is something really nice not having to go to the petrol station and pay someone when you can just make it for yourself.

It is just a matter of time before there will be something to suit 95% of use cases. For the rest, dino juice...
Looking forward to an EV van that is affordable so I can swap out the diesel. Probably Hyundai will be the first.

But, you know what........ doesn't matter what yours or my personal opinion is, they are here now and only going to improve and nothing will stop it.

Take is easy. Most of us on this thread are not professional engineers or scientists. Nor is this thread a peer reviewed scientific report. We are just discussing; pub talk etc, yes ?

Will your wife's EV get you to Beachport SA and back ? (plus other excursions in the area ?). This is probably ok for just you, but what if everybody is doing this ?. Would tourists expect the Beachport caravan park to become the power network for GPSTC speed week ?. Would it become a free for all to charge up EVs with no planning/notice to the Beachport power network ?. How would Beachport power network cope with all these cars needing to charge up at the same time when for 11 months of the year it is nothing ?. Would you expect the Caravan park and network to invest in their infrastructure for just one month of surge activity ?. This is just an example of Beachport SA (Lake George), but I hope this highlights the challenge we face in AU that is different from a small country or a city. Again, I am not an engineer or scientist.

As you said, these technical challenges will be solved over time. I myself look forward to my first electric bike or car that has the range, reliability and convenience of petrol powered vehicles. I just don't think EVs or the infrastructure is there yet, that's all.

There are a few scientists showing that resources will never be enough to go full EVs. They could become a luxury thing for a few. There are several physics reasons, energy invested into developing renewables is just NOT there. Renewables have a high dependency on fossils, and we also have to add scarcity of materials. The only way is using less energy. Local activity, less trips. It will not be something we will decide, but nature will. I don't know if you can read Antonio Turiel's blog (in Spanish only) full of deep articles about this. He also wrote a new book worth reading, Petrocalipsis. An English blog worth reading is "Ourfiniteworld" by Gail Tverberg.
Elon Musk is shortsighted in this one: he tried to solve the auto industry problem, when he could have solved the human transportation one (where cars will have a marginal space).

Some say that the source of the problem is that you can't grow forever in a finite space (earth). And that capital expects a return rate that is incompatible with those limits: for example, it is accepted that a country needs 2% growth to be OK, yearly. I haven't done the math but 100 years of that growth rate (what capital asks for) means a country will be about 196 times bigger. We don't have that resources capacity, sorry. So, the solution seems to be to change capitalism. hence, a problem that has no solutions is not a problem and there is wind outside.

The universe is virtually infinite though, and that's just this one.

Select to expand quote

KiteWindnSurf said..
The universe is virtually infinite though, and that's just this one.

The problem being that we only have access to this little planet at the moment.
It'll be a while before we can create a Dyson sphere, and then we will only have this solar system.

Can we ever expand into the Galaxy? Let alone go beyond it?

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..

KiteWindnSurf said..
The universe is virtually infinite though, and that's just this one.

The problem being that we only have access to this little planet at the moment.
It'll be a while before we can create a Dyson sphere, and then we will only have this solar system.

Can we ever expand into the Galaxy? Let alone go beyond it?

Problem will be resolved in no longer then 50 years from now.
Every electronic device, smartphone , car , electric kettle will be equipment with chipset smarter then human brain.
We could leave it up to them if kettle want to visit next planetary system alone or that their human pets with them too.
How many transistors have kiters brain?

Select to expand quote

Harrow said..
Why does a country *need* 2% growth? What's wrong with maintaining the status quo?

"Status Quo" - old guitar rock band my dad and his mates liked. The world has moved on, Australia needs to move on.

Wait until they work out to syphon them, Suck on that on that one mate!

Select to expand quote

stehsegler said..

JPBARNA said..

There are a few scientists showing that resources will never be enough to go full EVs. They could become a luxury thing for a few. There are several physics reasons, energy invested into developing renewables is just NOT there. Renewables have a high dependency on fossils, and we also have to add scarcity of materials.

I'd suggest those scientists should do some reading and get up to speed on local mobility as well as the energy economy. In a nutshell coal and oil are going to play a very small role by 2045 when it comes to energy production. Gas might have a slightly larger role but that remains to be seen. The vast majority of energy will be created using renewables. I believe storage will happen mostly through Hydrogen and less via batteries. Vehicles will be EVs and energy probably stored via batteries but new tech might change.

Vehicles will be mostly recycled. In particular the batteries can be about 90% recycled at the end of live. I am also guessing eventually personal vehicle ownership will plummet due to restrictions and cost. People will probably rent cars for long distance travel and for short distances either use personal electric transport options in the form of eBikes or self driving car services.

This is the way Europe and Asia are going as well as a the US to some extend. Australia can either come along for the ride or be left behind. We can be complaining about it all we want. Eventually you'll simply won't be able to buy a petrol powered car not because the government says so but because manufacturers won't offer them.

I concur. So many changes have come to pass and more sure to come rapidly. 'Soon' it'll be hard to buy petrol and those big corner blocks that are petrol stations (in the cities especially,)will be seen as very valuable real estate, built into multi-storey residences and/or commercial premises.

I hired a Corolla EV Hybrid a few weeks ago. It seems to have the best of both worlds with the ability to act as a pure EV at low speeds, and use petrol when required. It easily gets 4.6 to 5L per 100km and easily starts up or turns off the engine when it is not needed.

These don't have much range and limited to below 40kph on EV only, but its a good start.

I think I am a convert and like the idea of the engine not running if not needed.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
I hired a Corolla EV Hybrid a few weeks ago. It seems to have the best of both worlds with the ability to act as a pure EV at low speeds, and use petrol when required. It easily gets 4.6 to 5L per 100km and easily starts up or turns off the engine when it is not needed.

These don't have much range and limited to below 40kph on EV only, but its a good start.

I think I am a convert and like the idea of the engine not running if not needed.

I had a Corolla hybrid too on my last hire, great little car. Drove to Bunbury and back to Perth for work, very fugal on fuel. No chance a full EV would have worked, no where to charge. Hotels don't have charge points in the car parks and nether does our workplace. I guess you could find a charge point and sit there while the car charges but after a long day at work who wants to do that.


Might be awhile before EV car rental and EV taxis become a big thing, but hybrids work well.

Select to expand quote

kato said..

Harrow said..

Why does a country *need* 2% growth? What's wrong with maintaining the status quo?

Excellent question with no rational answers.

Well, there is at least one rational answer.

If the population increases by 2% then, if everything else doesn't increase by 2%, you don't maintain the status quo. You upset whatever balance may have existed and you go backwards.

2% more people need 2% more houses to live in.
2% more houses need 2% more builders to build them.
2% more houses being built need 2% more bricks to be made.
2% more bricks being made need 2% more energy to make them.

Unless people in live in houses that are 2% smaller made with bricks that are 2% more efficient. But if a brick maker makes bricks 2% more efficiently then they make 2% more profit and builds themselves a bigger house, so the quo isn't maintained.

They could sell the bricks for 2% less. In which case houses get 2% cheaper to build. If houses get 2% cheaper to build every year then after 30 years they cost about 50% of what they did.

So old houses decline in value. And everyone wants a new house. So now you need more than 2% more bricks and the status quo isn't quo'ed.


Google tells me Australia population growth averages about 1.3% per year. So 1.3% population growth and 0.7% productivity improvement means 2% economy growth is required to maintain the quo.

Select to expand quote

stehsegler said..

I'd suggest those scientists should do some reading and get up to speed on local mobility as well as the energy economy. In a nutshell coal and oil are going to play a very small role by 2045 when it comes to energy production. Gas might have a slightly larger role but that remains to be seen. The vast majority of energy will be created using renewables. I believe storage will happen mostly through Hydrogen and less via batteries. Vehicles will be EVs and energy probably stored via batteries but new tech might change.

I hear this view a lot, but I just cannot see it happening. Simply because there is no technology available to achieve it, nor is there anything actually good about wind and solar apart from idiological satisfaction. They are step backward in energy production in almost every aspect. Any sort of large shift certainly isn't happening yet apart from a small shift from coal to gas, despite the trillions being dumped into it. Global use of fossil fuel continues to rise and rise simply because it is available, cheap and is by far the most efficient way to generate power.

We can get wind and solar maybe to 50% share at great cost in both monetary and power reliability terms. Germany is a great example of that. After that we need coal/gas/nuclear. Probably all 3.

Everyone pushing an all renewable future seems to be ignoring the experts and real world examples that say it can't be done. Most are heavily invested in the outcome and don't seem to care about the massive real cost and drop in standard of living it will push on all society, especially the poor.
The only possible exception to that if we follow through with a rapid uptake in nuclear energy. There has been a massive resurgance in nuclear power but it takes time, and we have ingnored that technology at great expense.

Hydrogen is not going to happen. It is highly inefficent as an energy storage and incredibly difficult to handle and transport. Natural gas beats it hands down in every single aspect. My view is that by 2045 renewable generation in wealthy countries will have peaked at 30% and dropped back to 20% due to the slow realisation of the cost and uselesseness of thier intermittant low density energy. Nuclear will have surged to 40% of all power generation and gas and coal make up the rest. Hydrogen will be in exactly the same spot it is now and has been since it was first considered 100 years ago, in the "development" stage sucking up tax research dollars.