Select to expand quotedecrepit said..cammd said..>>>Will there be a second hand market, I thought the batteries needed replacing after about 10 years and that will not worth be doing, it will cost more than the value of the car.
This is wrong!
Yes very early Leaf batteries had problems and didn't last.
However the battery maintenance systems and batteries have improved markedly since the first leafs came out.
In practice on the road batteries are lasting much longer than early predictions. Early tests were heavy fast cycles to simulate long term use, this degraded the batteries much faster than average road use.
With modern batteries we are expecting a usable life span of closer to 30years. much longer than a normal petrol engine.
Plus battery prices are dropping quickly. If there are suitable batteries around to drop into a 30 year old car is another problem.
Sounds good. They probably still run at 30 years old but only hold enough charge to get you around the block.
A quick generalised search reveals most manufacturers give a 160k or eight year warranty guaranteeing 70% of original capacity. Doesn't sound awesome to me if I was in the second hand market.
Cheapest SH evs on car sales start at $8k for 2010 nissan leafs with 100000kms on them. Buyer beware.
I wonder who would buy second hand batteries for your boat or your house.
What's going to happen is wealthy people will get the best of this tech and less well off people will get stuck with the problems. It will be harder in the future for younger people and less well off people to own a reliable car, and that will come will all the associated disadvantages like finding good employment, accessing education of choice or health care of choice etc. Just charging them might be a issue for renters and people who share houses.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..
If you were a bear and you saw a public toilet block would you still **** in the woods ?
Dont give bears any bloody ideas do you know how hard it is to live in public toilets these days ??? Finally got rid of all the frogs ad toad junkies have cottoned on to my reliable water source i dont think id have the energy to battle chlamydia riddled koalas aswell when is this madness gonna end
Regular fast charging hammers the batteries so they don't last as long.
Many people have short commutes to work so may only need solar powered, slow charging once per week.
Select to expand quotecammd said..
A fully Electified future looks like a planet that is covered in mines, transmission wires, solar panels and wind farms.
How is that good
Well not good but better than blanketing the atmosphere with CO2. At least if mines are managed to not leak into the groundwater or atmosphere they are a small fraction of earth's biosphere.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
So would I be wrong to say that EVs really suit those people that are able to charge it during the 9am to 3pm period from rooftop solar (via the grid or their own setup)? For the rest of us it is not so easy.
It's shortly not going to be a matter of "if it suits you" they are coming regardless of what we say here. You'll adjust.
As a reformed ICE driver (If I drove diesels you could call me a reformed smoker) I look back at the last 100 years and think WTF? We found a way to process a finite resource, useful for making all sorts of things, and figured out how to burn it, at about 25% thermal efficiency, To get mostly one person around town encased in up to 2 tonnes of ornamental sheet metal!
check out the history of gasoline
ethw.org/Gasoline
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
As a reformed ICE driver (If I drove diesels you could call me a reformed smoker) I look back at the last 100 years and think WTF? We found a way to process a finite resource, useful for making all sorts of things, and figured out how to burn it, at about 25% thermal efficiency, To get mostly one person around town encased in up to 2 tonnes of ornamental sheet metal!
That's akin to the younger generation looking at the problems and pointing at people older than them and asking 'why did you do that?'. It was just part of the evolution of civilization.
Its a passage of time where we as a society have evolved from looking for energy to having an abundance of it, and you cannot be angry at those before us for using it. It's how we got where we are. Your EV wouldn't be around now if it weren't for cheap transport driven by oil. A lot of the food we take for granted wouldn't be here either.
I think its better in places like Vietnam where they are riding around on motorscooters, still burning fuel, but using less than us because for their one person commute they are only pushing a hundred kilograms or so. Plus the volume of traffic they can get through a city is far better than can be done in cars. They have quickly gone from bicycles to motorscooters and have now a few electric scooter options. Like here, market forces will decide if they can afford an electric one or have to stick to the petrol driven version for a while longer.
Going off on another tangent, solar hot water has been around for a long time. Its one way of reducing our energy demands, but the takeup was relatively small as people look at the financials and decide that its not worth it for them. WIthout government subsidies on solar PV I doubt we would have much of that either. Some people might be keen to do it for altruistic reasons but without the benefit of subsidies, what percentage would bother?
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
That's akin to the younger generation looking at the problems and pointing at people older than them and asking 'why did you do that?'. It was just part of the evolution of civilization.
Interesting thought.
Did we leave nothing but footprints?
I suppose our predecessors left us with things like rabbits, foxes and cane toads.
Our generation left our grandchildren with overwhelming concentrations of CO2.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
That's akin to the younger generation looking at the problems and pointing at people older than them and asking 'why did you do that?'. It was just part of the evolution of civilization.
I'm not blaming the older generation I'm it. 80% of the CO2 atmospheric imbalance has come about under my watch. Fossil fuels got us where we are sure, but we've known the long-term consequences for a long time. Could we have weaned ourselves off fossil fuels earlier? Or at least not have been so extravagant in our use of it? Takes govt. intervention of course. EVs would be nowhere without govt incentives.
Won't get to net zero by 2050 but we should have well and truly turned the corner by then. You'd hope.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
Interesting thought.
Did we leave nothing but footprints?
I suppose our predecessors left us with things like rabbits, foxes and cane toads.
Our generation left our grandchildren with overwhelming concentrations of CO2.Select to expand quoteIan K said..
I'm not blaming the older generation I'm it. 80% of the CO2 atmospheric imbalance has come about under my watch. Fossil fuels got us where we are sure, but we've known the long-term consequences for a long time. Could we have weaned ourselves off fossil fuels earlier? Or at least not have been so extravagant in our use of it? Takes govt. intervention of course. EVs would be nowhere without govt incentives.
Won't get to net zero by 2050 but we should have well and truly turned the corner by then. You'd hope.
I don't think 'we' could have done any better. Unless there is a catastrophe, the general public will not change. Governments will not change things unless there is a very good reason 'for them'.
With this logic, how do you approach developing countries and their development? It's pretty unfair to turn around to some of these countries and effectively say 'we have already developed using cheap fossil fuels, but now you are not allowed to'.
People like to think that they operate for altruistic reasons, but would any of these changes have happened if it weren't for governments making these things financially better off? Would any of us have installed rooftop solar if we had to pay the total cost ourselves and had no ability to sell any back to the grid?
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..remery said..
Interesting thought.
Did we leave nothing but footprints?
I suppose our predecessors left us with things like rabbits, foxes and cane toads.
Our generation left our grandchildren with overwhelming concentrations of CO2.Ian K said..
I'm not blaming the older generation I'm it. 80% of the CO2 atmospheric imbalance has come about under my watch. Fossil fuels got us where we are sure, but we've known the long-term consequences for a long time. Could we have weaned ourselves off fossil fuels earlier? Or at least not have been so extravagant in our use of it? Takes govt. intervention of course. EVs would be nowhere without govt incentives.
Won't get to net zero by 2050 but we should have well and truly turned the corner by then. You'd hope.
I don't think 'we' could have done any better. Unless there is a catastrophe, the general public will not change. Governments will not change things unless there is a very good reason 'for them'.
With this logic, how do you approach developing countries and their development? It's pretty unfair to turn around to some of these countries and effectively say 'we have already developed using cheap fossil fuels, but now you are not allowed to'.
People like to think that they operate for altruistic reasons, but would any of these changes have happened if it weren't for governments making these things financially better off? Would any of us have installed rooftop solar if we had to pay the total cost ourselves and had no ability to sell any back to the grid?
The general public won't change. You need govts to be coerced by the UN, who started the IPCC in 1988. Could the IPCC have been started earlier?
Did Labor trounce the coalition because they had an NVES policy? We're one of the last countries to get one. The Toyota dual cab, with the token "tradies tub" out the back is still our top selling car. Just another extravagance for most buyers. NVES will put the lid on them in a couple of years time.
You can't force developing counties out of coal , but at least the alternative technologies have now been developed for them to consider.
Veritasium is always entertaining.
To me the elephant in the room is the gubberment charge levied supposedly for infostructure levied on ice fuel ( I believe around 40 c/l) yet no (to date ) corresponding charge for electric powered vehicles. Can't help but wonder just how competitive they will be when a usage charge is implemented. 
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
...
With this logic, how do you approach developing countries and their development? It's pretty unfair to turn around to some of these countries and effectively say 'we have already developed using cheap fossil fuels, but now you are not allowed to'.
Exactly. But try explaining that to American conservatives.
Select to expand quoteUncleBob said..
To me the elephant in the room is the gubberment charge levied supposedly for infostructure levied on ice fuel ( I believe around 40 c/l) yet no (to date ) corresponding charge for electric powered vehicles. Can't help but wonder just how competitive they will be when a usage charge is implemented.
It will be in the registration fee & maybe km's, which will make ice vehicles even less competitive. I recon the big game changer will be when swap & go batteries hit the market.
Select to expand quotewoko said..UncleBob said..
To me the elephant in the room is the gubberment charge levied supposedly for infostructure levied on ice fuel ( I believe around 40 c/l) yet no (to date ) corresponding charge for electric powered vehicles. Can't help but wonder just how competitive they will be when a usage charge is implemented.
It will be in the registration fee & maybe km's, which will make ice vehicles even less competitive. I recon the big game changer will be when swap & go batteries hit the market.
I think Victoria have already tried to implement a replacement for the fuel excise, on EVs through there registration. I think someone contested it and the courts found that states could not levy this charge and that it had to be at a national level. It was removed.
It will happen though as governments always need money. ICE cars will still pay the fuel excise but there has to be some equivalent for EVs.
It's only fair to contribute to road maintenance, but not the extra the Govt has loaded on top of the fuel tax for other purposes
EVs are part of the way to reducing emissions and should be encouraged, ICE vehicles are the opposite and fuel tax is a way to discourage them.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
If we all stopped smoking, drinking and speeding the government would go broke.
Nope, they would figure out some other way of getting the same revenue. I am waiting for 'the sugar tax' to be implemented where high sugar content products, predominantly soft drinks, get taxed highly 'to encourage healthier choices'.
Of course it is a challenging problem. Tax it enough to make the money that you really want, but not too much that the problem goes away and you are left with no tax income. 
I like sugar sweetened soft drinks. I am also smart enough to know that too much is not good for me. Switching me to diet soft drinks is just going to cause me problems, so unless the tax is huge, I will keep buying the sugary drinks. I don't like artifical sweetners and I think they are a risk over the long term, more than the extra sugar. But that is just my opinion.
Nevertheless, the government will introduce this and itself become addicted to the revenue stream.
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..
It's only fair to contribute to road maintenance, but not the extra the Govt has loaded on top of the fuel tax for other purposes
EVs are part of the way to reducing emissions and should be encouraged, ICE vehicles are the opposite and fuel tax is a way to discourage them.
Why not all of it? The rest of us pay for it and have no say in what it is used for. The government are already giving tax breaks to promote EV use, but I think it will be reduced or removed at some point that it errodes too much revenue.
Remember that LPG for cars was touted in the past as a way to reduce emissions, so the government weren't charging excise on that, but once it became more commonplace they implemented an excise on that too.
The risk with making EVs so compelling is that you end up favoring those consumers, which tend to be the wealthier part of society. Is it fair that the worse off get to pay a higher proportion than the better off?
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Nope, they would figure out some other way of getting the same revenue. I am waiting for 'the sugar tax' to be implemented where high sugar content products, predominantly soft drinks, get taxed highly 'to encourage healthier choices'.
Of course it is a challenging problem. Tax it enough to make the money that you really want, but not too much that the problem goes away and you are left with no tax income.
I like sugar sweetened soft drinks. I am also smart enough to know that too much is not good for me. Switching me to diet soft drinks is just going to cause me problems, so unless the tax is huge, I will keep buying the sugary drinks. I don't like artifical sweetners and I think they are a risk over the long term, more than the extra sugar. But that is just my opinion.
Nevertheless, the government will introduce this and itself become addicted to the revenue stream.
Perthites should brace themselves for toll roads, poker machines and parking meters at the beach.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..FormulaNova said..
That's akin to the younger generation looking at the problems and pointing at people older than them and asking 'why did you do that?'. It was just part of the evolution of civilization.
I'm not blaming the older generation I'm it. 80% of the CO2 atmospheric imbalance has come about under my watch. Fossil fuels got us where we are sure, but we've known the long-term consequences for a long time. Could we have weaned ourselves off fossil fuels earlier? Or at least not have been so extravagant in our use of it? Takes govt. intervention of course. EVs would be nowhere without govt incentives.
Won't get to net zero by 2050 but we should have well and truly turned the corner by then. You'd hope.
How weaned off fossil fuels are you . Do you rely on any them in any part in your life.
I know the answer, our lifestyles are 100% dependant on fossil fuels. You consider yourself a " reformed ICE driver". What a joke, are you a reformed electricity user, a reformed, mobile phone user, a reformed computer user, a reformed clothes wearer, do you rely on modern medicines and hospitals when your ill. Is your EV fossil fuel free.
The list goes on and on and on, you are so far from being weaned off fossil fuels that your reformed ice driver status comment is utterley ridiculous.
Try really weaning yourself off them and when you find it difficult just remember your own advice and suck up any hardships and adapt.
Enjoy living in the dark and dirt.
Select to expand quotecammd said..
How weaned off fossil fuels are you . Do you rely on any them in any part in your life.
Enjoy living in the dark and dirt.
I was talking about the planet not me! EVs aren't going to save us. Passenger transport is only 12% of CO2 emissions. There's various estimates about how long it takes an EV to make up for its larger manufacturing footprint, it ranges from 30,000 to 100,000 km depending on the grid.
I'm only reformed from thinking ICEs were such a wonderful device. All that rubbish spouted to have us be in awe of the magnificent cylinder counts, overhead cams, turbos. Internal combustion was all just a nonsense idea in the first place. Youtube the engineering behind piston rings. How they keep the combustion side separated from the lubricated side. You've got to hand it to the engineers tasked with the job. Even then you have to change the oil every 6 months. Have you ever taken the head off an ICE? It's hell in there.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
Veritasium is always entertaining.
Took a while, back to the future, but EVs are largely due to John B Goodenough!
Yep. This fella was so much better/smarter/persistant than his name suggests.
Here's another vid worth watching.
www.tiktok.com/@mindset.to.mills/video/7521770366411476226
Select to expand quotecammd said.. How weaned off fossil fuels are you . Do you rely on any them in any part in your life.
You sound like you are saying, "if you can't do it all, it's not worth doing anything"
I agree at the moment it's close to impossible for an individual to be carbon neutral, unless they go 100% off grid.
However there's quite a few adjustments people cam make to reduce their carbon footprint.
Buy local for a start, so much produce carries a big transport carbon price, especially the big supermarkets here in the West.
Reduce energy consumption.
Not everybody can afford solar and batteries, but if you can, that helps the grid a lot and eases the problems of energy transition.
I'm not sure how much carbon is involved with some of the stuff you mention, like computers and mobile phones.
Clothes, yes fast fashion is a problem, and another area that can be cut down on.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
I'm only reformed from thinking ICEs were such a wonderful device. All that rubbish spouted to have us be in awe of the magnificent cylinder counts, overhead cams, turbos. Internal combustion was all just a nonsense idea in the first place. Youtube the engineering behind piston rings. How they keep the combustion side separated from the lubricated side. You've got to hand it to the engineers tasked with the job. Even then you have to change the oil every 6 months. Have you ever taken the head off an ICE? It's hell in there.
I remember reading years ago a book on cars saying that if you burnt only a drop of oil each revolution, you would be quickly out of oil. It's pretty amazing how long you can lubricate an engine for and not use that much oil.
At the moment I am rebuilding some CV joints. I am amazed at how long they can last with no pumped lubrication. They can go so long with just gobs of grease floating around. Beats me how that works, but it does.
Stop the blasphemy though. ICEs are still great. I agree that EVs are no doubt smoother and quieter, but there is a nice feeling to some cars when just cruising around. Do many EVs have a mode where you can simulate these? I know VW had some sort of active system to make their cars sound better, so surely it exists for EVs.
Last EV I drove was a dodgem car. I can't say it was very smooth when I drove it though.
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..cammd said.. How weaned off fossil fuels are you . Do you rely on any them in any part in your life.
You sound like you are saying, "if you can't do it all, it's not worth doing anything"
I agree at the moment it's close to impossible for an individual to be carbon neutral, unless they go 100% off grid.
However there's quite a few adjustments people cam make to reduce their carbon footprint.
Buy local for a start, so much produce carries a big transport carbon price, especially the big supermarkets here in the West.
Reduce energy consumption.
Not everybody can afford solar and batteries, but if you can, that helps the grid a lot and eases the problems of energy transition.
I'm not sure how much carbon is involved with some of the stuff you mention, like computers and mobile phones.
Clothes, yes fast fashion is a problem, and another area that can be cut down on.
I was commenting on the demonisation of fossil fuels. They are present in most products we use, its highly hypocritical to demonise something whilst enjoying the benefits it provides.
I think if you want to demonise them don't use them or anything made with them or by them.
The question was "could we have weaned ourselves off fossil fuels earlier?"
My question is who is anywhere even close to being weaned off them now.
Select to expand quotecammd said..
My question is who is anywhere even close to being weaned off them now.
Only those completely off the grid.
But my point is it's a good idea to make a start, with any luck it will get easier as the energy transition takes hold.
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..cammd said..
My question is who is anywhere even close to being weaned off them now.
Only those completely off the grid.
But my point is it's a good idea to make a start, with any luck it will get easier as the energy transition takes hold.
I'm completely off the grid living on a boat, everything on board is made using fossil fuels, everything.
I think my carbon footprint is the smallest it's been since I was a kid, less than 150ah a day between two of us. I have solar but not enough to recharge my daily needs but even if I did and never had to rely on fossil fuels for energy it wouldn't matter because all the systems on board, batteries, solar panels, inverter chargers, dc-dc chargers, circuits, switches etc etc are made using fossil fuels.
So then who is close to being weaned off fossil fuels, no one on this forum. Your not really a "reformed smoker" if your living a first world life, you are heavily dependant on fossil fuels.
I can only post on here atm because of my starlink, pretty sure I wouldn't be able to do that without fossil fuels shooting rockets into space.
Nothing wrong with each of us reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. That's all anyone is saying - captain obvious.
