From the link posted by Buzz Lightbulb ...... I have pasted a snippet from it (bolding by me). Some of these comments belong in the Jokes section.
We may end up thinking of EVs primarily as batteries, Mr Washington said.
"A vehicle will become an energy asset first because it's parked 90 per cent of the time," he said.
Having a big battery that's easily transportable can also be handy, he said.
Employees could charge their cars with free electricity at work and then feed the power into their homes in the evening.
Multi-storey carparks fitted with thousands of bidirectional chargers would double as energy banks for the grid.
"I have no doubt the market for residential batteries is going to decline quite heavily as they're replaced by cars," he said.
I highlighted those two items because both are plainly ridiculous for the forseeable future.
free electricity at work and then feed the power into their homes in the evening
Before electric cars were considered, why didn't businesses have fuel bowsers at work so we could commute for free. Think what a cost saving that would be. And then to think we could use that fuel to refuel our other cars. And power our homes as well. All for free! What fools we have been to have missed that breakthrough. Of course the extra traffic on the road to get that free power would have been an inconvenience, but worth it.
carparks fitted with thousands of bidirectional chargers
So the fully charged EV drives into a carpark and feeds the grid? Where did it get its charge from? From the free power at work? I thought carparks were intended to be a source for charging.
With all of these solutions, the building, the street, the city has to have enough infrastructure capability. Can you imagine when it is bitterly cold, driving consumption through the roof, and the grey skies day after day mean it all has to be sucked from the grid. Where will those travelling batteries get their charge from then? If you feed the grid, then suck it back out later, is there a different rate (like the huge disparity for home systems at present)?
It reminds me of Tim Flannery's looney prediction of a 25 metre sea level rise and that all those with waterfront homes will lose their properties (says he with a waterfront home at Berowra Waters).
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Friday 24th of June 2022 03:27:49 PM
Whenarewethere said
03:32 PM Jun 24, 2022
I didn't need free fuel at work. I was given a car & fuel card. Holidays the company paid for the fuel. One holiday did a trip to Tassie for 6 weeks.
Ivan 01 said
05:58 PM Jun 24, 2022
Whenarewethere wrote:
I didn't need free fuel at work. I was given a car & fuel card. Holidays the company paid for the fuel. One holiday did a trip to Tassie for 6 weeks.
You need to get back on your meds mate, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
peter67 said
06:29 PM Jun 24, 2022
The "major" from Faulty Towers would be screaming "Germans...faulty old boy, did you say Germans!!"
Whenarewethere said
08:10 PM Jun 24, 2022
Ivan 01 wrote:
Whenarewethere wrote:
I didn't need free fuel at work. I was given a car & fuel card. Holidays the company paid for the fuel. One holiday did a trip to Tassie for 6 weeks.
You need to get back on your meds mate, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
It has everything to do with the topic at hand if you care to read Are We Lost's astute comment.
It was an answer to this comment. You do not need to have a Bowser physically at work. Simply provide a fleetcard. Easy.
Whether it's petrol or electricity is can simply be provided free to employees who are worth keeping.
Are We Lost wrote:
Before electric cars were considered, why didn't businesses have fuel bowsers at work so we could commute for free. Think what a cost saving that would be. And then to think we could use that fuel to refuel our other cars. And power our homes as well. All for free! What fools we have been to have missed that breakthrough. Of course the extra traffic on the road to get that free power would have been an inconvenience, but worth it.
Are We Lost said
09:49 PM Jun 24, 2022
Whenarewethere, I think you are pointing to a situation that is not aligned with the wider scope of what that article suggests.
In the case of your company provided car, the cost of it would have been built into your employee costs, and that would have influenced the pay you received. Perhaps this was never shared with you, but it would have been by the bean counters. In my case, now retired from the corporate world for 10 years, I can't speak for what the trend is now. But in my time, the trend was growing for employers to offer a car or higher income ... mutually exclusive. The cost of choosing "car please" was in most cases greater than the cost of doing it yourself with after tax dollars, except you did not need to raise finance. And then there was Fringe Benefits Tax on top. Where I worked, the Total Cost Remuneration package allowed us to pick and choose what we wanted .. small, large, luxury. Other benefits as well. But the employer's cost never changed. So, free cars from employers are far from free.
Taking it back to that article ..... the intimation from the article was that the power was free, and it was not just a few who would get it, but (all employees). Some gullible fools may believe exactly that after reading it. You do agree that only a fool would think it would all be free, correct?
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Friday 24th of June 2022 09:54:26 PM
Whenarewethere said
10:13 PM Jun 24, 2022
While there are few electric cars it is more of a marketing & publicity exercise have charging in shopping centres etc free to use. The day will come that people will have to pay as there will be too many EVs. There will be the various fuel electricity discount schemes, but at the end of the day we pay for it. CEOs will get 2 cars, one for the "wife", & 2 electricity fleetcards. The dogs bodies, well, they can get stuffed!
Gundog said
10:11 AM Jun 25, 2022
Gundog wrote:
No one is denying that in an urban enviroment they are a good choice, it may well be those in surburbia will charge their cars from the house mains, others will spend the extra to install a DC charger with 2 way power flow, the greatest impediament to those who live in high rise buildings that would need retro fitting of suitable hardware to enable EV charging, and then you have the additional problem of those who only have street parking available.
And then the rural and remote communities their EV is great for local driving, but usually you have to larger regional towns/cities many 100's of kilometers away which would present a whole raft of issues.
Where does farming, heavy transport, railways, grey nomads/ tourists etc fit into the EV world.
Its easy to look at the EV's with rose colored glasses, the infastructure is just not there yet, the solutions are there but who is going to pay for it ? the tax payer or private enterprise. If you expect the tax payer build it, it will be like the the Sydney harbour bridge flag pole, or the other great labor folly the NBN, its not finished yet and its billions over budget and still climbing. Private enterprise will want the government subsidise and offer big tax breaks, just look at the wind & solar farms most of them are foregn owned along with the big batteries.
Turn your attention to South Australia they have the highest household power prices for a state that is predominatly powered bt renewables, their power prices have never come down, you may ask why the foregin owners want to continue to maximise their return on investment.
Also reality is a bitch currently the average daily power generation is70-82% Fossil Fuel, 18-30% Renewables. So what would be a reasonable time frame to kick renewables up to 70% 5 years maybe 10 more likely 15-20 years.
Oh by the way Germany is now restarting their coal fired generators, and its not winter their yet.
Wow nobody has commented on this post.
Add a diferent slant on EV's, Mr Google tell there is 60,000 hybrid/electric cars registered of that about 24,000 are full electric, there is over 20 million vehicles registered in australia.
It's a pretty poor investment wasting billions of dollars for a poultry 0.12% of motor vehicles, without government money no commercial investor would look at it.
In a nutshell we loopy left leaning governmants wasting tax payer money pandering to the noisy minority of who the majority wouls have an ICE vehicle as like many they cannot afford one.
Whenarewethere said
02:25 PM Jun 25, 2022
Fuel excise goes to the federal government, gst on fuel gets divided up between the states in a complex algorithm. Registration & new car stamp duty goes to the State.
Local councils pay for most roads, from rates.
Buzz Lightbulb said
02:25 PM Jun 25, 2022
Are We Lost wrote:
Whenarewethere, I think you are pointing to a situation that is not aligned with the wider scope of what that article suggests.
In the case of your company provided car, the cost of it would have been built into your employee costs, and that would have influenced the pay you received. Perhaps this was never shared with you, but it would have been by the bean counters. In my case, now retired from the corporate world for 10 years, I can't speak for what the trend is now. But in my time, the trend was growing for employers to offer a car or higher income ... mutually exclusive. The cost of choosing "car please" was in most cases greater than the cost of doing it yourself with after tax dollars, except you did not need to raise finance. And then there was Fringe Benefits Tax on top. Where I worked, the Total Cost Remuneration package allowed us to pick and choose what we wanted .. small, large, luxury. Other benefits as well. But the employer's cost never changed. So, free cars from employers are far from free.
Taking it back to that article ..... the intimation from the article was that the power was free, and it was not just a few who would get it, but (all employees). Some gullible fools may believe exactly that after reading it. You do agree that only a fool would think it would all be free, correct?
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Friday 24th of June 2022 09:54:26 PM
Why do you keep on concentrating on I've tiny little bit of the article when the main point for this discussion is that EVs can help with the base load? Surely just charging for the electricity at the supply would ease your worries?
You're getting all worked up about nothing when a possible solution is proposed.
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Saturday 25th of June 2022 02:26:36 PM
Buzz Lightbulb said
02:33 PM Jun 25, 2022
Gundog wrote:
Gundog wrote:
No one is denying that in an urban enviroment they are a good choice, it may well be those in surburbia will charge their cars from the house mains, others will spend the extra to install a DC charger with 2 way power flow, the greatest impediament to those who live in high rise buildings that would need retro fitting of suitable hardware to enable EV charging, and then you have the additional problem of those who only have street parking available.
And then the rural and remote communities their EV is great for local driving, but usually you have to larger regional towns/cities many 100's of kilometers away which would present a whole raft of issues.
Where does farming, heavy transport, railways, grey nomads/ tourists etc fit into the EV world.
Its easy to look at the EV's with rose colored glasses, the infastructure is just not there yet, the solutions are there but who is going to pay for it ? the tax payer or private enterprise. If you expect the tax payer build it, it will be like the the Sydney harbour bridge flag pole, or the other great labor folly the NBN, its not finished yet and its billions over budget and still climbing. Private enterprise will want the government subsidise and offer big tax breaks, just look at the wind & solar farms most of them are foregn owned along with the big batteries.
Turn your attention to South Australia they have the highest household power prices for a state that is predominatly powered bt renewables, their power prices have never come down, you may ask why the foregin owners want to continue to maximise their return on investment.
Also reality is a bitch currently the average daily power generation is70-82% Fossil Fuel, 18-30% Renewables. So what would be a reasonable time frame to kick renewables up to 70% 5 years maybe 10 more likely 15-20 years.
Oh by the way Germany is now restarting their coal fired generators, and its not winter their yet.
Wow nobody has commented on this post.
Add a diferent slant on EV's, Mr Google tell there is 60,000 hybrid/electric cars registered of that about 24,000 are full electric, there is over 20 million vehicles registered in australia.
It's a pretty poor investment wasting billions of dollars for a poultry 0.12% of motor vehicles, without government money no commercial investor would look at it.
In a nutshell we loopy left leaning governmants wasting tax payer money pandering to the noisy minority of who the majority wouls have an ICE vehicle as like many they cannot afford one.
That's interesting. I was under the impression that once the power issues are solved then the majority of people would prefer EVs if they were comparable in price to ICE vehicles.
I wonder where you get your 'majority' statistics from?
Most people want to help the environment. Unless they are loopy right leaning government giving money to their rich mates and not helping the average Australian.
The rantings about the other half doesn't help people's argument. It just makes them look like 'boomers'. On the other hand, if the argument has some real, sensible, supportive content without emotional outbursts then people might be inclined to listen.
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Saturday 25th of June 2022 02:37:36 PM
Whenarewethere said
03:18 PM Jun 25, 2022
Once upon a time most cars were electric. We are just returning to an enlightened period.
Gundog said
03:26 PM Jun 25, 2022
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
Gundog wrote:
Gundog wrote:
No one is denying that in an urban enviroment they are a good choice, it may well be those in surburbia will charge their cars from the house mains, others will spend the extra to install a DC charger with 2 way power flow, the greatest impediament to those who live in high rise buildings that would need retro fitting of suitable hardware to enable EV charging, and then you have the additional problem of those who only have street parking available.
And then the rural and remote communities their EV is great for local driving, but usually you have to larger regional towns/cities many 100's of kilometers away which would present a whole raft of issues.
Where does farming, heavy transport, railways, grey nomads/ tourists etc fit into the EV world.
Its easy to look at the EV's with rose colored glasses, the infastructure is just not there yet, the solutions are there but who is going to pay for it ? the tax payer or private enterprise. If you expect the tax payer build it, it will be like the the Sydney harbour bridge flag pole, or the other great labor folly the NBN, its not finished yet and its billions over budget and still climbing. Private enterprise will want the government subsidise and offer big tax breaks, just look at the wind & solar farms most of them are foregn owned along with the big batteries.
Turn your attention to South Australia they have the highest household power prices for a state that is predominatly powered bt renewables, their power prices have never come down, you may ask why the foregin owners want to continue to maximise their return on investment.
Also reality is a bitch currently the average daily power generation is70-82% Fossil Fuel, 18-30% Renewables. So what would be a reasonable time frame to kick renewables up to 70% 5 years maybe 10 more likely 15-20 years.
Oh by the way Germany is now restarting their coal fired generators, and its not winter their yet.
Wow nobody has commented on this post.
Add a diferent slant on EV's, Mr Google tell there is 60,000 hybrid/electric cars registered of that about 24,000 are full electric, there is over 20 million vehicles registered in australia.
It's a pretty poor investment wasting billions of dollars for a poultry 0.12% of motor vehicles, without government money no commercial investor would look at it.
In a nutshell we loopy left leaning governmants wasting tax payer money pandering to the noisy minority of who the majority wouls have an ICE vehicle as like many they cannot afford one.
That's interesting. I was under the impression that once the power issues are solved then the majority of people would prefer EVs if they were comparable in price to ICE vehicles. Buzz I think you grossly underestimate the amount of infrastructructure that is required to support 1 million EV's let alone 20 million.
I wonder where you get your 'majority' statistics from? 0.12% is a pretty go start
Most people want to help the environment. Unless they are loopy right leaning government giving money to their rich mates and not helping the average Australian. You have a very short memory, the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd years the school halls program the majority of them were built by big multi national construction companies, oh the pink batts scheme what did that cost ? and lets not forget the NBN an abject failure and still costing tax payers because it all off budget.
The rantings about the other half doesn't help people's argument. It just makes them look like 'boomers'. On the other hand, if the argument has some real, sensible, supportive content without emotional outbursts then people might be inclined to listen. Because their arguements are like seives full of holes, no plan just rhetoric, where's Labors plan to get to 43% renewables by 2030, glib slogans sound but how are they going to do it and wheres the money comming from ?
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Saturday 25th of June 2022 02:37:36 PM
Are We Lost said
03:50 PM Jun 25, 2022
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
Why do you keep on concentrating on one tiny little bit of the article when the main point for this discussion is that EVs can help with the base load?
(I fixed what I think was a typo of yours)
I was responding to someone who was concentrating on one tiny little bit of what I was saying. As for the article itself, I actually think there is a use for such a technology. But it is so full of hype that I thought it worthwhile pointing out a couple of crazy statements.
If you don't like that I only focused on tiny bits of the article, would you like me to list more?
Whenarewethere said
04:31 PM Jun 25, 2022
20,000,000 vehicles at 8kWh per day (13,000km per year) = 58,400,000,000kWh
Australia's total electricity consumption is 251,350,000,000kWh in 2020
So EVs would be about 23% extra energy required.
In 2021 Australia's electricity dropped to 188.6TWh. The drop of 62.75TWh would be more than the 58.4TWh of EVs.
We are continuously adding renewables, it will need to be upped, but it is hardly a difficult task.
I not losing any sleep over it.
Webmaster said
07:29 PM Jun 25, 2022
Hi all, Many thanks for your input on this topic; however I think I will close this now. Just a reminder to please keep politics out of discussions. It inevitably leads to bad feelings. Thanks.
From the link posted by Buzz Lightbulb ...... I have pasted a snippet from it (bolding by me). Some of these comments belong in the Jokes section.
We may end up thinking of EVs primarily as batteries, Mr Washington said.
"A vehicle will become an energy asset first because it's parked 90 per cent of the time," he said.
Having a big battery that's easily transportable can also be handy, he said.
Employees could charge their cars with free electricity at work and then feed the power into their homes in the evening.
Multi-storey carparks fitted with thousands of bidirectional chargers would double as energy banks for the grid.
"I have no doubt the market for residential batteries is going to decline quite heavily as they're replaced by cars," he said.
I highlighted those two items because both are plainly ridiculous for the forseeable future.
free electricity at work and then feed the power into their homes in the evening
Before electric cars were considered, why didn't businesses have fuel bowsers at work so we could commute for free. Think what a cost saving that would be. And then to think we could use that fuel to refuel our other cars. And power our homes as well. All for free! What fools we have been to have missed that breakthrough. Of course the extra traffic on the road to get that free power would have been an inconvenience, but worth it.
carparks fitted with thousands of bidirectional chargers
So the fully charged EV drives into a carpark and feeds the grid? Where did it get its charge from? From the free power at work? I thought carparks were intended to be a source for charging.
With all of these solutions, the building, the street, the city has to have enough infrastructure capability. Can you imagine when it is bitterly cold, driving consumption through the roof, and the grey skies day after day mean it all has to be sucked from the grid. Where will those travelling batteries get their charge from then? If you feed the grid, then suck it back out later, is there a different rate (like the huge disparity for home systems at present)?
It reminds me of Tim Flannery's looney prediction of a 25 metre sea level rise and that all those with waterfront homes will lose their properties (says he with a waterfront home at Berowra Waters).
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Friday 24th of June 2022 03:27:49 PM
I didn't need free fuel at work. I was given a car & fuel card. Holidays the company paid for the fuel. One holiday did a trip to Tassie for 6 weeks.
You need to get back on your meds mate, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
It has everything to do with the topic at hand if you care to read Are We Lost's astute comment.
It was an answer to this comment. You do not need to have a Bowser physically at work. Simply provide a fleetcard. Easy.
Whether it's petrol or electricity is can simply be provided free to employees who are worth keeping.
Whenarewethere, I think you are pointing to a situation that is not aligned with the wider scope of what that article suggests.
In the case of your company provided car, the cost of it would have been built into your employee costs, and that would have influenced the pay you received. Perhaps this was never shared with you, but it would have been by the bean counters. In my case, now retired from the corporate world for 10 years, I can't speak for what the trend is now. But in my time, the trend was growing for employers to offer a car or higher income ... mutually exclusive. The cost of choosing "car please" was in most cases greater than the cost of doing it yourself with after tax dollars, except you did not need to raise finance. And then there was Fringe Benefits Tax on top. Where I worked, the Total Cost Remuneration package allowed us to pick and choose what we wanted .. small, large, luxury. Other benefits as well. But the employer's cost never changed. So, free cars from employers are far from free.
Taking it back to that article ..... the intimation from the article was that the power was free, and it was not just a few who would get it, but (all employees). Some gullible fools may believe exactly that after reading it. You do agree that only a fool would think it would all be free, correct?
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Friday 24th of June 2022 09:54:26 PM
While there are few electric cars it is more of a marketing & publicity exercise have charging in shopping centres etc free to use. The day will come that people will have to pay as there will be too many EVs. There will be the various fuel electricity discount schemes, but at the end of the day we pay for it. CEOs will get 2 cars, one for the "wife", & 2 electricity fleetcards. The dogs bodies, well, they can get stuffed!
Wow nobody has commented on this post.
Add a diferent slant on EV's, Mr Google tell there is 60,000 hybrid/electric cars registered of that about 24,000 are full electric, there is over 20 million vehicles registered in australia.
It's a pretty poor investment wasting billions of dollars for a poultry 0.12% of motor vehicles, without government money no commercial investor would look at it.
In a nutshell we loopy left leaning governmants wasting tax payer money pandering to the noisy minority of who the majority wouls have an ICE vehicle as like many they cannot afford one.
Fuel excise goes to the federal government, gst on fuel gets divided up between the states in a complex algorithm. Registration & new car stamp duty goes to the State.
Local councils pay for most roads, from rates.
Why do you keep on concentrating on I've tiny little bit of the article when the main point for this discussion is that EVs can help with the base load? Surely just charging for the electricity at the supply would ease your worries?
You're getting all worked up about nothing when a possible solution is proposed.
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Saturday 25th of June 2022 02:26:36 PM
That's interesting. I was under the impression that once the power issues are solved then the majority of people would prefer EVs if they were comparable in price to ICE vehicles.
I wonder where you get your 'majority' statistics from?
Most people want to help the environment. Unless they are loopy right leaning government giving money to their rich mates and not helping the average Australian.
The rantings about the other half doesn't help people's argument. It just makes them look like 'boomers'.
On the other hand, if the argument has some real, sensible, supportive content without emotional outbursts then people might be inclined to listen.
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Saturday 25th of June 2022 02:37:36 PM
Once upon a time most cars were electric. We are just returning to an enlightened period.
(I fixed what I think was a typo of yours)
I was responding to someone who was concentrating on one tiny little bit of what I was saying. As for the article itself, I actually think there is a use for such a technology. But it is so full of hype that I thought it worthwhile pointing out a couple of crazy statements.
If you don't like that I only focused on tiny bits of the article, would you like me to list more?
20,000,000 vehicles at 8kWh per day (13,000km per year) = 58,400,000,000kWh
Australia's total electricity consumption is 251,350,000,000kWh in 2020
So EVs would be about 23% extra energy required.
In 2021 Australia's electricity dropped to 188.6TWh. The drop of 62.75TWh would be more than the 58.4TWh of EVs.
We are continuously adding renewables, it will need to be upped, but it is hardly a difficult task.
I not losing any sleep over it.
Hi all,
Many thanks for your input on this topic; however I think I will close this now. Just a reminder to please keep politics out of discussions. It inevitably leads to bad feelings.
Thanks.