I like your signature Grandad ! My philosophy also.

The rear right corner of the car would be the easiest to plug in in our situation as the garage is so tight.

Whenarewethere wrote:

---

rockylizard wrote:

---

Haven't they head of the insurmountable problems we have here in Straya. 

Cheers - John

---

 Politics!

---

Gday...

 Unsure of the comment and your meaning, Jonathan. At the very mention of an EV future, there are "insurmountable problems" brought pointedly to the fore.

Whether that be in most mainstream media, 'informed' technical/engineering folk, lay-people's opinions or those charged with the authority of determining the future of our country.

Even this forum is not insulated from the comments of the reality of the future of EVs and its limited acceptance.

Jest sayin' 

Cheers - John

Greystone wrote:

---

Any climate change doubter and sceptic should read this speech and try to answer the questions without rubishing or dismissing it. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/23/greta-thunberg-full-speech-to-mps-you-did-not-act-in-time?

---

 About 130,000 years ago the climate zone (there is no single climate on Earth) for the land we call Australia became drier and the rainforests retreated to be replaced by what we now refer to as the bush, vegetation much better suited to dry and warmer conditions.

Cooler conditions resulted 18,000 years ago in a major Ice Age impacting this land and the planet generally, the land has also changed as tectonic plates shift and during that Ice Age what is now the Gulf of Carpentaria was a lake, many indigenous people camped there during the very cold conditions. In recent years excavations in caves in Kakadu National Park NT revealed stone tools and other objects dating back 65,000 years, previously Mungo Man remains found at Mungo Lake not far from Mildura were dated at 40-50,000 years.

The glaciers and other ice melting very slowly is the remnants of the last major Ice Age with increased and slowing down melting as natural Earth Cycle of warming and cooling periods take place.

Just a few hundred years ago a Little Ice Age was experienced for a couple of hundred years, cold winter conditions resulted in the River Thames in England freezing over most years. But there were warmer and colder years during that time.

At the UN IPCC Copenhagen Conference delegates from China reported that during 3,600 years of civilisation and records there had been three warmer periods than the present time and each warming resulted in higher crop yields and related increased prosperity.

The present just above 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (0.040%) is not far above plant starvation level, CO2 is essential for life on Earth. Ideally it would be 1,500 ppm to 2,000 ppm. US Navy reports on submarines remaining submerged for very long periods state that typically CO2 rises to around 8,000 ppm inside the submarine.

Right now, commencing during 1998, a "Maunder Minimum" has been underway, a decline in solar activity which is an indicator of cooling conditions, a new Little Ice Age is the most likely result over time.

Emotional nonsense from a sixteen year old handicapped girl addressing UN officials and even the Pope is political theatre, she was schooled and stage managed. It is another shameless attempt by man made global warming hoax promotors to prop up their failing grasp on the growing number of sceptics who know that science is never settled, who know that odourless and invisible CO2 is not "carbon" or "carbon pollution" it is carbon dioxide.

When the ABC shows coal fired power stations emissions those are water vapour emissions from the cooling towers. Those power stations are steam turbine driven electricity generators, coal is used to heat water to produce steam. A nuclear power station is also steam turbine power, as are nuclear submarines and other vessels.

 

 

-- Edited by Knight on Thursday 25th of April 2019 12:43:27 PM

Report from Germany, EV are not the answer ...

notrickszone.com/2019/04/23/german-institute-delivers-bad-news-on-co2-e-cars-electric-vehicles-not-a-panacea-for-climate-change/

Greystone wrote:

---

EVs have never been the sole answer, they are only part of the solution as transport emissions are only part of the problem. Rubishing climate change concerns of the younger generation as emotional rubbish says it all!

---

 I have not "rubbished" climate change concerns of the younger generation, I pointed out that the girl was obviously schooled and stage managed, but I did point out climate based facts.

You have not provided alternative information to counter my comments.

Knight wrote:

---

Greystone wrote:

---

EVs have never been the sole answer, they are only part of the solution as transport emissions are only part of the problem. Rubishing climate change concerns of the younger generation as emotional rubbish says it all!

---

 I have not "rubbished" climate change concerns of the younger generation, I pointed out that the girl was obviously schooled and stage managed, but I did point out climate based facts.

You have not provided alternative information to counter my comments.

---

 I don't counter argue when people quote from sources like the Manhattan Institute or Andrew Bolt. It's not worth the effort against such credible sources who claim that the views of 97% of climate scientists are wrong. Who am I to argue?

Appeared in the Financial Post
In the lead-up to the Paris climate summit, massive activist pressure is on all governments, especially Canadas, to fall in line with the global warming agenda and accept emission targets that could seriously harm our economy. One of the most powerful rhetorical weapons being deployed is the claim that 97 per cent of the worlds scientists agree what the problem is and what we have to do about it. In the face of such near-unanimity, it would be understandable if Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Canadian government were simply to capitulate and throw Canadas economy under the climate change bandwagon. But it would be a tragedy because the 97 per cent claim is a fabrication.

Like so much else in the climate change debate, one needs to check the numbers. First of all, on what exactly are 97 per cent of experts supposed to agree? In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per cent of climate experts believe global warming is real, man-made and dangerous. As it turns out, the survey he was referring to didnt ask that question, so he was basically making it up. At a recent debate in New Orleans, I heard climate activist Bill McKibben claim there was a consensus that greenhouse gases are a grave danger. But when challenged for the source of his claim, he promptly withdrew it.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserts the conclusion that most (more than 50 per cent) of the post-1950 global warming is due to human activity, chiefly greenhouse gas emissions and land use change. But it does not survey its own contributors, let alone anyone else, so we do not know how many experts agree with it. And the statement, even if true, does not imply that we face a crisis requiring massive restructuring of the worldwide economy. In fact, it is consistent with the view that the benefits of fossil fuel use greatly outweigh the climate-related costs.

One commonly cited survey asked if carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and human activities contribute to climate change. But these are trivial statements that even many IPCC skeptics agree with. And again, both statements are consistent with the view that climate change is harmless. So there are no policy implications of such surveys, regardless of the level of agreement.

The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position.

 

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-con-consensus-not-only-there-no-97-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many

-- Edited by Knight on Friday 26th of April 2019 12:15:45 AM

Mobi Condo wrote:

---

Hm! Thanks for the report and link. Can't afford it all yet and still keen to see the test of Adelaide, Kimberly. GRR via the Tanami then down through the Gold Fields back home. I am keen to see the development and learnt a heap from the U-Tube video tho'.

---

 Thank you, it is an interesting video Mobi Condo.

There is nothing seriously wrong with the EV technology apart from limitations of the battery pack, weight, range and related range anxiety and recharging time is my main concern. There were electric tai cabs in New York USA late 1800s to early 1900s until Henry released his Model T Ford. And for many of the reasons remaining issues today EV lost the marketing and sales contest.

And as road tests are reporting recharging infrastructure has a very long way to go before we could drive an EV with confidence over long distances, country kilometres.

In my opinion the renewable energy target has been an expensive exercise in how to damage a pefectly reliable electricity grid generating cheap electricity and to push for EV before infrastructure and grid electricity generating capacity is boosted would be another expensive exercise in politically motivated consumer's disaster.

However, the Tesla towing performance is impressive.

 

From the link on Telstra posted earlier by Santa ...

"On Tuesday night, the company announced updates to both, including a new drive system that increases the range by 10 per cent per electric charge.

Long-range versions of the S will be able to go 590km per charge while the X can go 520, the company said.

The vehicles also will get new adaptive suspensions, faster acceleration and more comfortable rides, Tesla said."

When we read reports on internal combustion engine vehicles we are provided with fuel consumption results, not theoretically "the S will be able to go 590 km per charge". What charge, 100% or rapid charge 80%? The driving reports on Jaguar, Tesla and Nissan that I have read have all mentioned range issues because on the road in the real world range varies dependent on driving conditions, load on board, speed, hills, air conditioner on or off, etc.

It would be good if EV reports stated theoretical maximum and likely average range because likely average is probably one third less than theoretical range or worse.

I was particular interested in the prototype heavy duty utility, Dodge Ram dimensions EV. The "skateboard" floor pan containing the battery pack and electrical is substantial, so what is the weight of it and what is the weight capacity for the tray? How does it compare with an Isuzu D-Max or similar diesel ute? The US based indicative price was more than a Tesla S EV and you could buy two D-Max for the price of one of those EV with cash left over for accessories.

Greenpeace co-founder believes it's a hoax ...

www.breitbart.com/radio/2019/03/21/greenpeace-founder-climate-change-crisis-is-a-completely-made-up-issue/

 

Burning fossil fuel returns carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from which it came, explained Moore:

Our addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is fertilizing all of the plant life on Earth, including all the forests and all the food crops on Earth, and we have something like a 30-percent average increase in the growth of plants over the last 50 years because of the CO2 that weve put in the atmosphere. CO2 is the primary food for life, and along with water, H2O and CO2, plants make sugar, mainly glucose, which is a carbohydrate, which is the basis for all the energy for all of life, beginning with photosynthesis.

If people just understood that basic fact, and the fact that CO2 is now lower than it has been virtually in the history of the Earth because life has taken it out and deposited it in sediments, called fossil fuels, and carbonaceous rocks like limestone and marble and chalk, all of which contain carbon that used to be in the atmosphere or dissolved in the ocean where they were absorbed by living creatures to make themselves. Over time those creatures have fallen to the bottom of the ocean when they die, or have been buried in sediments on the land to form fossil fuels, and they have removed that carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and the oceans. So we come along after 4 billion years of this, and start burning some of the fossil fuels, and finally start putting some of the carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere where it came from in the first place.

[Carbon dioxide] is actually the main fertilizer and building block for life, stated Moore.

The climate change narrative is not just fake news; its fake science, Moore said. That is a fact, and I will put my reputation 45 years as a scientist studying these subjects on the line. I dont get paid by the government to make up stories so politicians can scare the electorate into voting for them on the climate issue.

 

-- Edited by Knight on Saturday 27th of April 2019 09:14:01 AM

Being ill-informed is as lazy as being uninformed but they both equal ignorance.

IMHO, the future of electric vehicles is not entirely in battery packs but in fuel cells. The infrastructure (fuel stations) is already in place and all the various companies would have to do is to add in the relevant 'fuel' for the fuel cell whether it be compressed hydrogen or one of the new Ammonia or other liquid based systems (safer than hydrogen).

In terms of reliability, efficiency and simplicity an EV far outweighs the alternative - it is only the density and ease of use of the energy storage that is the issue.

HOWEVER - I also think that we are looking at a decade or more before EVs become the mainstream of transport but it will and along with self driving vehicles, this will make a massive change to the way most of us travel. My recently deceased mother went downhill rapidly after she had to give up her car and my daughter has a friend who is 98% blind - consider the impact of self driving vehicles on these people - they will have self determination to almost the end of their lives! There was some recent research that suggested that personal ownership of vehicles will drop off sharply once self driving EVs become common - you would just order an EV taxi to your door any time you wanted transport. Obviously, this is limited to higher population densities such as cities but the impact will be enormous.

But you petrolheads need not worry - too many of us like the old ways and petrol/diesel vehicles will probably still be popular long after we are dead!