From The GWPF Original story at The Australian
- Date: 26/08/19
- The Australian
Electric vehicles in Australia’s eastern states are responsible for more carbon dioxide emissions than regular petrol vehicles, according to an expert report that warns Labor’s green cars policy would require up to $7 billion in upgrades and installation of recharging infrastructure across the nation.
A pre-election briefing obtained by The Australian, which was prepared by engineering firm ABMARC, concedes the immediate benefit of electric vehicles in Australia “is not guaranteed”. It also states Bill Shorten’s electric vehicle target of 50 per cent of new car sales by 2030 would need between $5bn and $7bn in recharging infrastructure and additional investment in “switchboards, transformers and poles and wires”.
“Installing this level of charging infrastructure would require a significant increase in the rate of investment in recharging infrastructure,” the report says.
Bill Shorten’s pre-election green cars pledge would have required up to $7 billion in upgrades and installation of recharging infrastructure. Picture: Kym Smith
The report, released to stakeholders in May, also provides a breakdown comparing average CO2 emissions of hybrid, petrol, diesel and electric vehicles in Australia.
ABMARC, which is used by government departments, motoring firms and major energy companies, reveals “CO2 emissions from electric vehicles in Victoria are particularly high, similar to the average diesel CO2 emissions”.
On average, in NSW, Victoria, ACT and Queensland, petrol vehicles “provide less CO2 than electric vehicles”, with ABMARC linking the emissions disparity with “Australia’s continued reliance on coal-fired power stations”. The consultancy firm also notes that the Australian Average Diesel emissions data was “heavily skewed by light commercial vehicles (utes) and larger SUVs”.
The report says hybrid vehicles “provide greater environmental benefits in nearly all states and territories” than electric vehicles with the exception of Tasmania, which primarily uses hydro-electricity.
The ABMARC analysis also unravels the argument for Australia to replicate Norway’s electric car market, which imposes heavy taxes on passenger vehicles and provides generous incentives for EVs.
Not only that, but all electric motors produce Ozone. Another bad feature of electric cars.
Brushed motors do. Not all motors are brushed – far from it.
I drive a second hand Prius 2nd generation and like all cars that require rare earth elements and exotic batteries, the environmental pollution envelope encompassing the incredibly toxic manufacturing process for these rare earth elements and batteries are ultra toxic, and up there with nuclear power when it comes to ultra toxic manufacturing and recycling processes.
Coal is cleaner and greener any day of the week..
Not all hybrids or EVs use electric motors with rare earths. Induction motors are increasingly being used in EVs. The 4WD Prius uses an induction motor in the rear axle.
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/30/nikola-teslas-19th-century-induction-motor-ideal-choice-21st-century-electric-car/
It would be ironic if clean green carbon battery storage became a reality. Getting very close IMO (in my opinion) …Current battery technology is an environmental toxic nightmare.
“Skeleton Ultra Capacitors | Fully Charged”
Nickel Iron batteries are Ironic.
I suppose that what we are seeing for the first time is hybrid batteries composed of Carbon ultra capacitors to absorb huge charge currents during braking, working together so that the usual highly toxic batteries in EV’s are spared from the destructive current peaks during acceleration or deceleration, thus greatly increasing the service life of said highly toxic batteries
How can that be,was that comment from BP petroleum. Solar power. has no emotion, and nuclear is all clear.
Oh, this is quite a gigglesnortt, in my book. No surprise here, just a case of the giggles.
Gigglewatts????
Can someone out there please answer this question: Are Hydrogen fuel celled cars better economically and more efficient than electric cars?
Why worry about it?
Internal combustion engines that run on fossil fuels have a big advantage: nature made the fuel without having to apply a secondary process to make the fuel! Higher efficiencies are obtainable with gasoline, diesel, or even propane! Stanley Steamers were also very efficient, just slow to get heated up!
Barcelona – Ireland – Barcelona 11.000 km in 3 weeks Try to do that in an electric car. We did it in a diesel A4 this summer. Rain every day.
Brisbane-Nowra-Brisbane, 2900 kilometres in 3 days in a 1979 model 2 seater convertible sports car.
First, the fossil fuels have to be extracted, then they have to be refined. That’s at least two steps.
Whereas with electric car fossil fuels have to be extracted and turned into electricity. Thats at least two steps.
No, just charge it from the solar on your roof. Like I do with my ebike now.
Heat engines are NOT efficient. The typical ICE car wastes 75% of the energy in gasoline. It goes right out the radiator and the tailpipe. Compare that to the 90% efficiency of an electric induction motor. Do the math. Gasoline contains about 40 Kwh of energy per Imperial gallon. It can push your SUV about 25 miles down the road. The same 40 Kwh will move a Chevy Bolt 150 miles.
The energy density of fossil fuels is immensely higher than batteries. Which is why batteries will not carry large loads or go long distances.
Sorry Donald. You have mixed up apples and oranges.
The drive train in an ICE car starts under the bonnet/hood. The drive chain for an EV car starts in the boiler in the generating facility, where currently some 80% of an EVs energy comes.
Perhaps you may care to rework your figures?
Best ignore the cost elements here as these have been so adulterated by subsidies/ bribes to render them somewhat useless for comparisons.
Exactly right. EV lovers have a habit of “forgetting” that the power comes from somewhere else. Just because the smoke is in someone else’s backyard doesn’t mean it isn’t there…Much like the people who seem to think food comes from the supermarket.
Just use the solar on your roof.
Regular daily drivers such as a Mazda 3 approach 40mpg. The best hybrids get 52mpg. Diesels get similar figures. A good hybrid or a diesel is about as efficient at it can get turning fuel into miles driven- about 60%.
As the story shows, electric cars are not pollution free unless they run off a nuclear reactor. The best they can do is the equivalent of about 60% efficiency power plant fuel in the ground to miles on the road. They have lots of hidden costs, including the notion that solar power and windmills generate “free” electricity.
TANSTAAFL
My little Fiat 500 regually gets about 45mph around town.
Donald, your math works if we had electricity wells like we have oil wells. We don’t. For an honest comparison, the efficiency of the entire system is required. The production and refining of one barrel of oil into gasoline uses about 10% of the energy in that barrel of oil. Your IC car is about 25% efficient, so the overall efficiency of the system is 0.9 * 0.25 = 22.5%. The electricity used to charge your battery-powered car was generated at about 35% efficiency if it came from a coal-fired power plant. There is some energy lost in the mining and transport of the coal, but I don’t have a good estimate for that. Let’s say that it is on the same order as the efficiency of distributing the gasoline. It is not large. Getting the electricity to your house (line efficiency) is about 0.95. Lithium batteries are very good at charging efficiently, but not more than 90%. Then your motor is 80%. Therefore, your overall efficiency is 0.35*.95*.9*.8 = 23.9%. This will be significantly higher if you get your power from a gas turbine (40-50%). You are not exactly saving the world here in your electric car. Yes, you can charge your car from your large PV array, which took a lot of energy to fabricate. But that means you have to work from home or work at night since your car has to be parked in your driveway all day. Also, you have to compare a Chevy Bolt to another car its size, not a SUV. The Prius vs Yaris is a fair comparison – same body, different propulsion.
Ever heard of battery storage? A lot of people charge at night from solar energy.
When you factor in how electricity is made (at least in the U.S.) an EV is about 45% thermally efficient. A gas car is in the low 20s, but new engines are rapidly raising that toward 40%.
Their exhaust consist’s of water vapor.You can’t get much cleaner than that. The cost is due to the hydrogen. If they can extract that (from the air or from water, which consist’s of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, then the cost should be reasonable. The problem lies in fear that the hydrogen would be ‘dangerous’. I maintain that it isn’t any more dangerous than gasoline or propane, and MANY vehicles run on those fuels! Safely! All we need is hydrogen filling stations. The current internal combustion engines run just fine on hydrogen, by the way, so no new engine designs are needed.
Do you have any experience with hydrogen ?
I have some , and it IS more dangerous than gasoline and propane .
Do you have experience that is different ?
It MAY – and that is a big MAY – be safe enough to put hydrogen tanks in a vehicle (although I don’t like to think of the extra dangers in a crash) but carrying enough around to give the vehicle acceptable range might be risky. The big unknown is the physical risk of making, transporting, storing at fueling stations every several miles and handling enough pressurized hydrogen to satisfy the transportation needs.
Hydtogen need not be burned in an engine – with all the thermodynamics involved – it can be converted directly to electricity in a fuel cell.
Dream on Tesla!
In explosive atmosphere product testing we used hydrogen to test flameproof enclosures because it gave the highest explosion pressure – translated as ‘a bigger bang’ – for use with a static pressure test.
Here is Bob Lazar’s (yes THAT Bob Lazar) hydrogen powered car. I think he also sells a kit for it…
Talk of “extracting” hydrogen from water (or even air) suggests you have no idea of the processes involved and thus no idea of the energy required. Please go do some reading.
“Their exhaust consist’s of water vapor.You can’t get much cleaner than that.” So you don’t believe water is the predominant GHG?
A certain fraction of the exhaust is dihydrogen monoxide, which we all know can be deadly.
….Hindenburg ?
The Hindenburg fire was caused by the oxidation of aluminum powder paint. That is, most of the heat and flames came from the surface paint, not the hydrogen. There is speculation that a grounding spark ignited the paint, not the hydrogen.
Powdered metals, as with wheat flour, can explode (for all intents and purposes) in the right conditions.
Do the helium filled blimps also have aluminum powder paint and has it ever exploded? Any other instances of similar fires due to aluminum powder paint?
You may maintain what you like of course, but hydrogen is a living nightmare to contain and store without leaks.
“Their exhaust consist’s of water vapor.You can’t get much cleaner than that.”
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas more important than co2.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/08/thanks-to-the-ipcc-the-public-doesnt-know-water-vapor-is-most-important-greenhouse-gas/
I used to believe Hydrogen was the fuel of the future – I no longer do so for the following reasons…..
A major problem exists for Hydrogen power – nowhere on Earth can you mine Hydrogen – so you have to synthesize it – first method is electrolysis – fairly efficient (80%) – but then you have to compress, cool, store, transport etc. etc. so you are better off going directly to electrically powered cars and skip out all those energy spendthrift transformations in-between the energy source and your car. (At present the only advantage to Hydrogen is that you can fill’er up – as opposed to a lengthy battery recharge.)
Guess what ? Commercially manufactured Hydrogen is produced by reacting Methane and Steam vis :- CH4 + 2H2O = H8 + CO2 well I’ll be hornswoggled – A Hydrogen powered car produces CO2 (in its supply chain – at least) bet you didn’t see that in the brochure. There’s inconvenient truths everywhere.
What should be obvious is that you would be far better off burning the methane directly in an internal combustion engine – thereby eliminating all the energy spendthrift transformations. The alarmists would argue that burning methane still produces CO2 – but from the above it is equally obvious that using Hydrogen will (for the same amount of deliverable energy from methane) actually manufacture more CO2.
So since you can “fil’er up” with methane – that negates the only advantage of using Hydrogen.
Third problem – Does the word Hindenburg mean anything to you ?
(The Hindenburg did not blow up it burned – rapidly – the Hydrogen did not get the opportunity to mix with air {other than at the flame front} and thus remained unable to explode.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b94SPaP7mU
We have not yet had a major Hydrogen disaster but given that it is explosive in almost any concentration (4% to 74%), it’s going to happen.
Leeds in the UK is laying down hydrogen supply infrastructure in a test area of the city – I predict a future disaster – we have all seen the damage done by natural gas explosions from leaking infrastructure – hydrogen will be worse and much more likely because of its propensity to leak and its wide explosive limits. It’s only a matter of time.
Sorry it just happened 13 June 2019 :-
https://climatechangedispatch.com/hydrogen-fuel-station-explodes/
I predict a lot more and a lot worse will follow.
It once was my belief that Hydrogen was the fuel of the future but the technological problems piled up against Hydrogen keep piling up with no solutions in sight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen
For me the final nail in the coffin of Hydrogen is the problem of leakage – something engineers have been unable to solve. It is a very small molecule and leaks through most seal materials, some metals and microporosity in welds etc.
The problem: if we start to use Hydrogen as a world wide portable fuel (to replace petrol, diesel & LPG) will be that the loss of Hydrogen through leakage will be appreciable.
Also “unburned” hydrogen on misfires or “rich” running will also be “leakage” to the atmosphere.
Cryogenically stored liquid hydrogen – typically stored in thermos flask type vessels is initially cooled and then kept cold by evaporation – another major source of “leakage”.
Losses to leakage, cryogenic evaporation, coupling & uncoupling etc. can be from 1% to 10% most knowledgeable sources say the 10% end is more realistic.
Hydrogen manufactured by electrolysis is nascent Hydrogen H+ not H2. This is such a small molecule it dissolves into steel (causing hydrogen embrittlement) forming a solid solution – it literally can go through metal walls. It eventually stabilises to H2. But is problematical in production and leakage is unavoidable.
Leakage Hydrogen will rise rapidly through the atmosphere, through the stratosphere and eventually meet the Ozone layer – there it will react with the Ozone to produce water vapour. (6H+O3 = 3H2O)
Even an extremely optimistic 1% loss, if Hydrogen is adopted as a large scale portable fuel replacement, will release sufficient free hydrogen to be extremely damaging.
This will be bad for two reasons :-
Firstly the damage to the Ozone layer – by depleting it will bring about greater UV exposure.
Secondly this water vapour above (and within) the Stratosphere will produce (previously rare) noctilucent clouds which will drastically increase the Earth’s albedo (reflectiveness) thereby causing a significant Global Cooling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noctilucent_cloud
So my current position is that Hydrogen will not solve our energy problems principally because it is dangerous, grossly inefficient (overall) and a pollutant with real and serious consequences for global climate.
10% losses with cryogenic H2 is optimistic. Losses with cryogenic N2 (at much higher boiling temps) is about 20%.
A note about hydrogen embrittlement: Replacing almost ALL existing methane infrastructure would be needed, to use H2. It not just a matter of switching over to H2. While plastic pipes are OK, any conventional steel needs to be replaced.
While odorants can be added to H2, (like is currently done for methane) the extremely low density of H2 makes separation of the odorant from the gas much more likely.
Ken,
Thanks.
You may be astonished, but the BBC appears not to have reported the hydrogen fuel station explosion. I shall not hold my breath waiting for their report.
I am sure they have their rea$ons.
Auto
Sorry, not very safe.
https://www.electrive.com/2019/06/11/norway-explosion-at-fuel-cell-filling-station/
Just how much hydrogen do you believe is found in air? (Apart from water vapor)
And why do you believe it would be economical to extract hydrogen from either water or air?
As to your belief that hydrogen isn’t anymore dangerous that gasoline, why not listen to those who actually work with them?
All stored energy can be (is?) dangerous. The more energy that is stored the more dangerous it can be.
Yes we can get much cleaner than water vapor. Today there are at least 130 models with negative emissions for criteria pollutants when operated in cities and on poor air quality days. (see the below link to a recent white paper on this).
Hydrogen made from electrolysis is only as terribly expensive. In California Hydrogen retails for $14-$15/ kg hydrogen (made from steam reformed natural gas fed processes). ( a kg has roughly the same energy per effective gasoline gallon). If it were made from electrolysis the cost nearly doubles. Electrolysis is not efficient but most importantly the capital cost is extremely costly per kg produced.
https://stillwaterassociates.com/how-do-zev-emissions-stack-up-against-super-clean-gasoline-and-diesel-engines/
There are two ways to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen- electrical hydrolysis and a chemical reforming process using fossil fuels. Both are expensive and inefficient. To make the most of it the oxygen needs to collected and stored and used in the vehicles, unless you can find a higher use for it.
Quality steels use a lot of oxygen to produce hotter fires and burn out contaminants in iron.
I, personally, would never get into a vehicle that used tanks to store the hydrogen. It requires 5000 psi storage pressures. That’s why fossil fuels works so well. They are essentially just carbon with twice as much hydrogen attached.
The way the greenies envision it, hydrogen would be produced by the electrolysis of water. The energy for the electrolysis would be provided by windmills and solar panels. Thus, in the green utopian dream, hydrogen would be completely free of CO2 emissions.
As shown in the graph above, the source of the electricity actually depends on which state you’re operating in. In that regard, a hydrogen fueled vehicle would have exactly the same CO2 emissions as a conventional electric vehicle.
Oh, but do the ecohippies and greenbeaners know that hydrogen is a flammable gas, too?
Not saying that it’s used that way in moving vehicles, just making an observation.
Worse, it takes more energy to break the hydrogen from the oxygen than you’ll get from recombining them.
Has NOBODY asked: “Why use electricity to separate water merely to recombine it back into water to make …electricity? With losses at each step.
Anybody that thinks transporting hydrogen and oxygen around in general motorists automobiles is a good idea, is dangerously ignorant.
To be a bit picky, nobody is talking about transporting oxygen, people are talking about transporting hydrogen.
I think proponents of hydrogen fuel remember the school science demonstration using electrolysis to split hydrogen and oxygen. It was easy after all, bit of water bit of electricity and next thing you know the teacher is pulling hydrogen off to make small bangs in a test tube (mine did anyway). This is what made me a believer in hydrogen fuel for years until later on in life when I started reading up on the difficulties. Now I think we’ll need a breakthrough (not holding my breath on this one) that will allow us to split out hydrogen in the vehicle itself while going down the road. Anything else brings up to many inefficiencies to make and transport hydrogen economical along with a mountain of engineering issues.
That all depends from where you get your hydrogen.
Low resolution ‘green thoughts’ merely state that it is plentiful in seawater, which while true is also rather ignorant. Its the same as saying “gold is in the ground”, as if all you needed to do was bend over and pick it up. Yes, it is plentiful in seawater, but it is rather tightly bound to the oxygen atoms there and requires quite a bit of energy to break those bonds. And, Mr. 2nd law is there to remind us he will be taking his cut, which guarantees it will take more energy to break apart the H from the O than we get when it gets recombined.
Currently electrolysis is the most efficient way, but unless you have abundant inexpensive energy to separate the hydrogen from the seawater .
There is another less green method of extracting hydrogen from methane. The down side to that method it requires less energy but its residue is extremely nasty.
After a full accounting it …depends.
Hydrogen can be generated on board the vehicle, using the ferrosilicon process. This was used by the US Army beginning in WWI to generate large volumes of hydrogen for field inflation of balloons.
Ferrosilicon, an alloy of iron and silicon, is added to an aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide and heated. The resulting reaction produces sodium silicate, iron oxide, steam (water vapor) and hydrogen. The reactants are quite dense, so the method provides a compact source of hydrogen at controllable rates and low pressure.
How would the reactants be heated?
Hot caustic soda, hydrogen and steam plus battery acid makes for a nasty cocktail in the case of accident, with the possibility of a hydrogen explosion, the production of which may be increased.
The initial heat (which isn’t much) is electrically supplied, by the battery. After it gets going, the steam is used to keep it running. It isn’t very high temperature or pressure, and isn’t present in great amounts. A car radiator rupture is far, far more dangerous (especially if one includes the antifreeze toxicity).
If an accident somehow resulted in the mixing of battery acid and caustic soda, the result would be anywhere from greatly weakened to neutralized battery acid to greatly weakened to neutralized caustic soda, depending on the proportions – the nastiness level would be far less than that due to either by itself.
The advantage of this method is that one needn’t produce more hydrogen than necessary to keep the car going. There isn’t a lot of excess inventory on hand. This would be considerably safer than any compressed fuel storage system, and any liquid fuel storage system.
Don’t worry about it. In most countries electric cars are really coal powered cars in disguise.
The claim that they reduce carbon dioxide emissions is an absolute joke, unless your country has a 100% hydro generation.
Cheers
Roger
No, hydrogen vehicles for personal transportation is a really dumb idea. Hydrogen is normally produced from natural gas (which is not renewable), hydrogen has to be transported, it is very expensive and there is no infrastructure for hydrogen.
Electricity is everywhere. I charge my car in the garage.
Appears this is a true Inconvenient Truth.
Over to you Al Gore,
This is old news. Has no one ever heard the claim that the first mile in an electric vehicle (Prius) is equivalent to 80,000 miles in a large SUV? The manufacturing process and required mining of minerals to produce an electric battery is exceptionally pollutive.
That is so different from an open pit mine used to extract coal.
Yes
This is BS
Time to read some actual research that was not financed by the oil lobby.
Except for the waste materials are more toxic.
EV emissions would be about the same in coal dependent China.
Hybrid electric / gas vehicles make sense for short haul city-worker activities.
(As long as the drivers have a tube from their @rse to supply methane to the engine)
Bill Shorten, champion of the electric car, was soundly beaten in the recent Federal election by the present Liberal Prime Minister Scott Morrison. Support for anti-global Warming measure by Bill Shorten failed to prop up his vote and he is no longer leader of the Labour Party. 1,208 battery EVs and 1,076 plug-in hybrids were sold in Australia in 2017, making a total of 2,284 cars. The Australian car sales figures in 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 totalled 1.155m, 1.178m, 1.189m and 1.153m. There is little interest in electric cars in Australia.
I’m not sure about the length of roads in Australia, but in the USA it takes about 6 days to drive from coast to coast. Having to stop every 8 hours (or less) to recharge means it would take you more like 12 days! An all electric car might be fine for tooling around town, shopping, never leaving town might be OK. Otherwise, forget it!
I drove halfway across the country, from Oklahoma to San Francisco in 22 hours straight. With an extra driver or two, you could drive non-stop across the U.S. in two or three days. I was the only driver on my trip and I was a tired fellow when I arrived in San Francisco. I couldn’t have gone much farther without sleep. Fortunately, I was at my destination. 🙂
The record in the Cannonball Run is 28 hours and 50 minutes.
I was going the speed limit. 🙂
The current Cannonball record for an EV is about 48 hours. Charging stops were also bathroom/food stops and usually, the car was ready to go before the people.
The obvious solution is to just get a diesel generator and put it in a trailer to charge while driving. Problem solved!
The EV Cannonball record was recently set by two guys in a Tesla Model 3 Long Range. 45 hours 16 minutes from New York to Los Angeles.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/5/20751975/ev-cannonball-run-record-broken-twice-2019
Not very good compared to
“On October 19, 2013, Ed Bolian and his team, co-driver Dave Black and passenger Dan Huang, made the trip in a Mercedes CL-55 in 28 hours and 50 minutes”
4 days coast to coast at the speed limit but probably impossible with electric cars because there is a huge section with little population (Nullarbor Plain). There is no electric power grid out there the scantly placed refuel stops run on diesel generator supplemented with solar battery installations. So you could imagine the cost of trying to get enough electric power out there to recharge something like a thousand cars electric cars a day.
Any study titled “How much carbon is emitted to run a green vehicle” is going to be highly dependent on the assumptions you make on electricity generation. Since The Australian is paywalled, don’t know if the more important Life cycle emissions were also studied.
Jeremy Clarkson did all that stuff on Top Gear which is one reason the BBC hated him sooo much….inc. the one of the Queens Corgi dogs being roughly equivalent to a Range Rover in its CO2 emissions.
At the end of the day I would mandate that cars produced as much CO2 as possible with all other poisonous gasses minimized….as that is what is highly beneficial to life on Earth during a period of dangerously low CO2 concentrations.
As we all know 410PPM is near record low since the Cambrian where levels were as much as twenty times what we have now and more…and no runaway global warming holocaust then. Just a massive abundance of life and evolution on steroids.
When I was a small child driving through the New England Ranges I wondered about the astonishing healthy green grass that grew right on the edge of utterly dry raised sections of burning hot rds when all round in the paddocks was dust and dry burned grass in a drought. Nothing about it really made sense to me and I eventually assumed there had to be something in car emissions that fed and water proofed the grass. Forward fast to me in my senior years and here I am being governed by imbeciles without the common sense to understand the benefits of higher CO2 concentrations, with all the resources of Government, science and giant behemoths of Gov depts. etc….and they don’t have the capacity to see what’s before their faces of a 6 year old boy with zero resources at his disposal.
To say that I find this infuriating is a huge understatement. And I thank Christ every day when these articles turn up at my desk and I can see there are other like minded, aware people…..it makes me feel a little better. Thank you, keep on thinking, although you can see they are trying to close thinking down as well. The dept. of Truth is alive and thriving in this new dark puritanical age.
Hybrid makes a lot of sense. With my PHEV I have reduced by gasoline use by about 70%, and it would be more if I weren’t retired.
Pushing EV’s at this point is just pushing a technology for which we are not ready.
I have a relative, EE professional.
He is all for green energy (wind, solar) and says the grid and storage capacity will just have to be re-engineered somehow to accommodate these intermittent sources of electricity. He doesn’t know how they will really do it.
My take is that the grid issues should be worked out before we go heavily into renewables.
Just like those fluorescent light bulbs they pushed to replaced incandescent bulbs. Just a bad technology pushed out there due to hysteria over the environment.
So, my take is that the big push for EV’s is just to ramp up the hysteria.
“So, my take is that the big push for EV’s is just to ramp up the hysteria.”
My take is just the opposite: Ramping up the hysteria allows for a big push into EVs.
“Recharging Infrastructure” Is that a euphemism for generating electricity for the grid? As in how may wind mills will it take to power Australia’s EV if they were to reach the 50% target?
Worse the power grid is struggling at the moment there are threatened blackouts this summer and they are talking about adding a significant more load on the grid.
Significant and for the most part, random as well.
Hybrid electric vehicles do make some sense , no charging stations needed,
but it still comes down to the price of a battery replacement. and the high cost
of the vehicle. Certainly a line of IC stationary cars in our traffic system
makes no sense, hybrids charging their battery then make sense.
But the total cost of a electric vehicle is far too high for the average
person , then a IC car makes far better sense.
So how many electric car owners are concerned about efficiency, and how
many are virtue signalling about the myth of Saving the Planet.
MJE VK5ELL
Somebody just now figured out that electric cars use electricity provided by fossil fuels? Were people thinking electric cars pull electricity out of the air like the famous formula that turned lead into gold?
There is a certain level of dementia required to not know that until electricity is primarily generated by non-fossil fuels, then electric cars are a fossil fuel car.
We’ve already had the AGW hoax
The Electric Car Hoax.
The Russian Collusion Hoax.
How many epic hoaxes can humanity have in one century. I guess welcome to the digital age.
Amazon fire hoax.
for a little humor about Amazon Fire: https://babylonbee.com/news/americans-relieved-to-find-out-the-amazon-thats-burning-is-just-the-rainforest
From the article: “The report says hybrid vehicles “provide greater environmental benefits in nearly all states and territories” than electric vehicles”
Hybrids are the better way to go versus All-electric vehicles. Hybrids cut down on burning fossil fuels without restricting maximum vehicle mileage, and they don’t need new electrical transmission infrastructure in order to operate. Fuel them up and they are ready to go.
Yeah but in the green dreams you can’t have them because all oil production is banned.
“because all oil production is banned”
Yes, that does complicate matters for them. 🙂
The differences between Australian and Tasmanian emission’s is that Tassie is,
1. nearly 100% Hydro dam powered.
2. the smallest of all the States
Except when the management authority does stupid things to run out of water and have to bring in diesel generators 🙂
Don’t you mean state Labor/Green cobbleition that stack local authorities with green driven ‘public servants’ wanting to capitalise against an un-mandated federal Labor/Green cobbleition of carbon taxes – by exporting and running down water reserves to unsustainable levels?
If you go electric for cars, there will be a significant increase in electricity demand.
How many new dams will the greenies allow to be built?
“The ABMARC analysis also unravels the argument for Australia to replicate Norway’s electric car market, which imposes heavy taxes on passenger vehicles and provides generous incentives for EVs …”.
==========================================
Hydropower provides 98% of Norway’s electricity (Wiki).
That argument must come from people who have no idea of the comparative populations, annual av. precipitation and topography.
“heavy taxes on passenger vehicles and provides generous incentives for EVs”
Those are so extreme that they have more influence on BEV sales than does Norway’s hydroelectric power.
Yes however, the wealth Norway can draw on in terms of subsidies for EV’s etc has been derived from North Sea oil.
The authors have factored in the emissions of electricity production but it is not clear whether they have done the same for the extraction and transportation of the petrol before it is put in the tank.
Did they include trucks or how come Diesel produced most emissions here?
for diesel it says “including light commercial”.
Like-for-like diesel CO2 would be much less.
Shows study is close to worthless, doesn’t make relevant comparisons.
I find the entire discussion of EV or hybrid vehicles to be rather futile and short-sighted.
I was talking to a Teska owner last week. He said the car was perfect and met all of his needs. The conclusion he reached was that all vehicles would be EVs or hybrids within five or ten years. I essentially said nothing – his blinders were on too tightly for him to see reality.
The reality? In the US last year, the number one selling vehicle was the Ford F-150 pick-up. Number two was the Dodge Ram pick-up. Number three was the Chevrolet Silverado pick-up. I can only imagine that all those buyers believed those vehicles best suited their needs, true or not, and that’s what they wanted. What I can’t imagine is that a single one of those buyers would want an EV or hybrid instead.
So until someone is selling one with a 13,200 pound towing package, I don’t think you’ll see an EV or hybrid as a best-selling vehicle.
Another thing I couldn’t imagine was any of those pick-up buyers assuming that since their vehicle matched their needs, that all cars would be pick-ups within 5 or 10 years.
Maybe a flex fuel gas/electric hybrid is okay, all electric looks dodgy though.
Let’s take a look at high-end automobile racing. A motorsports where everything is over-regulated.
Minimal weight is one of the most critical and often cheated with regulatory aspect.
Because teams have learned that low weight cars consume less, require less pit-stops and keep racing where others run out of gas or rubber.
So yes, please stick in an additional 300kg dead weight in my Passat TDI and try to convince me that it’ll suddenly become more fuel efficient.
The data is useless because it is emissions per vehicle, without regard to the size or age of the vehicle.
Hybrids and electric vehicles are almost all compact cars, petrol and diesel are often bigger.
Hybrids and electric vehicles are almost all new, petrol and diesel are often old.
Large and old vehicles are bound to have more emissions than small and new ones.
Also the data is only for operating the vehicle and does not include manufacture.
What is needed is data for new compact cars with manufacture emissions spread over the vehicles life.
Do that and the diesel will probably beat the hybrid and the EV.
but as Australian fossil fuel power stations close in favour of renewables, that will rapidly change, won’t it?
You can see states with more renewable energy have MUCH less emissions for an EV.
Nope. As shown in all countries with large VRE penetration, CO2 emissions intensities get LOCKED IN. VRE absolutely NEEDS fossil fuels for back up and grid stability. No jurisdiction using only VRE, has reduced emissions intensity to that of nuclear or hydro, like Sweden, France or Ontario.
Exactly when is this switchover away from gas/diesel supposed to start?
Or is just another one of your model runs with no connection to reality?
How many people in SA can afford an EV when there is nothing to do there in terms of employment?
If you get hydrogen by the electrolysis of water, oxygen is the by-product. Is there a market for all of this oxygen? What do you do with the remainder? Is just venting it to the atmosphere acceptable? Concentrated oxygen can be very dangerous.
It’s a fire hazard. If the atmosphere was >35% O2, fires couldn’t be extinguished.
And water vapor is the worst of the “ghg’s”…
It would be more illuminating if this $7 billion was broken down to individual taxpayer payments.
A full cost benefit analysis – what you get – how much you have to pay – and when.
I think the public will quickly realize that it is a stupid and unaffordable concept.
Something wrong here. The diesel cycle is more efficient that the petrol/otto cycle so produces less CO2 per mile. Beats me how they arrived at such a large average CO2 footprint for the diesel fleet compared with the petrol fleet.
Notice diesels would include heavy transport in the ‘vehicles’ averages-
“The report, released to stakeholders in May, also provides a breakdown comparing average CO2 emissions of hybrid, petrol, diesel and electric vehicles in Australia.”
Because they included light commercial, which is dominated by diesel vehicles.
Yes not heavy transport but light commercials you can see here-
https://www.caradvice.com.au/781090/vfacts-new-vehicle-sales-for-july-2019/
Take out the biz diesel workhorses- Toyota Hilux/Landcruiser, Ford Ranger, Mitsubishi Triton and the towhorse Toyota Prado and you’re left with small to medium SUVs and sedans that private buyers opt for largely with petrol engines although business and Govt buy/lease the largest number of new cars that trickle down into private hands.
Interestingly if you look at the predominant ‘Carsales’ online website advertising new and used cars you find the median asking price around $25000 when new EVs start at $50k and at that price and over you’re only left with around 18% of the market and that’s often dual cab ute workhorse and towhorse country that EVs don’t compete in at present. Not hard to see why the EV dream will remain just that without the massive Norway slushfunding and mandates- https://www.carsales.com.au/
(you see the total number of cars for sale and simply plug in price ranges to get the numbers)
Bear in mind too that 88% of new car buyers use finance (around half dealer and half BYO) and that’s why purchase price and consequent depreciation is the big cahuna in overall running costs-
https://www.racq.com.au/cars-and-driving/cars/owning-and-maintaining-a-car/car-running-costs
The EV fan club will quickly go into complete denial whenever you point out these facts and hang their tinfoil hat on EV battery prices coming down like computing power prices. It all runs on e-motion for them and unlimited taxpayer slushfunding.
You doubting Thomases don’t understand how EVs are so much cheaper to run than ICE cars anyway –
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jul/02/norway-electric-cars-subsidies-fossil-fuel
You just have to drive them in Norway with Krone capitalism.
The Norwegian EV subsidy money coming from their massive oil and gas sales, I assume?
I have an EV and have kept records for more than 6 years.
Average fuel cost/mile for the EV has been 3.4 cents (U.S.) vs. 7.6 cents for a gas car of equivalent size, exclusive of taxes on either side.
I recently compared 2013 model year gasoline and diesel vehicles against ZEVs for air pollution and GHG emissions for USA using a unique perspective. I found today’s super clean gasoline and diesel vehicles could be cleaner for air pollution and GHG depending on fueling used. I would love to hear the groups response and contrast to the Australian study. I am updating this analysis with 2019 model year vehicles which are even cleaner and with higher fuel economy than the 2013 model year strengthening the findings.
https://stillwaterassociates.com/how-do-zev-emissions-stack-up-against-super-clean-gasoline-and-diesel-engines/
The Great Barrier Reef is dying by extension from EV pollution. 9 out of 10 Australian psychologists agree.
The fuel suppliers for internal combustion engines had ~ 100 years to invest and erect their own filling station network globally.
Why should that be different with electric vehicles.
In case you just landed on Earth, our country is run by electricity – lots of it and it is available EVERYWHERE. Those filling stations that are installing CCS IONITY chargers did not need
to wait for a “network of electricity to be created.” MOST ALL electricity that is used by electric cars come from the owners own house, and usually the EV is recharged during the night hours, when plenty of excess electricity exists.
There’s no “excess electricity” at night, only “excess generating capacity.”
I write as someone who owns an EV but rejects the AGW religion. Not only that, but I doubt there are too many other people whose EV has a National Rifle Assn. sticker on the back window. I bought it at a deep discount in the banruptcy sale by Think, a Norwegian outfit that was once Ford’s EV divison. My other vehicle is a one-ton Ram diesel truck. If nothing else, I hope this supports my claim to objectivity.
The CO2 emissions from operating an EV depend entirely on how the electricity is generated. Yep, if it’s made by burning coal, the emissions will be higher. You can play that game on all sides. I happen to live in a place where 97% of the juice comes from hydro, wind, and a nuke. Not that it matters to me except in the abstract, but if EVs in coal-heavy Australian states “produce” more CO2 than ICEVs, then I guess I deserve special AGW cult merit points? God forbid.
Come on, folks, this kind of crap is what the other side specializes in. It’s unbecoming for an otherwise highly valuable source as Wattsup to play these kinds of games. You should be better than that. I’m VERY far from being an EVangelist. I laugh at them, quite frankly. Still: “Thou shalt not cherry-pick the data.” Even if it makes you feel good. In fact, especially if it makes you feel good.
Fossil fuels will disappear for several reasons – 1) advanced nuclear power (molten salt) is cheaper. And 2) no one can complain about C02 emissions stabilizing or perhaps being reduced somewaht, along with other harmful emissions