$1b electric car infrastructure deal - Page 2

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: $1b electric car infrastructure deal



Quoted text here. Click to load it

Laughable.



Not particularly, a common myth. There is currently a drive to make 40%
efficient diesel engines for automotive use.

Large marine diesels have no trouble exceeding 50%.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Not particularly A common myth. About 30-33% from fuel thermal energy input to
wall socket.

Read it up !

Grham


Re: $1b electric car infrastructure deal



Quoted text here. Click to load it

**And electric motors can easily double such efficiencies.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Indeed. Ever seen one mounted in a car? I haven't. I have, however, seen
such engines generating electricity.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Actually, the efficiencies of modern thermal generators is significantly
better than that. Transmission losses in the order of 3% per 1,000km are
easy enough to manage in this day and age. Large engines will always be able
to provide higher specific efficiency that similar smaller engines. Hence
the high efficiencies of the marine engines you cited.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: $1b electric car infrastructure deal



Quoted text here. Click to load it

Strawman. Where does the electricity come from at what efficiency ?


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Grid losses are typically in the order of 6-10% alone AIUI.

And you're not going to replace all that coal fired electricity overnight. The
only realistic option is a huge scale program of nukes. You have the uranium
AIUI. Result, the EV is currently LESS efficient than modern ICE based proposals
and is inherently inflexible wrt long journeys.

Graham


Re: $1b electric car infrastructure deal


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Electricity generators. That may include:
* Coal fired plants (up to around 50% efficient).
* Nukes (up to around 40% efficient)
* Gas turbine (up to 60%)
* Wind (efficiency unimportant)
* PV cell (efficiency unimportant)
* Roof top PV cells (efficiency unimportant)

Don't forget: When you're judging automobiles, that several factors should
be considered:

* The vast majority of private cars in Australia are petrol powered.
* The actual efficiency of the engines in those cars is significantly lower
than the theoretical maximum.
* The cost of distribution (petrol tankers, petrol bowsers, lighting, etc)
should be taken into account (since you are costing electricity grids into
your costing).

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**In SOME cases (and the number is growing) Australians are generating much
of their own power from their own rooftops. Additionally, you need to accept
that the theoretical efficiency of a car engine is not the real-world
efficiency. You also need to add fuel distribution costs into your
equations.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Indeed. THAT is the biggest problem I see. There is not a snowball's
chance in Hell that mass adoption of electric vehicles will occur anytime
soon. That should not stop planning for such an event right now, though.

 The
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Nope. Australia has abundant reserves of geo-thermal energy, at costs
which rival nukes. Even better, public acceptance is pretty much assured.
Solar, wind and todal can supplement the base load plants. Don't foget: The
Sun shines a lot in Australia, over a wide range of time zones and at times
when demand is highest.

You have the uranium
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Indeed. However, we need to start planning for the lack of oil NOW.
There's not much being made right now. Sticking one's head in the sand and
saying: "electric cars are not as efficient as petrol cars" will not solve
the problem. Eventually, we have to find an alternative (or, more likely, a
range of alternatives).


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: $1b electric car infrastructure deal


Quoted text here. Click to load it

And don't forget the subsidised road costs as well.



Re: $1b electric car infrastructure deal



Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Indeed. It is remarkable how many fossil fuel proponents forget how the
automobile got to where it is by the use of general taxation. Now that some
want subsidies to be provided to some of the alternative energy proponents,
the fossil fuel guys call "foul".


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: $1b electric car infrastructure deal

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Please explain?
The total government revenue from motorists *FAR* exceeds expenditure, and
has done so for many decades.

MrT.



Re: $1b electric car infrastructure deal

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Since 1985 actually, when Keating changed the rules with what could be
done with fuel excise.
Fuel excise is now simply a revenue measure which can be used for any
Government purposes.
Last year fuel excise raised around $15 billion dollars of which
around $6 billion went back to roads, the rest was used to partly
fund the operation of Centrelink.


Re: $1b electric car infrastructure deal

Quoted text here. Click to load it
and

But as I said the "total government revenue from motorists" (of which the
fuel excise is only a part), was far higher than the total expenditure
*long* before then.
(that doesn't include the general taxation that motorists pay of course,
only those related to motoring, including taxation, fees, surcharges,
duties, levies, fines etc. etc. etc.)
Soon we can add carbon credits as well :-(

Quoted text here. Click to load it

As is, and was, all consolidated revenue in any case.

MrT.




Re: $1b electric car infrastructure deal

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Could you please list that "revenue", then list all the money spent on
roads at federal, stae and local government level?

It will be very informative for you.


Re: $1b electric car infrastructure deal

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yep, sure is. I suggest you try it. Make sure you include all motoring
related taxes, levies, duties, excises, fines, etc, both state and federal.
I have no real problem with motorists being taxed for other purposes than
roads, (although I do object to the ad-hoc nature of many of the charges)
but denying it happens is just plain ignorance.
I still remember part of the targeted bi-centennial fuel levy being used
here for a tram extension. So even when it's not supposed to go to
consolidated revenue, it still doesn't benefit drivers.
(OT. Trams must be the worst form of public transport invented IMO, and the
biggest cause of traffic congestion in the cities of those that have them,
along with indiscriminate on street parking)

Then there are the cross subsidies actually spent on roads, but mainly for
the benefit of freight transport. Car drivers help fund the free interstate
highway network, whilst being forced to pay tolls on many local roads. So
they could at least admit non-motorist consumers benefit from all those
motoring taxes, levies, duties, excises, fines, etc. etc,or get the
interstate freight off the road and onto the rail network where it should be
IMO! Or how about tolls on the Hume, and all the current freeways to bring
some semblance of fairness to the system.

My first change though would be to cut out fixed registration and CTP
charges, and increase fuel taxes, thereby making smaller or hybrid vehicles
and motorcycles a viable option as a second or even third vehicle, and
making those who use their vehicles more, actually pay more.

MrT.



Re: $1b electric car infrastructure deal



Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I sort of agree with this. It would be a true user pays system. However,
there are a couple of sticking points:

In more than 35 years of driving, I've never caused the injury of another,
pedestrian driver, passenger, nor myself, nor a passenger in my car/s. Yet,
my CTP insurance STILL rises each and every year. There needs to be a fairer
way for those drivers who don't hurt other road users.  Then we have these
morons who collect their children from school in Landcruisers (and the
like). These monsters are over-represented in the death and injury stats of
other road users. Perhaps a tax based on the 'agressivity' and road damage
of the vehicle is required.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: $1b electric car infrastructure deal

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Me either, that's what you get with a no fault system. The bad drivers are
subsided by the others.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
fairer

True, but at least a system that charges for the time you are actually on
the road rather than in the garage, would be an improvement IMO.
Certainly no worse on that score.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
of

At least including it in fuel taxes does help, since the bigger the vehicle
the more fuel it will use.

MrT.



Re: $1b electric car infrastructure deal
On Oct 27, 12:00 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I think there has been talk about possibly linking your CTP/rego with
your driving history (i.e. points).

The same can be said of medicare as well. I take care of myself long-
term by eating organic food and keep in peak fitness, and have only
been the doctor maybe a couple of times in my entire life. Yet I pay
the same medicare levy as a chronically overweight chain smoker who
visits the doctor once a week.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That makes some sense.

Dave.

Re: $1b electric car infrastructure deal

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Lol, doesn't even cover what is spent each year on maintenance.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That is the point, motorists ARE NOT TAXED for other purposes,
but are grossly subsidised out of general revenue by EVERYONE,
including non-motorists.

Re: $1b electric car infrastructure deal



Quoted text here. Click to load it

Not true in the UK. Our roads are falling apart whilst taxes, fines and
penalties are all up.

Graham


Re: $1b electric car infrastructure deal

Quoted text here. Click to load it

LOL, you sure like to argue from a position of ignorance, and don't care who
knows it.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

LMAO, I sure won't hold my breathe waiting for you to prove that, since all
government figures are to the contrary. Even THEY don't make such a
ridiculous claim.

MrT.



Re: $1b electric car infrastructure deal

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You made the first claim. Back it up.
Hint, the roads you are talking about are maybe 5-10% of all roads.


Re: $1b electric car infrastructure deal

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Nope, I responded to a post which may or may not have been yours. I'm sure
not expecting you to back up your claim because it's impossible, however I
don't care what you choose to believe either, so I'm not wasting my time
just to prove how full of shit you are. It's obvious to everyone else
already.

*IF* I thought proving the facts could actually change anything, I would do
it without hesitation. But unfortunately it won't.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

If you're talking about toll roads, I think they are probably far less than
5% (and obviously depends on whether you are talking about kms of road, or
cost of construction) but are obnoxiously unfair for those who use them
while paying for other peoples freeways as well. Whether you get a freeway
or tollway atm, (or ANY public transport) is just luck of the draw, or your
ability to change address.

MrT.



Re: $1b electric car infrastructure deal

Quoted text here. Click to load it

What is obvious is that you have no clue about the real cost of roads and
will believe piffle
Quoted text here. Click to load it


I was talking about what is outside your front door.



Site Timeline