On 4/9/21 12:01 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 3/09/2021 11:00 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 3/9/21 5:17 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> **You seem to be of the impression that you will have a choice in how
>>> your new car will be powered in a few years.
>>>
>>> Hint: You won't.
>>
>> You make the assumption that some time in the future I would buy an EV
>> or even a new vehicle of any sort and you would be wrong.
>
> **I make no such assumption. IF you want a new car in a few years, your
> choice of an ICE powered one will be extremely restricted. And, perhaps,
> impossible.
>
>> For a start I'm 69yrs old and even if I remain healthy and continue to
>> drive into my 80's that's only 15 or so yrs away, I couldn't afford a
>> new EV even if I wanted one and if I did buy a low km ICE vehicle it
>> would most likely last me till I give up driving, the way its going my
>> almost 20yr old MB will last another 10yrs.
>
> **Sure. You're (possibly) making the assumption that ICE cars won't be
> either taxed into oblivion, or the fuels that power them will still be
> cheap and easily available.
>
>> It will be many years before EV's are the common simply because we
>> don't have the electrical infrastructure that could handle that much
>> electricity consumption so I very much doubt that I will ever own one.
>
> **And you base that claim on what, exactly?
>
> Research suggests that a complete change to EVs would require
> approximately a 20% increase in electricity generation for most Western,
> developed nations:
>
> https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-will-overload-the-power-grid
>
>
> As for charging stations, there is this:
>
> https://electricvehiclecouncil.com.au/about-ev/charger-map/
>
> There are around 2,500 charging stations around Australia. Not many.
> You're right, but, given the national fleet of EVs numbers around 1% of
> the total number on the road, one can assume that the number of charging
> stations will rise to meet the demand. After all: It is WAY easier to
> plonk a couple of chargers in a spot, than it is to built a petrol station.
>
>
>> Despite what you might think I'm not against EV's, its just that by
>> the time they become affordable I'll most likely be either dead or not
>> driving anymore.
>
> **SIX years:
>
> https://bestpractice.biz/electric-vehicles-to-reach-price-parity-with-internal-combustion-by-2027/
>
>
> However, that fails to take one, very important factor into account:
>
> The potential tax implications on fossil fuels. At some point in the
> near future, our moronic leader will have to bend to the will of the
> international community and introduce a tax system on fossil fuels.
> Doing so, will accelerate the demise of petrol and Diesel vehicles.
> Including yours.
>
>>
>>>
>>> And, here's the rub: Fossil fuels will be taxed so high in a few
>>> years, that only the truly dedicated and/or very wealthy, will be
>>> able to afford fuel for their fossil fueled vehicles.
>>
>> Is hydrogen a fossil fuel?
>
> **It can be derived from fossil fuels, but it can also be derived from
> 'splitting' water using electricity from Solar or wind energy, thus
> providing a zero emission solution.
>
>> Why would one zero emission power source be taxed more than another
>> and we were talking about hydrogen powered vehicles?
>
> **Huh?
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Rather depends on you definition of efficient.
>>>
>>> **Efficient is how much energy content of the 'fuel' is converted
>>> into motive energy. The BEST conversion efficiency of a petrol car is
>>> 35% (more with hybrid technology) and around 45% with Diesel. Less
>>> transmission losses, of course. But wait: It gets worse. Those
>>> figures are the BEST efficiency attainable with an ICE vehicle. It is
>>> always much worse. A BEV operates at around 90% (or better)
>>> efficiency at all times. Some operate without any transmission. Less
>>> battery charging losses (around 30% loss).
>>>
>>> Why am I concerned about efficiency?
>>>
>>> A: Because EVERY SINGLE human on this planet will have to cut
>>> emissions to reduce the impact of global warming. Now I realise that
>>> you don't care, but that is irrelevant, as Australia, as a whole,
>>> will be penalised by the international community for failing to cut
>>> CO2 emissions.
>>
>> Think about the entire process of powering an EV, not all that
>> efficient at all.
>
> **It sure as Hell can be. This country has abundant renewable energy
> sources. Just 3% of Australia's land area, dedicated to Solar PV power
> generation, could, in theory, supply the entire planet's electricity
> needs forever. Well, the next couple of billion years anyway. After than
> time, we have bigger problems to face.

https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/evs-are-they-really-more-efficient/
>
>> The objective is zero emissions, does how that is achieved matter?
>
> **It doesn't. What are you trying to say?
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Any vehicle that can be refueled in minutes rather than hours is
>>>> more efficient, maybe not "fuel efficient" but still more efficient
>>>> than an EV.
>>>
>>> **You have a weird, unscientific, way of measuring efficiency.
>>>
>> You don't even seem to understand the word.
>
> **I understand the word perfectly:
>
> "the ratio of the work done or energy developed by a machine, engine,
> etc., to the energy supplied to it, usually expressed as a percentage."
>
> EVs are FAR more efficient at converting 'fuel' into motive energy. By a
> very considerable margin.

They are, more so if the electricity has *green* sources.
>
> Re-fuelling is a different matter entirely. Either way, for the vast
> majority of Australians, it is irrelevant.
>
> How many kms do you drive every day?
>
His daily driving, like most people, would be well within the range of
an EV.
>
>> Try thinking about a return journey of say 500km each way, with a
>> hydrogen powered vehicle you could drive to your destination, refuel
>> your vehicle, turn around and drive back but with an EV you would have
>> to spend many hours waiting for your vehicle to be recharged.
>
> **Are you suggesting 1,000km without a single break? That would be
> really dumb for any driver to attempt. An overnight break, while the car
> is re-charged makes perfect sense for someone who likes to remain alive.
>
>> Imagine you owned a business and you had sent an employee on the
>> journey mentioned above,
>
> **ANY employer who did so, should be locked up. I would NEVER do such a
> thing. 1,000kms is way too long to force an employee on the road without
> a break. Without several breaks, in fact.
>
> Try using a real world example, rather than something that is patently
> dangerous.
>
>  if they were driving an EV you would be paying their
>> wages for sitting around doing nothing waiting for the EV to recharge,
>> if that's not inefficient then what is.
>> For some reason you seem to be obsessed with EV's when there is more
>> than one way to achieve zero emissions.
>
> **Sure. There's walking, riding a bicycle, etc.
>
>> I don't think car makers aren't as dumb as you seem to think they are,
>
> **When I see Ford doubling production of the BEV variant of their most
> popular vehicle, I don't think that car makers are dumb at all. When I
> see this:
>
> https://www.racv.com.au/royalauto/transport/electric-vehicles/car-brands-going-electric.html
>
>
> I don't think that car manufacturers are dumb at all. What I think is
> dumb, are people who imagine that there are not HUGE changes coming very
> quickly to the car business. Anyone not prepared for a wholesale change
> to EVs is both stupid and likely to be out of business very soon.
>
>
>
>> if there is a market for a product that they can make a profit from
>> then they will make it, if they just make EV's they will be
>> eliminating a lot of potential customers.
>
> **You seem to imagine that they have a choice. They don't:
>
> https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/09/23/governor-newsom-announces-california-will-phase-out-gasoline-powered-cars-drastically-reduce-demand-for-fossil-fuel-in-californias-fight-against-climate-change/
>
>
> When California introduces automobile legislation, the rest of the US
> follows close behind.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/uk-plans-to-bring-forward-ban-on-fossil-fuel-vehicles-to-2030
>
>
> https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/details/europe-to-ban-new-petrol-diesel-and-hybrid-cars-from-2035-130997/
>
>
> The latest IPCC report tells us that shutting down all fossil fuel
> industries is absolutely imperative. We have very little time to act to
> save your grandkids from suffering through 60 Degree C Summer heatwaves.
>
I think his grandkids will have more serious issues to face long before
we see 60 degree Summer temperatures. BTW, did you know that we humans
cannot survive being outside in temperatures much above 50 degrees C? At
40 C and above for prolonged periods, we fall victim to *hyperthermia, a
condition where the mechanisms of the body are no longer able to deal
effectively with heat and loses control of body temperature resulting in
an uncontrolled temperature rise. Hyperthermia requires immediate
treatment. Having worked in extreme environments where temperatures
regularly exceed 45 C and the humidity is very low, I have experience
with such conditions and, I might add, was trained to recognise and deal
with it. You wouldn't believe how much water you can drink in an
overtemperature dry environment! Sweating, however, is a lifesaver (as
long as body fluid levels are maintained) but in an extremely hot and
humid environment, sweating doesn't provide the body with any
evaporative cooling effect so hyperthermia risk factors rise incredibly.
If the body temperature exceeds 42.3 C, proteins are denatured and brain
damage occurs because of cerebral edema. Darren wouldn't notice that but
the rest of us would.

On 4/9/21 5:53 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 4/09/2021 4:30 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 4/09/2021 12:41 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> It doesn't matter how often you bleat this shit, the reality is that
>>> you have absolutely no idea if that will be the case.
>>
>> **I more than an idea about these things. I am quite widely read on
>> the topic.
>
> Be as widely read as you like Trev, but you are no better at predicting
> the future than anyone else. You should also bear in mind that a *lot*
> of the comments made today about what is intended in the future are made
> for little reason *other* than to placate the people jumping up and down
> demanding answers.
>
>>> **Sure. You're (possibly) making the assumption that ICE cars won't
>>>> be either taxed into oblivion, or the fuels that power them will
>>>> still be cheap and easily available.
>>>
>>> And you are. What do you base your theories on that apparently make
>>> them more correct than those of anyone else?
>>
>> **The rather copious amounts of stuff I read on the topic. How much
>> research have you done?
>
> I don't need to research. I get all my goss straight from you :)
>
>>>> Research suggests that a complete change to EVs would require
>>>> approximately a 20% increase in electricity generation for most
>>>> Western, developed nations:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-will-overload-the-power-grid
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That's nice. But we here in the land of Oz don't live in "most
>>> western developed nations".
>>
>> **We live in _a_ Western developed nation.
>
> We live in a very sparsely populated but geographically large Western
> developed nation with a small population and antiquated facilities.
>>   and you basing your ideas of what will happen
>>> according to some simplistic bullshit you read on the internet is a
>>> total nonsense :)
>>
>> **Umm, no. I am basing my comments on what is highly likely to occur
>> in the next few years.
>
> Yeah. Based on the simplistic bullshit you read on the internet.
>
>>>> As for charging stations, there is this:
>>>>
>>>> https://electricvehiclecouncil.com.au/about-ev/charger-map/
>>>>
>>>> There are around 2,500 charging stations around Australia. Not many.
>>>> You're right, but, given the national fleet of EVs numbers around 1%
>>>> of the total number on the road, one can assume that the number of
>>>> charging stations will rise to meet the demand. After all: It is WAY
>>>> easier to plonk a couple of chargers in a spot, than it is to built
>>>> a petrol station.
>>>
>>> Is it?
>>
>> **Fuck yeah. I watched Shell re-build the local servo. Took 'em almost
>> 2 years. 5 huge tanks, an array of pumps, lots of concrete and all the
>> rest. BIG job.
>
> 2 years? What, did it have a hidden nuclear reactor that needed to be
> decommissioned or something?
>
> They built a new decent sized servo in Bacchus Marsh a couple of years
> ago that took them around 4 months to complete from the time they
> demolished the houses on the land to the time they were pumping fuel. I
> think it actually took them longer to process all the paperwork than it
> did to do the actual construction.
>
> 2 years? Fark..... :)
>
>> This is the problem. I READ and digest huge amounts of information
>> about the topic and you engage in wild guesses, based on what you
>> like. The real world doesn't work like that.
>
> Actually Trevor that's not accurate.
>
> You may read lots, but you seem to assume that everything you read is
> factual just because it exists somewhere. I would imagine a shit-tonne
> of what you read is nothing other than opinion and editorial.
>
>>   What they will do is introduce a tax on EV's to compensate for the
>>> loss of revenue they cause.
>>
>> **More likely the gummint will introduce a tax on ALL vehicles,
>> dependent on kms travelled.
>
> They may do. Only time will tell.
>
>>   The Australian Government earns close to 12
>>> billion in fuel excises every year, and if you think they're going to
>>> happily wave goodbye to that as people move to EV's you're completely
>>> out of your bloody tree.
>>>
>>> EV uses will pay. Just like we all do now.
>>
>> **I never said otherwise. It's just that fossil fueled vehicle owners
>> will pay more.
>
> And here yet again is *another* example of you stating something as if
> it's been set in stone :)
>
>
>>>
>>> Californian vehicle law relates to California, and *only* California.
>>
>> **Which the rest of the US, inevitably, follows.
>
> No, it does not Trevor.
>
> As I mentioned, California has has it's own "smog laws" in place since
> the 1970's which apply to California and nowhere else. The rest of the
> country has *not* followed their lead to any significant degree.
>
>>> They have had their own laws relating to vehicle emissions since the
>>> 1970's which have never applied in other states, and a great many
>>> after-market parts come with a label affixed which states "Not legal
>>> for highway use in California". Similarly, US manufacturers have made
>>> "California specific" variants of their models for years which they
>>> need to do to meet the requirements.
>>>
>>> The rest of the US does *not* follow close behind California at all,
>>> and you are simply making this shit up :)
>>
>> **No. It's fact. The other states will follow California.
>
> ROTFL :)
>
> Something that is *yet* to happen is *not* a fact :)
>
Ok, so it is a fact then.... From Wikipedia

The states that have adopted the California standards are:
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, New Mexico (2011 model year and later), New York,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington
(2009 model year and later), as well as the District of Columbia.

You really *can't read*, can you Darren?
>
>>>> The latest IPCC report tells us that shutting down all fossil fuel
>>>> industries is absolutely imperative. We have very little time to act
>>>> to save your grandkids from suffering through 60 Degree C Summer
>>>> heatwaves.
>>>
>>> Weren't they telling us in the 1980's that if we didn't do something
>>> to solve the emissions crisis we'd all be dead by the year 2000?
>>
>> **No. That was solely in your own imagination. If you feel the IPCC
>> made any such claim, present your evidence.
>>
>> I won't hold my breath.
>
> Sorry Trevor, but by "they" I meant people making "climate predictions".
> I'm not sure that the IPCC actually existed in the 1980's, did they?

In 1970 there was little general understanding or even awareness of the
effects of increased CO2 concentrations. By 1980, this had changed
drastically.
>
> You like to read. This will amuse you :)

You *can't read* so this will be a real struggle for you.

In 1983 this climate report was published; http://nap.edu/18714

You should however make the attempt even though pretty pictures are few
and far between, text is dense and the writers use a plethora of
multi-syllable words. It's even written with a concept that is alien to
you - truth! If you still struggle with the complexity, get your wife
to explain the key points - as a (former) teacher, she must be literate
- even if you aren't!

The above document had a precursor, this one from 1977;

https://www.nap.edu/download/12024

Energy and Climate, Studies in Geophysics
>
>> https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

In 1970, they had no real modelling of the effects of CO2. Any
predictions made then were speculative at best. Since then, and by 1983,
a lot more research was undertaken and a lot more learnt. As a direct
consequence, the relevant bodies were able to make predictions that hold
true today. Some were a little optimistic - at first - but as time
progressed and little was done to address atmospheric buildup of CO2, it
became evident that a somewhat more pessimistic outlook should have been
the focus.

On 4/9/21 4:42 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 3/09/2021 8:03 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 3/09/2021 4:27 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 3/09/2021 4:23 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>>> Using hydrogen in an internal combustion engine is just silly. It's
>>>> inefficient at every level, and hydrogen takes up a lot of space and
>>>> is difficult to store. An internal combustion engine using hydrogen
>>>> will also still release oxides of nitrogen (NOx).
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>
>>>
>>> **You won't win that argument. Nods likes noisy, grossly inefficient
>>> vehicles. Quiet, fast, fuel efficient vehicles are no use to him.
>>
>> Jesus you can talk some utter shit at times Trevor.
>
> **I'll try to be honest and straightforward like you always are.
>
>>
>> I like *lots* of different vehicles and for lots of different reasons.
>> I don't go out of my way to like a vehicle just because it's horribly
>> inefficient any more than I do to hate a vehicle that is as efficient
>> as it can possibly be. Efficiency has never been a major concern of
>> mine as far as vehicles go, but just to counter your bullshit with
>> some reality I actually own vehicles that are good examples of *both*
>> ends of the spectrum.
>>
>>> H2  makes some sense for a fuel cell vehicle, but no sense for an IC
>>> engined one. As you say, it will be grossly inefficient on many levels.
>>
>> And yet here are companies like Deutz, Cummins and Toyota putting
>> money into the idea. Maybe they should have just asked you to begin
>> with and saved all that coin.
>
> **They can draw their own conclusions. There is some logic in using H2
> for prime movers, but almost no sense for passenger vehicles.

Why not?
It makes perfect sense, lots of diesel passenger vehicles currently in
service and they seem to be the easiest to adapt to run on hydrogen,
tanks will fit in spaces same as LPG tanks.
It comes down to whether or not car makers can make it work and sell
them to the market, I have no doubt that they can make them work and if
they price them under EV prices which shouldn't be difficult they could
be on a winner.
IMHO car makers who switch to only making EV's will lose market share,
the smart ones will make vehicles with a mix of technologies.

--
Daryl

On 4/9/21 5:55 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 4/09/2021 4:42 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 3/09/2021 8:03 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> **You won't win that argument. Nods likes noisy, grossly inefficient
>>>> vehicles. Quiet, fast, fuel efficient vehicles are no use to him.
>>>
>>> Jesus you can talk some utter shit at times Trevor.
>>
>> **I'll try to be honest and straightforward like you always are.
>
> Good choice. It would go some way to giving your arguments some
> credibility.

You're a fine one to talk about *giving arguments credibility* by being
honest and straightforward! You don't even know the meaning of the word
*honest*. How about *you* giving *your claims* some credibility by
stumping up proof? Oh, hang on, you can't do that, can you? That's
because your claims are bullshit, mere figments of your delusional
imagination.
>
>>> I like *lots* of different vehicles and for lots of different
>>> reasons. I don't go out of my way to like a vehicle just because it's
>>> horribly inefficient any more than I do to hate a vehicle that is as
>>> efficient as it can possibly be. Efficiency has never been a major
>>> concern of mine as far as vehicles go, but just to counter your
>>> bullshit with some reality I actually own vehicles that are good
>>> examples of *both* ends of the spectrum.
>>>
>>>> H2  makes some sense for a fuel cell vehicle, but no sense for an IC
>>>> engined one. As you say, it will be grossly inefficient on many levels.
>>>
>>> And yet here are companies like Deutz, Cummins and Toyota putting
>>> money into the idea. Maybe they should have just asked you to begin
>>> with and saved all that coin.
>>
>> **They can draw their own conclusions. There is some logic in using H2
>> for prime movers, but almost no sense for passenger vehicles.
>
> It's being researched as we speak, and we will know soon enough.
>
>
>
>
>

--

Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 4/9/21 5:56 pm, alvey wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Sep 2021 12:41:45 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>
>> On 4/09/2021 12:01 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 3/09/2021 11:00 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>
>>>> You make the assumption that some time in the future I would buy an EV
>>>> or even a new vehicle of any sort and you would be wrong.
>>>
>>> **I make no such assumption. IF you want a new car in a few years, your
>>> choice of an ICE powered one will be extremely restricted. And, perhaps,
>>> impossible.
>>
>> It doesn't matter how often you bleat this shit, the reality is...
>
> lol!
>
> "the reality is..." may be one of the Fraudsters stock phrases, but it
> still makes me laugh every time the reality-avoiding buffoon plops it out.
>
> "the reality is" Der Der that you're a lying, cowardly & hypocritical
> fraud.
>
>
>
> alvey
> Still waiting for an explanation from the Fraudster as to how NA (of
> Altona) was only ever registered from 1993-96 *and* why the nominated
> business address was his parents house.
>
He must have been *living at home* at the age of *30*!
That's truly sad! Still attached to mum's apron strings, no doubt!
It does, however, explain a lot! ;-)

--

Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 4/9/21 6:49 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 4/09/2021 5:02 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 3/09/2021 8:13 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 3/09/2021 5:17 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 3/09/2021 4:50 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You seems to be obsessed with efficiency yet how "efficient" is an
>>>>> EV that takes hours to fully charge?
>>>>
>>>> **You seem to be of the impression that you will have a choice in
>>>> how your new car will be powered in a few years.
>>>>
>>>> Hint: You won't.
>>>
>>> Here's Trev with his crystal ball again :)
>>
>> **Umm, nope. Lots of industry publications.
>>
>>>
>>>> And, here's the rub: Fossil fuels will be taxed so high in a few
>>>> years, that only the truly dedicated and/or very wealthy, will be
>>>> able to afford fuel for their fossil fueled vehicles.
>>>
>>> I'll be right then :)
>>
>> **I'm sure you will.
>>
>>>
>>>>> Rather depends on you definition of efficient.
>>>>
>>>> **Efficient is how much energy content of the 'fuel' is converted
>>>> into motive energy. The BEST conversion efficiency of a petrol car
>>>> is 35% (more with hybrid technology) and around 45% with Diesel.
>>>> Less transmission losses, of course. But wait: It gets worse. Those
>>>> figures are the BEST efficiency attainable with an ICE vehicle. It
>>>> is always much worse. A BEV operates at around 90% (or better)
>>>> efficiency at all times. Some operate without any transmission. Less
>>>> battery charging losses (around 30% loss).
>>>
>>> All lovey, and totally insignificant detail.
>>
>> **Utterly and completely crucial detail.
>>
>>>
>>> You seem to be completely ignorant of one tiny, but incredibly
>>> important fact, and that is that as far as "efficiency" is concerned
>>> in relation to vehicles, the average person couldn't give a kilogram
>>> of pigshit about the efficiency rating of the *fuel* they use.
>>
>> **Bullshit. They do, inasmuch a they care about how much it costs to
>> drive XXXX kms. Some don't. Like one of my old tech teachers. His GTHO
>> (dunno if it was Phase II or III) returned around 3mpg. He didn't give
>> a shit. Then the early 1970s 'oil shock' hit. It changed everything.
>> Particularly in the US. My little Escort suddenly looked like a pretty
>> decent alternative transport. Not for nothing, BTW: The air in Sydney
>> was WAY cleaner at that time.
>>
>>
>>  All they're
>>> interested in is how much it costs them to run their car per week,
>>> and the effiency of the fuel itself has little bearing on that.
>>
>> **That is bullshit. My local Shell sells fuel at about $0.20 per Litre
>> higher than the Metro up the road. There are NEVER queues to buy fuel
>> at the Shell. At the Metro, queues can run to 10 ~ 15 minutes. People
>> care about fuel prices.
>>
>>>
>>> Think LPG Trevor. Compared to petrol it's calorific value is
>>> completely shithouse, but people use it because even though it
>>> provides less "bang", it costs way less bucks.
>>
>> **Exactly. People care about fuel costs.
>>
>>>
>>>> Why am I concerned about efficiency?
>>>
>>> Because you're a whackjob :)
>>>
>>>> A: Because EVERY SINGLE human on this planet will have to cut
>>>> emissions to reduce the impact of global warming. Now I realise that
>>>> you don't care, but that is irrelevant, as Australia, as a whole,
>>>> will be penalised by the international community for failing to cut
>>>> CO2 emissions.
>>>
>>> Really? What are they going to do? Send us a strongly worded letter?
>>
>> **Nope. Tax fossil fuels out of existence.
>>
>>>
>>> Are you seriously suggesting that countries like the US, Russia,
>>> China and India who produce more climate destroying emissions in a
>>> week than we do in a *year* are going to get up in our face about the
>>> 1% of global output that *we're* responsible for?
>>
>> **China presently emits around 1/3rd of the amount of CO2 per capita
>> that we do.
>>
>> India emits around 1/10th the emissions of C2 per capita that we do.
>>
>> Russia, abnout 2/3rds that we do.
>>
>> Australia is amongst the worst on the planet.
>
>
> per capita as a measure is misleading. those countries have much higher
> populations. the total emissions is what matters.
>
If that's the case then, we should also be tagging all those millions of
tons of coal that we *export* right onto *our tab* then. Fair's fair.
>
>> And with that coal-loving clown, Scummo in charge, we will be dragged
>> kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
>>
>>>
>>>>> Any vehicle that can be refueled in minutes rather than hours is
>>>>> more efficient, maybe not "fuel efficient" but still more efficient
>>>>> than an EV.
>>>>
>>>> **You have a weird, unscientific, way of measuring efficiency.
>>>
>>>  From the bloke who talks about the efficiency of different fuels as
>>> if it actually *means* something to the average guy in the street.
>>
>> **It's not that difficult.
>>
>> Number of kms driven, compared to Dollars spent.
>>
>>>
>>> He's here all week Folks, otherwise he's not.
>
>

--

Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 4/09/2021 6:56 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 4/9/21 4:40 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 4/09/2021 10:19 am, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 4/9/21 9:32 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 3/09/2021 11:20 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>>> On 3/9/21 5:37 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/09/2021 11:36 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>> While a lot of people are getting excited about EV development
>>>>>>> and governments around the world pushing ridiculous deadline
>>>>>>> targets for them to become your only new car choice, some people
>>>>>>> are thankfully not only exploring other zero emissions
>>>>>>> possibilities and apparently making good progress.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.deutz.com/en/media/press-releases/deutz-hydrogen-engine-ready-for-the-market
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's early days, but Deutz is doing well. Cummins are also
>>>>>>> looking at the possibility of using Hydrogen combustion engines
>>>>>>> in their lineup.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.h2-view.com/story/cummins-to-test-new-hydrogen-fuelled-internal-combustion-engine/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I said, it's early days and the road ahead will be long and
>>>>>>> strewn with technological potholes, but clearly there is
>>>>>>> potential for the Internal Combustion Engine to exist in today's
>>>>>>> zero emissions world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How knows? Development could progress to the point where Electric
>>>>>>> looks like a bad choice :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It probably has its uses but compared to fuel cell/ electric motor
>>>>>> setups it is less efficient and much more complex.
>>>>>
>>>>> Its actually quite simple and no more complex than a ICE running on
>>>>> LPG, sure the pressures are higher and transport and storage of
>>>>> hydrogen is more complex but the engines are nothing special.
>>>>> If you want complex look no further than EV's electronics,
>>>>> fortunately modern electronics are pretty reliable but nothing is
>>>>> 100% reliable.
>>>>> I recently meet a mechanic whose job is servicing electric
>>>>> forklifts, they use a lot of similar electronics to an EV and he is
>>>>> kept very busy fixing electrical problems.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A hydrogen/air fuel cell is about 75% efficient, and electric
>>>>>> motors 95+%, the most efficient IC motors to my knowledge are at
>>>>>> about 45%, and they would need a gearbox and transmission. Using
>>>>>> hub motors the electric route need no transmission of any kind,
>>>>>> even using chassis mounted motors, it would only need drive
>>>>>> shafts. The IC setup would also need far more maintenance than the
>>>>>> fuel cell one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most modern ICE vehicles will easily do 200,000km with nothing more
>>>>> than routine servicing.
>>>>
>>>> You still have to spend several hundred dollars every 10,000km
>>>
>>> Only if you take your car to a dealer, servicing costs can be a lot
>>> less if you stay away from dealers.
>>
>> **My mechanic charges me around $240.00 for a 6 monthly service.
>
> You must drive a lot of kms if you get your car serviced every 6mths?

**Nope. It's in the book. Same as your old WRX. Turbo engine and all that.

> Subaru service intervals are mostly at 12500km.

**OR every 6 months. It's in the book. If you deviate from the book,
they can decline a warranty claim.

> You should buy a Mercedes, much cheaper to own, I wouldn't spend $240 on
> servicing in 2yrs:-)

**I tried Mercs. Some nice things about them and some horrible things
about them. Overall, the Suby represented significantly better value for
money when I bought it.

>
>  Around
>> $140.00 less than the dealer charges. I, like many (probably most) car
>> owners don't do my own service for several reasons:
>>
>> * I don't have the facilities.
>> * I don't think that warranty will be covered if I do.
>> * I can make more money in my workshop than it costs to service my
>> car. IOW: I would LOSE money if I serviced my own cars.
>>
>> I've discussed servicing an EV with my mechanic. He estimates that it
>> will cost less than an ICE vehicle, but regular service will still be
>> required.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> EV's still have suspension, steering, brakes driveshafts, wheels
>>>>> and tyres, body parts etc etc that still need to be maintained so
>>>>> whist they may need less maintenance on their power plants there
>>>>> will still be servicing costs especially as they get older and I
>>>>> would expect that servicing costs will go up because business's
>>>>> that service EV's will be more specialised so they will charge
>>>>> accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> Suspension, steering, brakes driveshafts, wheels and tyres, body
>>>> parts etc etc will only need to be services as they always have
>>>> been, there is no reason to expect that would cost more.
>>>
>>> Greed is why it will cost more, I expect servicing companies to
>>> charge a higher rate because its "specialised work" even though there
>>> is nothing particularly difficult about EV's or fuel cell vehicles.
>>
>> **Maybe. Maybe not.
>>
>>> Neighbour was a mechanic at a local Mitsubishi dealer and he said
>>> that their retail labor rate was $130 ph which is already high but
>>> I'd expect that to go up considerably because they won't want to lose
>>> the profit they make servicing ICE vehicles.
>>
>> **Which is why I stick with my local mechanic.
>
> You can forget that if you buy an EV if you want to keep your warranty,
> he won't be allowed to touch it unless he becomes a dealer, rules that
> make it possible to service the cars we now drive without voiding
> warranty don't apply to EV's and rules that apply to parts supply also
> don't apply.

**I doubt that.

> Try and buy Tesla parts, they won't sell them to you or anyone else.
> Govts will have to rewrite all the rules which they may eventually get
> around to but don't hold your breath waiting.

**There are other EVs as well as Teslas. Porsche presently build the
only EV wagon. That has me all hot and bothered. AWD too.

On 4/09/2021 7:08 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 4/9/21 4:42 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 3/09/2021 8:03 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 3/09/2021 4:27 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 3/09/2021 4:23 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Using hydrogen in an internal combustion engine is just silly. It's
>>>>> inefficient at every level, and hydrogen takes up a lot of space
>>>>> and is difficult to store. An internal combustion engine using
>>>>> hydrogen will also still release oxides of nitrogen (NOx).
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **You won't win that argument. Nods likes noisy, grossly inefficient
>>>> vehicles. Quiet, fast, fuel efficient vehicles are no use to him.
>>>
>>> Jesus you can talk some utter shit at times Trevor.
>>
>> **I'll try to be honest and straightforward like you always are.
>>
>>>
>>> I like *lots* of different vehicles and for lots of different
>>> reasons. I don't go out of my way to like a vehicle just because it's
>>> horribly inefficient any more than I do to hate a vehicle that is as
>>> efficient as it can possibly be. Efficiency has never been a major
>>> concern of mine as far as vehicles go, but just to counter your
>>> bullshit with some reality I actually own vehicles that are good
>>> examples of *both* ends of the spectrum.
>>>
>>>> H2  makes some sense for a fuel cell vehicle, but no sense for an IC
>>>> engined one. As you say, it will be grossly inefficient on many levels.
>>>
>>> And yet here are companies like Deutz, Cummins and Toyota putting
>>> money into the idea. Maybe they should have just asked you to begin
>>> with and saved all that coin.
>>
>> **They can draw their own conclusions. There is some logic in using H2
>> for prime movers, but almost no sense for passenger vehicles.
>
> Why not?

**Because:
* To carry enough fuel for a range of (say) 500km, you sacrifice all
your load space.
* The engine has to be HUGE, or you need to run boost pressures of
around 40psi.

> It makes perfect sense, lots of diesel passenger vehicles currently in
> service and they seem to be the easiest to adapt to run on hydrogen,
> tanks will fit in spaces same as LPG tanks.

**Sure. They will deliver significantly less power and range will be
approximately 1/4 the present. So, that means around 250km on a tank.
And you're complaining about EV range?

> It comes down to whether or not car makers can make it work and sell
> them to the market, I have no doubt that they can make them work and if
> they price them under EV prices which shouldn't be difficult they could
> be on a winner.

**Why do you think they will be cheaper than EVs? EVs are projected to
equal the cost of ICE cars within 6 years. Do you think that an H2 ICE
car will be cheaper than a petrol ICE car in 6 years? Don't forget to
factor in that (very) high pressure fuel tank.

> IMHO car makers who switch to only making EV's will lose market share,
> the smart ones will make vehicles with a mix of technologies.

**And again: You are assuming that they will have a choice.

Hint: They won't.

On 4/09/2021 5:02 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 3/09/2021 8:13 pm, Noddy wrote:

>>>
>>> **You seem to be of the impression that you will have a choice in how
>>> your new car will be powered in a few years.
>>>
>>> Hint: You won't.
>>
>> Here's Trev with his crystal ball again :)
>
> **Umm, nope. Lots of industry publications.

You mean all those making claims about what they *think* is going to happen?

>>> And, here's the rub: Fossil fuels will be taxed so high in a few
>>> years, that only the truly dedicated and/or very wealthy, will be
>>> able to afford fuel for their fossil fueled vehicles.
>>
>> I'll be right then :)
>
> **I'm sure you will.

Most likely. To be quite honest I don't think I'll live long enough for
it to be an issue.

>>>> Rather depends on you definition of efficient.
>>>
>>> **Efficient is how much energy content of the 'fuel' is converted
>>> into motive energy. The BEST conversion efficiency of a petrol car is
>>> 35% (more with hybrid technology) and around 45% with Diesel. Less
>>> transmission losses, of course. But wait: It gets worse. Those
>>> figures are the BEST efficiency attainable with an ICE vehicle. It is
>>> always much worse. A BEV operates at around 90% (or better)
>>> efficiency at all times. Some operate without any transmission. Less
>>> battery charging losses (around 30% loss).
>>
>> All lovey, and totally insignificant detail.
>
> **Utterly and completely crucial detail.

Completely and utterly irrelevant in fact.

>> You seem to be completely ignorant of one tiny, but incredibly
>> important fact, and that is that as far as "efficiency" is concerned
>> in relation to vehicles, the average person couldn't give a kilogram
>> of pigshit about the efficiency rating of the *fuel* they use.
>
> **Bullshit. They do, inasmuch a they care about how much it costs to
> drive XXXX kms. Some don't. Like one of my old tech teachers. His GTHO
> (dunno if it was Phase II or III) returned around 3mpg.

I used to own one as a daily, and have driven more of the things than I
can possibly remember. Compared to anything built in the last 25 years
their economy was appalling, but about the only time you'd get 3 miles
per gallon from one is if there was something drastically wrong with it.

> He didn't give a shit. Then the early 1970s 'oil shock' hit. It changed everything.
> Particularly in the US. My little Escort suddenly looked like a pretty
> decent alternative transport. Not for nothing, BTW: The air in Sydney
> was WAY cleaner at that time.

That's all lovely, but you've actually agreed with the point I was
making, which was as far as the fuel itself is concerned the average Joe
couldn't give a flying fuck how inefficient it is. All they care about
is how much it costs per week to run their car.

>  All they're
>> interested in is how much it costs them to run their car per week, and
>> the effiency of the fuel itself has little bearing on that.
>
> **That is bullshit. My local Shell sells fuel at about $0.20 per Litre
> higher than the Metro up the road. There are NEVER queues to buy fuel at
> the Shell. At the Metro, queues can run to 10 ~ 15 minutes. People care
> about fuel prices.

For fuck's sake Trevor, try to keep up. This is what I was saying :)

>> Think LPG Trevor. Compared to petrol it's calorific value is
>> completely shithouse, but people use it because even though it
>> provides less "bang", it costs way less bucks.
>
> **Exactly. People care about fuel costs.

Yep, they do. And they couldn't care less about how "efficient" the fuel
actually is.

>>> A: Because EVERY SINGLE human on this planet will have to cut
>>> emissions to reduce the impact of global warming. Now I realise that
>>> you don't care, but that is irrelevant, as Australia, as a whole,
>>> will be penalised by the international community for failing to cut
>>> CO2 emissions.
>>
>> Really? What are they going to do? Send us a strongly worded letter?
>
> **Nope. Tax fossil fuels out of existence.

Are they?

So let me get this straight. You're saying that the people who

>>
>> Are you seriously suggesting that countries like the US, Russia, China
>> and India who produce more climate destroying emissions in a week than
>> we do in a *year* are going to get up in our face about the 1% of
>> global output that *we're* responsible for?
>
> **China presently emits around 1/3rd of the amount of CO2 per capita
> that we do.
>
> India emits around 1/10th the emissions of C2 per capita that we do.
>
> Russia, abnout 2/3rds that we do.
>
> Australia is amongst the worst on the planet. And with that coal-loving
> clown, Scummo in charge, we will be dragged kicking and screaming into
> the 21st century.

ROTFL :)

Do you have *any* idea at all how utterly ridiculous "per capita"
arguments look when you're talking about a *global* problem?

Let me give you a tip here for free Trevor. The planet doesn't give a
royal toss about how much of a carbon footprint *you* have personally,
or me, or the guy across the street or the baker in town. The planet
only sees the total as a whole. If Australia achieved zero emissions it
would be a miraculous achievement that would come at a heavy price, but
the net effect to the planet would be absolutely fuck nothing.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 4/09/2021 8:07 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 4/09/2021 7:08 pm, Daryl wrote:

>>> **They can draw their own conclusions. There is some logic in using
>>> H2 for prime movers, but almost no sense for passenger vehicles.
>>
>> Why not?
>
> **Because:
> * To carry enough fuel for a range of (say) 500km, you sacrifice all
> your load space.

And exactly how much Hydrogen would you need to carry for a range of
500km's, Trev? What sort of vehicle do you base that on?

> * The engine has to be HUGE, or you need to run boost pressures of
> around 40psi.

Or, research may show that a mix of boost figures of considerably less
than that combined with a larger capacity could actually work.

>> It makes perfect sense, lots of diesel passenger vehicles currently in
>> service and they seem to be the easiest to adapt to run on hydrogen,
>> tanks will fit in spaces same as LPG tanks.
>
> **Sure. They will deliver significantly less power and range will be
> approximately 1/4 the present. So, that means around 250km on a tank.
> And you're complaining about EV range?

Again, you base this on what?

>> It comes down to whether or not car makers can make it work and sell
>> them to the market, I have no doubt that they can make them work and
>> if they price them under EV prices which shouldn't be difficult they
>> could be on a winner.
>
> **Why do you think they will be cheaper than EVs? EVs are projected to
> equal the cost of ICE cars within 6 years.

More of your predictions. You sure as shit are keen to put enormous
amounts of faith in long term forecasts which at present show no signs
of ever being a reality.

> Do you think that an H2 ICE
> car will be cheaper than a petrol ICE car in 6 years? Don't forget to
> factor in that (very) high pressure fuel tank.

>> IMHO car makers who switch to only making EV's will lose market share,
>> the smart ones will make vehicles with a mix of technologies.
>
> **And again: You are assuming that they will have a choice.
>
> Hint: They won't.

It's funny how you shit-can religious people, when all you do is
passionately believe in something you don't know to be true just like
they do :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 4/09/2021 8:01 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 4/09/2021 6:56 pm, Daryl wrote:

>
>> Subaru service intervals are mostly at 12500km.
>
> **OR every 6 months. It's in the book. If you deviate from the book,
> they can decline a warranty claim.

They can, and it's a very good reason not to own a Subaru. For most
other marques it's 15k km's or once a year. Turbo or not.

>> You should buy a Mercedes, much cheaper to own, I wouldn't spend $240
>> on servicing in 2yrs:-)
>
> **I tried Mercs. Some nice things about them and some horrible things
> about them. Overall, the Suby represented significantly better value for
> money when I bought it.

Clearly you didn't factor in maintenance costs.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 4/09/2021 3:09 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 4/09/2021 1:38 pm, Daryl wrote:

>>>> Despite what you might think I'm not against EV's, its just that by
>>>> the time they become affordable I'll most likely be either dead or
>>>> not driving anymore.
>>>
>>> **SIX years:
>>>
>>> https://bestpractice.biz/electric-vehicles-to-reach-price-parity-with-internal-combustion-by-2027/
>>
>>
>>
>> Pure speculation and fantasy.
>
> **OK. Cite your evidence to prove it wrong. I've submitted my evidence.
> It's up to you to submit yours.

ROFTL :)

Jesus Christ Trevor. You've not submitted a *single word* of "evidence".
All you've done is put up a web article that quotes some "report" that
reached a speculative finding based on nothing other than what it
*thinks* will be the case :)

That is *not* evidence :)

[..]

> **Why would you say that? I'm not the one claiming that there is a
> future for ICE engined cars.

Np. You're the one claiming that the ICE powered passenger car is dead,
without having any idea of what's being looked into. The sensible people
are saying "Let's see what the research uncovers".

For a bloke who is constantly singing the praises of scientific
research, you sure as shit are lightning fast when it comes to jumping
to the conclusions you like and bagging those you don't.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 4/9/21 8:01 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 4/09/2021 6:56 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 4/9/21 4:40 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 4/09/2021 10:19 am, Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 4/9/21 9:32 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 3/09/2021 11:20 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/9/21 5:37 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/09/2021 11:36 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>> While a lot of people are getting excited about EV development
>>>>>>>> and governments around the world pushing ridiculous deadline
>>>>>>>> targets for them to become your only new car choice, some people
>>>>>>>> are thankfully not only exploring other zero emissions
>>>>>>>> possibilities and apparently making good progress.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.deutz.com/en/media/press-releases/deutz-hydrogen-engine-ready-for-the-market
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's early days, but Deutz is doing well. Cummins are also
>>>>>>>> looking at the possibility of using Hydrogen combustion engines
>>>>>>>> in their lineup.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.h2-view.com/story/cummins-to-test-new-hydrogen-fuelled-internal-combustion-engine/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I said, it's early days and the road ahead will be long and
>>>>>>>> strewn with technological potholes, but clearly there is
>>>>>>>> potential for the Internal Combustion Engine to exist in today's
>>>>>>>> zero emissions world.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How knows? Development could progress to the point where
>>>>>>>> Electric looks like a bad choice :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It probably has its uses but compared to fuel cell/ electric
>>>>>>> motor setups it is less efficient and much more complex.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Its actually quite simple and no more complex than a ICE running
>>>>>> on LPG, sure the pressures are higher and transport and storage of
>>>>>> hydrogen is more complex but the engines are nothing special.
>>>>>> If you want complex look no further than EV's electronics,
>>>>>> fortunately modern electronics are pretty reliable but nothing is
>>>>>> 100% reliable.
>>>>>> I recently meet a mechanic whose job is servicing electric
>>>>>> forklifts, they use a lot of similar electronics to an EV and he
>>>>>> is kept very busy fixing electrical problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A hydrogen/air fuel cell is about 75% efficient, and electric
>>>>>>> motors 95+%, the most efficient IC motors to my knowledge are at
>>>>>>> about 45%, and they would need a gearbox and transmission. Using
>>>>>>> hub motors the electric route need no transmission of any kind,
>>>>>>> even using chassis mounted motors, it would only need drive
>>>>>>> shafts. The IC setup would also need far more maintenance than
>>>>>>> the fuel cell one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most modern ICE vehicles will easily do 200,000km with nothing
>>>>>> more than routine servicing.
>>>>>
>>>>> You still have to spend several hundred dollars every 10,000km
>>>>
>>>> Only if you take your car to a dealer, servicing costs can be a lot
>>>> less if you stay away from dealers.
>>>
>>> **My mechanic charges me around $240.00 for a 6 monthly service.
>>
>> You must drive a lot of kms if you get your car serviced every 6mths?
>
> **Nope. It's in the book. Same as your old WRX. Turbo engine and all that.

LOL, what's the turbo got to do with anything?
>
>> Subaru service intervals are mostly at 12500km.
>
> **OR every 6 months. It's in the book. If you deviate from the book,
> they can decline a warranty claim.

Yours may say 6mths but ours didn't, we often went well over 6mths
between services, it was mostly dealer serviced (wife's car and the
dealer was in the city so she could spend the day shopping while the car
was being serviced, have you ever tried telling a woman she can't go
shopping:-)) and not once did they comment about it being over due for a
service.
>
>> You should buy a Mercedes, much cheaper to own, I wouldn't spend $240
>> on servicing in 2yrs:-)
>
> **I tried Mercs. Some nice things about them and some horrible things
> about them. Overall, the Suby represented significantly better value for
> money when I bought it.
>
>>
>>   Around
>>> $140.00 less than the dealer charges. I, like many (probably most)
>>> car owners don't do my own service for several reasons:
>>>
>>> * I don't have the facilities.
>>> * I don't think that warranty will be covered if I do.
>>> * I can make more money in my workshop than it costs to service my
>>> car. IOW: I would LOSE money if I serviced my own cars.
>>>
>>> I've discussed servicing an EV with my mechanic. He estimates that it
>>> will cost less than an ICE vehicle, but regular service will still be
>>> required.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> EV's still have suspension, steering, brakes driveshafts, wheels
>>>>>> and tyres, body parts etc etc that still need to be maintained so
>>>>>> whist they may need less maintenance on their power plants there
>>>>>> will still be servicing costs especially as they get older and I
>>>>>> would expect that servicing costs will go up because business's
>>>>>> that service EV's will be more specialised so they will charge
>>>>>> accordingly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suspension, steering, brakes driveshafts, wheels and tyres, body
>>>>> parts etc etc will only need to be services as they always have
>>>>> been, there is no reason to expect that would cost more.
>>>>
>>>> Greed is why it will cost more, I expect servicing companies to
>>>> charge a higher rate because its "specialised work" even though
>>>> there is nothing particularly difficult about EV's or fuel cell
>>>> vehicles.
>>>
>>> **Maybe. Maybe not.
>>>
>>>> Neighbour was a mechanic at a local Mitsubishi dealer and he said
>>>> that their retail labor rate was $130 ph which is already high but
>>>> I'd expect that to go up considerably because they won't want to
>>>> lose the profit they make servicing ICE vehicles.
>>>
>>> **Which is why I stick with my local mechanic.
>>
>> You can forget that if you buy an EV if you want to keep your
>> warranty, he won't be allowed to touch it unless he becomes a dealer,
>> rules that make it possible to service the cars we now drive without
>> voiding warranty don't apply to EV's and rules that apply to parts
>> supply also don't apply.
>
> **I doubt that.

They (Tesla) are well known for it.
>
>> Try and buy Tesla parts, they won't sell them to you or anyone else.
>> Govts will have to rewrite all the rules which they may eventually get
>> around to but don't hold your breath waiting.
>
> **There are other EVs as well as Teslas. Porsche presently build the
> only EV wagon. That has me all hot and bothered. AWD too.
>
Sure is more than one make but the rules with regard to non dealer
servicing are out the window with EV's, they simply don't apply, no
requirement for OBD2 or for makers to supply service info, as I said
that may change but it will take some time.
If they do have diagnostic ports which they most likely will you will
need diagnostic tools that only dealers can get, it took a lot of years
for Govts to force car makers to supply servicing data so don't expect
them to just hand over tools and data unless they are compelled to.

--
Daryl

On 4/9/21 10:09 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 4/09/2021 8:01 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 4/09/2021 6:56 pm, Daryl wrote:
>
>>
>>> Subaru service intervals are mostly at 12500km.
>>
>> **OR every 6 months. It's in the book. If you deviate from the book,
>> they can decline a warranty claim.
>
> They can, and it's a very good reason not to own a Subaru. For most
> other marques it's 15k km's or once a year. Turbo or not.

Ours was 12500km or 12mths.
>
>>> You should buy a Mercedes, much cheaper to own, I wouldn't spend $240
>>> on servicing in 2yrs:-)
>>
>> **I tried Mercs. Some nice things about them and some horrible things
>> about them. Overall, the Suby represented significantly better value
>> for money when I bought it.
>
> Clearly you didn't factor in maintenance costs.
>

Subaru's aren't cheap to service.

--
Daryl

On 4/9/21 8:07 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 4/09/2021 7:08 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 4/9/21 4:42 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 3/09/2021 8:03 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 3/09/2021 4:27 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 3/09/2021 4:23 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Using hydrogen in an internal combustion engine is just silly.
>>>>>> It's inefficient at every level, and hydrogen takes up a lot of
>>>>>> space and is difficult to store. An internal combustion engine
>>>>>> using hydrogen will also still release oxides of nitrogen (NOx).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> **You won't win that argument. Nods likes noisy, grossly
>>>>> inefficient vehicles. Quiet, fast, fuel efficient vehicles are no
>>>>> use to him.
>>>>
>>>> Jesus you can talk some utter shit at times Trevor.
>>>
>>> **I'll try to be honest and straightforward like you always are.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I like *lots* of different vehicles and for lots of different
>>>> reasons. I don't go out of my way to like a vehicle just because
>>>> it's horribly inefficient any more than I do to hate a vehicle that
>>>> is as efficient as it can possibly be. Efficiency has never been a
>>>> major concern of mine as far as vehicles go, but just to counter
>>>> your bullshit with some reality I actually own vehicles that are
>>>> good examples of *both* ends of the spectrum.
>>>>
>>>>> H2  makes some sense for a fuel cell vehicle, but no sense for an
>>>>> IC engined one. As you say, it will be grossly inefficient on many
>>>>> levels.
>>>>
>>>> And yet here are companies like Deutz, Cummins and Toyota putting
>>>> money into the idea. Maybe they should have just asked you to begin
>>>> with and saved all that coin.
>>>
>>> **They can draw their own conclusions. There is some logic in using
>>> H2 for prime movers, but almost no sense for passenger vehicles.
>>
>> Why not?
>
> **Because:
> * To carry enough fuel for a range of (say) 500km, you sacrifice all
> your load space.

Not likely, it was only a minor problem with retro fitted LPG, if the
car was designed for hydrogen the fuel tanks won't be an issue.

> * The engine has to be HUGE, or you need to run boost pressures of
> around 40psi.

So just run 40psi boost, that is not a big deal.
>
>
>> It makes perfect sense, lots of diesel passenger vehicles currently in
>> service and they seem to be the easiest to adapt to run on hydrogen,
>> tanks will fit in spaces same as LPG tanks.
>
> **Sure. They will deliver significantly less power and range will be
> approximately 1/4 the present. So, that means around 250km on a tank.
> And you're complaining about EV range?
>
>> It comes down to whether or not car makers can make it work and sell
>> them to the market, I have no doubt that they can make them work and
>> if they price them under EV prices which shouldn't be difficult they
>> could be on a winner.
>
> **Why do you think they will be cheaper than EVs?

Because most of the technology already exists and current engines can
run on hydrogen with some modest modifications.

EVs are projected to
> equal the cost of ICE cars within 6 years.

Pure fantasy.

Do you think that an H2 ICE
> car will be cheaper than a petrol ICE car in 6 years?

They will start off considerable cheaper so yes, they should only be
slightly more expensive than a current diesel car.

Don't forget to
> factor in that (very) high pressure fuel tank.

Which is no big deal, if they do cost more teh tanks might be the reason.
>
>> IMHO car makers who switch to only making EV's will lose market share,
>> the smart ones will make vehicles with a mix of technologies.
>
> **And again: You are assuming that they will have a choice.
>
> Hint: They won't.
>
You seem to be stating that Govts will legislate that EV's are the only
type of vehicle that anyone can buy?
If so that makes no sense, it would be political suicide.
Why would they support one technology over another when the objective is
to achieve zero emissions which both can do.
Why would Govts piss off people like farmers or others who live in
remote areas just to support one technology over another?
Also if they did mandate EV's a lot of people would have no choice but
to keep old vehicles.

--
Daryl

On 4/09/2021 4:21 pm, alvey wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Sep 2021 13:26:53 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>
>> Probably, but there will still be regular servicing, and I'd happily bet
>> the farm that the push by the dealership world for it to generate
>> comparable levels of income that it does now will be *very* strong indeed.
>>
>> You have to bear in mind that manufacturers need dealers, and dealers
>> make very little money in selling cars. For the overwhelming majority of
>> them the selling of the cars is a means to an end in that it's their way
>> of getting customers onto their service books.
>>
>> *That's* where they make their money.
>
>
> Ahhh Der Der at his creative 'best'.
>
> I don't know if it's a good thing or not, but if all humanity had Der Der's
> level of thinking then we'd all still be living in caves.
>
>
> alvey
> "The reality is Edgar, carriage makers and hay producers will never let
> these petrol driven carriages replace the horse. Besides, there's no
> fucking roads for them to run on and it'll cost too much to build them!
> Anyone who thinks they're The Future are idiots". Thomas Horace Gibbens,
> while wiping horse shit off boots, 1898.
>
>

Very good :-)

On 4/09/2021 11:07 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 4/9/21 8:01 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 4/09/2021 6:56 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 4/9/21 4:40 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 4/09/2021 10:19 am, Daryl wrote:
>>>>> On 4/9/21 9:32 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/09/2021 11:20 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/9/21 5:37 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/09/2021 11:36 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> While a lot of people are getting excited about EV development
>>>>>>>>> and governments around the world pushing ridiculous deadline
>>>>>>>>> targets for them to become your only new car choice, some
>>>>>>>>> people are thankfully not only exploring other zero emissions
>>>>>>>>> possibilities and apparently making good progress.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.deutz.com/en/media/press-releases/deutz-hydrogen-engine-ready-for-the-market
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's early days, but Deutz is doing well. Cummins are also
>>>>>>>>> looking at the possibility of using Hydrogen combustion engines
>>>>>>>>> in their lineup.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.h2-view.com/story/cummins-to-test-new-hydrogen-fuelled-internal-combustion-engine/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I said, it's early days and the road ahead will be long and
>>>>>>>>> strewn with technological potholes, but clearly there is
>>>>>>>>> potential for the Internal Combustion Engine to exist in
>>>>>>>>> today's zero emissions world.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How knows? Development could progress to the point where
>>>>>>>>> Electric looks like a bad choice :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It probably has its uses but compared to fuel cell/ electric
>>>>>>>> motor setups it is less efficient and much more complex.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Its actually quite simple and no more complex than a ICE running
>>>>>>> on LPG, sure the pressures are higher and transport and storage
>>>>>>> of hydrogen is more complex but the engines are nothing special.
>>>>>>> If you want complex look no further than EV's electronics,
>>>>>>> fortunately modern electronics are pretty reliable but nothing is
>>>>>>> 100% reliable.
>>>>>>> I recently meet a mechanic whose job is servicing electric
>>>>>>> forklifts, they use a lot of similar electronics to an EV and he
>>>>>>> is kept very busy fixing electrical problems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A hydrogen/air fuel cell is about 75% efficient, and electric
>>>>>>>> motors 95+%, the most efficient IC motors to my knowledge are at
>>>>>>>> about 45%, and they would need a gearbox and transmission. Using
>>>>>>>> hub motors the electric route need no transmission of any kind,
>>>>>>>> even using chassis mounted motors, it would only need drive
>>>>>>>> shafts. The IC setup would also need far more maintenance than
>>>>>>>> the fuel cell one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most modern ICE vehicles will easily do 200,000km with nothing
>>>>>>> more than routine servicing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You still have to spend several hundred dollars every 10,000km
>>>>>
>>>>> Only if you take your car to a dealer, servicing costs can be a lot
>>>>> less if you stay away from dealers.
>>>>
>>>> **My mechanic charges me around $240.00 for a 6 monthly service.
>>>
>>> You must drive a lot of kms if you get your car serviced every 6mths?
>>
>> **Nope. It's in the book. Same as your old WRX. Turbo engine and all
>> that.
>
> LOL, what's the turbo got to do with anything?
>>
>>> Subaru service intervals are mostly at 12500km.
>>
>> **OR every 6 months. It's in the book. If you deviate from the book,
>> they can decline a warranty claim.
>
> Yours may say 6mths but ours didn't, we often went well over 6mths
> between services, it was mostly dealer serviced (wife's car and the
> dealer was in the city so she could spend the day shopping while the car
> was being serviced, have you ever tried telling a woman she can't go
> shopping:-)) and not once did they comment about it being over due for a
> service.

**I didn't know your WRX was earlier than 2013:

https://www.keysubaru.com.au/service/scheduled-service-intervals/

I stand corrected.

Regardless, Subaru are clear on service intervals for my car. 6 months.

>>
>>> You should buy a Mercedes, much cheaper to own, I wouldn't spend $240
>>> on servicing in 2yrs:-)
>>
>> **I tried Mercs. Some nice things about them and some horrible things
>> about them. Overall, the Suby represented significantly better value
>> for money when I bought it.
>>
>>>
>>>   Around
>>>> $140.00 less than the dealer charges. I, like many (probably most)
>>>> car owners don't do my own service for several reasons:
>>>>
>>>> * I don't have the facilities.
>>>> * I don't think that warranty will be covered if I do.
>>>> * I can make more money in my workshop than it costs to service my
>>>> car. IOW: I would LOSE money if I serviced my own cars.
>>>>
>>>> I've discussed servicing an EV with my mechanic. He estimates that
>>>> it will cost less than an ICE vehicle, but regular service will
>>>> still be required.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> EV's still have suspension, steering, brakes driveshafts, wheels
>>>>>>> and tyres, body parts etc etc that still need to be maintained so
>>>>>>> whist they may need less maintenance on their power plants there
>>>>>>> will still be servicing costs especially as they get older and I
>>>>>>> would expect that servicing costs will go up because business's
>>>>>>> that service EV's will be more specialised so they will charge
>>>>>>> accordingly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Suspension, steering, brakes driveshafts, wheels and tyres, body
>>>>>> parts etc etc will only need to be services as they always have
>>>>>> been, there is no reason to expect that would cost more.
>>>>>
>>>>> Greed is why it will cost more, I expect servicing companies to
>>>>> charge a higher rate because its "specialised work" even though
>>>>> there is nothing particularly difficult about EV's or fuel cell
>>>>> vehicles.
>>>>
>>>> **Maybe. Maybe not.
>>>>
>>>>> Neighbour was a mechanic at a local Mitsubishi dealer and he said
>>>>> that their retail labor rate was $130 ph which is already high but
>>>>> I'd expect that to go up considerably because they won't want to
>>>>> lose the profit they make servicing ICE vehicles.
>>>>
>>>> **Which is why I stick with my local mechanic.
>>>
>>> You can forget that if you buy an EV if you want to keep your
>>> warranty, he won't be allowed to touch it unless he becomes a dealer,
>>> rules that make it possible to service the cars we now drive without
>>> voiding warranty don't apply to EV's and rules that apply to parts
>>> supply also don't apply.
>>
>> **I doubt that.
>
> They (Tesla) are well known for it.

**And again: Tesla are not the only EV maker. There are others and more
appearing each year. Even your beloved Mercedes:

https://www.mercedes-benz.co.uk/passengercars/mercedes-benz-cars/electric-vehicles/electric-car-range.html

On Sat, 4 Sep 2021 13:37:28 +1000, Noddy wrote:

> As a former service
> manager of a dealership with 6 technicians averaging between 30 and 40
> cars a day I can tell you...

So Dopey was on the front desk while the other six dwarves got covered in
muck every day.

Yes kiddies, it's another fairy tale from the Fraudster!

He has as much experience as a Service Manager as he does at being a
successful business owner.

But do feel free (again) to provide proof of this claim Der Der.
Alternatively, you could repeat your yarn about how Honda took you to Japan
for 10 days to show you, the service manager [snigger], their new Prelude.
That was a top giggle.

alvey
Having a chuckle at the thought of Der Der having to deal with members of
the public 5 days a week.

On 4/09/2021 7:05 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 4/9/21 5:53 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 4/09/2021 4:30 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 4/09/2021 12:41 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> It doesn't matter how often you bleat this shit, the reality is that
>>>> you have absolutely no idea if that will be the case.
>>>
>>> **I more than an idea about these things. I am quite widely read on
>>> the topic.
>>
>> Be as widely read as you like Trev, but you are no better at
>> predicting the future than anyone else. You should also bear in mind
>> that a *lot* of the comments made today about what is intended in the
>> future are made for little reason *other* than to placate the people
>> jumping up and down demanding answers.
>>
>>>> **Sure. You're (possibly) making the assumption that ICE cars won't
>>>>> be either taxed into oblivion, or the fuels that power them will
>>>>> still be cheap and easily available.
>>>>
>>>> And you are. What do you base your theories on that apparently make
>>>> them more correct than those of anyone else?
>>>
>>> **The rather copious amounts of stuff I read on the topic. How much
>>> research have you done?
>>
>> I don't need to research. I get all my goss straight from you :)
>>
>>>>> Research suggests that a complete change to EVs would require
>>>>> approximately a 20% increase in electricity generation for most
>>>>> Western, developed nations:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-will-overload-the-power-grid
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's nice. But we here in the land of Oz don't live in "most
>>>> western developed nations".
>>>
>>> **We live in _a_ Western developed nation.
>>
>> We live in a very sparsely populated but geographically large Western
>> developed nation with a small population and antiquated facilities.
>>>   and you basing your ideas of what will happen
>>>> according to some simplistic bullshit you read on the internet is a
>>>> total nonsense :)
>>>
>>> **Umm, no. I am basing my comments on what is highly likely to occur
>>> in the next few years.
>>
>> Yeah. Based on the simplistic bullshit you read on the internet.
>>
>>>>> As for charging stations, there is this:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://electricvehiclecouncil.com.au/about-ev/charger-map/
>>>>>
>>>>> There are around 2,500 charging stations around Australia. Not
>>>>> many. You're right, but, given the national fleet of EVs numbers
>>>>> around 1% of the total number on the road, one can assume that the
>>>>> number of charging stations will rise to meet the demand. After
>>>>> all: It is WAY easier to plonk a couple of chargers in a spot, than
>>>>> it is to built a petrol station.
>>>>
>>>> Is it?
>>>
>>> **Fuck yeah. I watched Shell re-build the local servo. Took 'em
>>> almost 2 years. 5 huge tanks, an array of pumps, lots of concrete and
>>> all the rest. BIG job.
>>
>> 2 years? What, did it have a hidden nuclear reactor that needed to be
>> decommissioned or something?
>>
>> They built a new decent sized servo in Bacchus Marsh a couple of years
>> ago that took them around 4 months to complete from the time they
>> demolished the houses on the land to the time they were pumping fuel.
>> I think it actually took them longer to process all the paperwork than
>> it did to do the actual construction.
>>
>> 2 years? Fark..... :)
>>
>>> This is the problem. I READ and digest huge amounts of information
>>> about the topic and you engage in wild guesses, based on what you
>>> like. The real world doesn't work like that.
>>
>> Actually Trevor that's not accurate.
>>
>> You may read lots, but you seem to assume that everything you read is
>> factual just because it exists somewhere. I would imagine a shit-tonne
>> of what you read is nothing other than opinion and editorial.
>>
>>>   What they will do is introduce a tax on EV's to compensate for the
>>>> loss of revenue they cause.
>>>
>>> **More likely the gummint will introduce a tax on ALL vehicles,
>>> dependent on kms travelled.
>>
>> They may do. Only time will tell.
>>
>>>   The Australian Government earns close to 12
>>>> billion in fuel excises every year, and if you think they're going
>>>> to happily wave goodbye to that as people move to EV's you're
>>>> completely out of your bloody tree.
>>>>
>>>> EV uses will pay. Just like we all do now.
>>>
>>> **I never said otherwise. It's just that fossil fueled vehicle owners
>>> will pay more.
>>
>> And here yet again is *another* example of you stating something as if
>> it's been set in stone :)
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Californian vehicle law relates to California, and *only* California.
>>>
>>> **Which the rest of the US, inevitably, follows.
>>
>> No, it does not Trevor.
>>
>> As I mentioned, California has has it's own "smog laws" in place since
>> the 1970's which apply to California and nowhere else. The rest of the
>> country has *not* followed their lead to any significant degree.
>>
>>>> They have had their own laws relating to vehicle emissions since the
>>>> 1970's which have never applied in other states, and a great many
>>>> after-market parts come with a label affixed which states "Not legal
>>>> for highway use in California". Similarly, US manufacturers have
>>>> made "California specific" variants of their models for years which
>>>> they need to do to meet the requirements.
>>>>
>>>> The rest of the US does *not* follow close behind California at all,
>>>> and you are simply making this shit up :)
>>>
>>> **No. It's fact. The other states will follow California.
>>
>> ROTFL :)
>>
>> Something that is *yet* to happen is *not* a fact :)
>>
> Ok, so it is a fact then....  From Wikipedia
>
>    The states that have adopted the California standards are:
>    Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
>    New Jersey, New Mexico (2011 model year and later), New York,
>    Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington
>    (2009 model year and later), as well as the District of Columbia.
>
> You really *can't read*, can you Darren?
>>
>>>>> The latest IPCC report tells us that shutting down all fossil fuel
>>>>> industries is absolutely imperative. We have very little time to
>>>>> act to save your grandkids from suffering through 60 Degree C
>>>>> Summer heatwaves.
>>>>
>>>> Weren't they telling us in the 1980's that if we didn't do something
>>>> to solve the emissions crisis we'd all be dead by the year 2000?
>>>
>>> **No. That was solely in your own imagination. If you feel the IPCC
>>> made any such claim, present your evidence.
>>>
>>> I won't hold my breath.
>>
>> Sorry Trevor, but by "they" I meant people making "climate
>> predictions". I'm not sure that the IPCC actually existed in the
>> 1980's, did they?
>
> In 1970 there was little general understanding or even awareness of the
> effects of increased CO2 concentrations. By 1980, this had changed
> drastically.

**Not quite. My favourite mathemetician, Joseph Fourier, predicted the
effects of CO2 concentrations on temperatures in the first half of the
19th century. Just before the end of the 19th century, Svante Arrhenius
(the Nobel prize winning chemist) proved Fourier to be correct. NOT ONCE
in the subsequent 120 years, has anyone been able to disprove Fourier
and Arrhenius. Not once.

So, we have known that higher CO2 concentrations lead to higher
temperatures for WAY longer than 50 years.

On 4/09/2021 5:53 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 4/09/2021 4:30 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 4/09/2021 12:41 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> It doesn't matter how often you bleat this shit, the reality is that
>>> you have absolutely no idea if that will be the case.
>>
>> **I more than an idea about these things. I am quite widely read on
>> the topic.
>
> Be as widely read as you like Trev, but you are no better at predicting
> the future than anyone else. You should also bear in mind that a *lot*
> of the comments made today about what is intended in the future are made
> for little reason *other* than to placate the people jumping up and down
> demanding answers.
>
>>> **Sure. You're (possibly) making the assumption that ICE cars won't
>>>> be either taxed into oblivion, or the fuels that power them will
>>>> still be cheap and easily available.
>>>
>>> And you are. What do you base your theories on that apparently make
>>> them more correct than those of anyone else?
>>
>> **The rather copious amounts of stuff I read on the topic. How much
>> research have you done?
>
> I don't need to research. I get all my goss straight from you :)

**You SHOULD do research. You might learn something.

>
>>>> Research suggests that a complete change to EVs would require
>>>> approximately a 20% increase in electricity generation for most
>>>> Western, developed nations:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-will-overload-the-power-grid
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That's nice. But we here in the land of Oz don't live in "most
>>> western developed nations".
>>
>> **We live in _a_ Western developed nation.
>
> We live in a very sparsely populated but geographically large Western
> developed nation with a small population and antiquated facilities.

**And 90% of us live in/near major cities on the coast.

>>   and you basing your ideas of what will happen
>>> according to some simplistic bullshit you read on the internet is a
>>> total nonsense :)
>>
>> **Umm, no. I am basing my comments on what is highly likely to occur
>> in the next few years.
>
> Yeah. Based on the simplistic bullshit you read on the internet.

**At least I read. You should do likewise.

>
>>>> As for charging stations, there is this:
>>>>
>>>> https://electricvehiclecouncil.com.au/about-ev/charger-map/
>>>>
>>>> There are around 2,500 charging stations around Australia. Not many.
>>>> You're right, but, given the national fleet of EVs numbers around 1%
>>>> of the total number on the road, one can assume that the number of
>>>> charging stations will rise to meet the demand. After all: It is WAY
>>>> easier to plonk a couple of chargers in a spot, than it is to built
>>>> a petrol station.
>>>
>>> Is it?
>>
>> **Fuck yeah. I watched Shell re-build the local servo. Took 'em almost
>> 2 years. 5 huge tanks, an array of pumps, lots of concrete and all the
>> rest. BIG job.
>
> 2 years? What, did it have a hidden nuclear reactor that needed to be
> decommissioned or something?

**Nope. Leaking fuel tank. Remediation of the three adjoining properties
(which Shell purchased) is on-going.

>
> They built a new decent sized servo in Bacchus Marsh a couple of years
> ago that took them around 4 months to complete from the time they
> demolished the houses on the land to the time they were pumping fuel. I
> think it actually took them longer to process all the paperwork than it
> did to do the actual construction.
>
> 2 years? Fark..... :)
>
>> This is the problem. I READ and digest huge amounts of information
>> about the topic and you engage in wild guesses, based on what you
>> like. The real world doesn't work like that.
>
> Actually Trevor that's not accurate.
>
> You may read lots, but you seem to assume that everything you read is
> factual just because it exists somewhere. I would imagine a shit-tonne
> of what you read is nothing other than opinion and editorial.

**You assume that I assume everything I read is factual. That is not the
case.

>
>>   What they will do is introduce a tax on EV's to compensate for the
>>> loss of revenue they cause.
>>
>> **More likely the gummint will introduce a tax on ALL vehicles,
>> dependent on kms travelled.
>
> They may do. Only time will tell.

**You can put money on it, unless some kind of new technology is introduced.

>
>>   The Australian Government earns close to 12
>>> billion in fuel excises every year, and if you think they're going to
>>> happily wave goodbye to that as people move to EV's you're completely
>>> out of your bloody tree.
>>>
>>> EV uses will pay. Just like we all do now.
>>
>> **I never said otherwise. It's just that fossil fueled vehicle owners
>> will pay more.
>
> And here yet again is *another* example of you stating something as if
> it's been set in stone :)

**Follow the logic:

* A fossil fuel tax (aka: carbon tax) has been proven to be the most
efficient way to reduce CO2 emissions.
* CO2 emissions MUST be reduced by every nation.
* Failure to reduce CO2 emissions by a nation will likely result in
penalties against that nation.

>
>
>>>
>>> Californian vehicle law relates to California, and *only* California.
>>
>> **Which the rest of the US, inevitably, follows.
>
> No, it does not Trevor.

**Sure it does.

>
> As I mentioned, California has has it's own "smog laws" in place since
> the 1970's which apply to California and nowhere else. The rest of the
> country has *not* followed their lead to any significant degree.

**Really? Can you buy a petrol car in the US which doesn't have a
catalytic convertor fitted?
Can you buy a petrol car in the US, where the fuel filling system is not
designed to deal with fugitive emissions?
Can you buy a petrol car in the US that doesn't run on ULP?

New cars, of course.

>
>>> They have had their own laws relating to vehicle emissions since the
>>> 1970's which have never applied in other states, and a great many
>>> after-market parts come with a label affixed which states "Not legal
>>> for highway use in California". Similarly, US manufacturers have made
>>> "California specific" variants of their models for years which they
>>> need to do to meet the requirements.
>>>
>>> The rest of the US does *not* follow close behind California at all,
>>> and you are simply making this shit up :)
>>
>> **No. It's fact. The other states will follow California.
>
> ROTFL :)
>
> Something that is *yet* to happen is *not* a fact :)

**True enough, but as night follows day, the other states will follow
Cal. California is the largest car market in the US. Car manufacturers
will build cars for California. Other states will buy those cars.

>
>
>>>> The latest IPCC report tells us that shutting down all fossil fuel
>>>> industries is absolutely imperative. We have very little time to act
>>>> to save your grandkids from suffering through 60 Degree C Summer
>>>> heatwaves.
>>>
>>> Weren't they telling us in the 1980's that if we didn't do something
>>> to solve the emissions crisis we'd all be dead by the year 2000?
>>
>> **No. That was solely in your own imagination. If you feel the IPCC
>> made any such claim, present your evidence.
>>
>> I won't hold my breath.
>
> Sorry Trevor, but by "they" I meant people making "climate predictions".

**It was clear, by your inclusion of the IPCC, that you inferred the
IPCC made such nonsensical predictions. Your back pedal is noted.

> I'm not sure that the IPCC actually existed in the 1980's, did they?

**The IPCC was formed in 1988. And the IPCC NEVER claimed we would all
be dead by 2000. In fact, I am unaware of any climate scientist making
such a claim.

>
> You like to read. This will amuse you :)
>
>> https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

On 4/09/2021 3:23 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 4/9/21 1:16 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 4/09/2021 12:06 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 4/09/2021 9:32 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 3/09/2021 11:20 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> EV's still have suspension, steering, brakes driveshafts, wheels
>>>>> and tyres, body parts etc etc that still need to be maintained so
>>>>> whist they may need less maintenance on their power plants there
>>>>> will still be servicing costs especially as they get older and I
>>>>> would expect that servicing costs will go up because business's
>>>>> that service EV's will be more specialised so they will charge
>>>>> accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> Suspension, steering, brakes driveshafts, wheels and tyres, body
>>>> parts etc etc will only need to be services as they always have
>>>> been, there is no reason to expect that would cost more. Anyway they
>>>> represent only a small fraction of maintenance costs. Actually brake
>>>> maintenance should be cheaper since, with electric transmission, you
>>>> get dynamic braking which can also be used to increase efficiency
>>>> even further.
>>>
>>> Don't kid yourself about this. The vehicle service industry is a
>>> significant part of the automotive world, and if we all moved to
>>> electric cars tomorrow the service industry would *not* lie down and
>>> take a massive pay cut :)
>>>
>>> You can comfortably bet *both* your balls that manufacturers will
>>> introduce service schedules that make the maintenance costs of
>>> electric vehicles to be just as expensive as ICE powered ones. They
>>> would *have* to, as dealership networks simply won't survive without
>>> doing so.
>>
>> I don't know about the fuel cells, but there is nothing to service on
>> the electric motors, the control electronics either works or it
>> doesn't so there is nothing to maintain there. The running gear will
>> need very little work just as it does today. There is no reason that
>> service intervals could not be 50000km or more, probably the tyres
>> would wear out first.
>
> Electric motors have bearings which can and will wear out, how often
> will depend on firstly how good the OE bearings are and secondly on the
> conditions they operate in, if they are constantly running hot they will
> wear out earlier than expected.
> Car makers exist to make a profit so they won't always fit the highest
> quality to save cost so don't expect electric motor bearings to last
> forever.
> It would be possible to make electric motors and other drive line parts
> last a very long time but that would cost extra so its not likely to
> happen plus if they start lasting too long the car makers would be
> putting themselves out of business.
> There are also moving parts related to the controllers such as the
> accelerator pedals/switches, they can and will fail, how often will
> depend on the quality of the OE parts installed.
>
When was the last time you had an accelerator pedal wear out? That's
something that I've never experienced in 63 years of driving.

On 4/09/2021 3:39 pm, Daryl wrote:

>
> My guess is that the current larger car makers will survive and push the
> newcomers such as Tesla out, simply because they have far more
> expertise, resources and experience building vehicles and generally do a
> better job.
> Tesla is known for poor quality and being American I can't see that
> changing anytime soon.

**Don't be too sure about that. I thought the same as you a couple of
years back. I assumed that once VW and Toyota went for EVs, that Tesla
would die, for the same reasons yous stated. However, I make a couple of
points:

* Tesla have gone from strength to strength.
* Tesla own their own battery facilities.
* Tesla have their own factory in China (the largest market).
* One of my customers called in 2 weeks ago with his Model 3. He asked
me if I liked his new Tesla. I told him that I had already seen in a few
months back. "Not this one." He said. "This is a new one." He went on to
explain that he was offered a good price for his old, US built, Model 3,
so he went out and bought a new, top of the line, Model 3. It's quicker
and better built compared to the old model (it's also quicker than his
Ferrari). It's also built in China. He was mightily impressed with the
fit and finish of the car. As was I. As good as a Lexus? maybe. Better
than my Subaru or a Merc? Absolutely.

I am still on the fence about the future of Tesla, but I wouldn't write
them off just yet.

If only the Model 3 came in a station wagon format......

Maybe the Model Y is worth a look.

On 5/09/2021 8:41 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 4/09/2021 5:53 pm, Noddy wrote:

>>> **The rather copious amounts of stuff I read on the topic. How much
>>> research have you done?
>>
>> I don't need to research. I get all my goss straight from you :)
>
> **You SHOULD do research. You might learn something.

Why? If you're an example of someone who has researched the topic well
then I would have to say "thanks, but no thanks", and the reason for
that should be obvious. Your "research" is nothing other than the
opinions of people who like to fire up their crystal balls and make
predictions.

Like the brilliant bit of "research" commented about recently where
price parity between ICE and EV's was predicted within a few years.

I actually blew a snot bubble out of my nose when I read that :)

>> We live in a very sparsely populated but geographically large Western
>> developed nation with a small population and antiquated facilities.
>
> **And 90% of us live in/near major cities on the coast.

Actually Trevor, no we don't.

According to a 2018 Australian Government Health and Welfare report*,
around 29% of the population, or 7 million people, live in rural or
remote areas. That's 7 million people for whom an EV will be about as
useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle

* >
https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/0c0bc98b-5e4d-4826-af7f-b300731fb447/aihw-aus-221-chapter-5-2.pdf.aspx

--

>>> **Umm, no. I am basing my comments on what is highly likely to occur
>>> in the next few years.
>>
>> Yeah. Based on the simplistic bullshit you read on the internet.
>
> **At least I read. You should do likewise.

I read all the time Trev. I just prefer not to waste my time reading the
type of hyperbole that you seem to enjoy.

>>> **Fuck yeah. I watched Shell re-build the local servo. Took 'em
>>> almost 2 years. 5 huge tanks, an array of pumps, lots of concrete and
>>> all the rest. BIG job.
>>
>> 2 years? What, did it have a hidden nuclear reactor that needed to be
>> decommissioned or something?
>
> **Nope. Leaking fuel tank. Remediation of the three adjoining properties
> (which Shell purchased) is on-going.

Well that's unfortunate, but that hardly qualifies as an example of a
typical service station construction which was what you were talking
about. As I mentioned, it took Shell 4 months to build a brand new servo
in Bacchus Marsh. That ain't a long time. It took 6 months to build my
house.

>> You may read lots, but you seem to assume that everything you read is
>> factual just because it exists somewhere. I would imagine a shit-tonne
>> of what you read is nothing other than opinion and editorial.
>
> **You assume that I assume everything I read is factual. That is not the
> case.

It certainly seems to be. You seem quite convinced that an EV will be
the *only* vehicle anyone will be able to buy in this country within "a
few years" where there has been nothing from anyone to confirm that that
is actually going to be the case.

Nothing.

What you seem to do is what a lot of fanatics do in that you'll read
about something that you already have a preconceived idea about, and
when you find something in the story that you agree with suddenly the
entire theory becomes true.

You do this *all* the time.

>>> **More likely the gummint will introduce a tax on ALL vehicles,
>>> dependent on kms travelled.
>>
>> They may do. Only time will tell.
>
> **You can put money on it, unless some kind of new technology is
> introduced.

I have no doubt there will be taxes, and I said that earlier. As to how
they're collected remains to be seen.

>>   The Australian Government earns close to 12
>>>> billion in fuel excises every year, and if you think they're going
>>>> to happily wave goodbye to that as people move to EV's you're
>>>> completely out of your bloody tree.
>>>>
>>>> EV uses will pay. Just like we all do now.
>>>
>>> **I never said otherwise. It's just that fossil fueled vehicle owners
>>> will pay more.
>>
>> And here yet again is *another* example of you stating something as if
>> it's been set in stone :)
>
> **Follow the logic:
>
> * A fossil fuel tax (aka: carbon tax) has been proven to be the most
> efficient way to reduce CO2 emissions.
> * CO2 emissions MUST be reduced by every nation.
> * Failure to reduce CO2 emissions by a nation will likely result in
> penalties against that nation.

Sorry, but that's "Trevor Logic". It makes sense to *you*, but to
everyone else it seems ridiculous :)

>> As I mentioned, California has has it's own "smog laws" in place since
>> the 1970's which apply to California and nowhere else. The rest of the
>> country has *not* followed their lead to any significant degree.
>
> **Really? Can you buy a petrol car in the US which doesn't have a
> catalytic convertor fitted?
> Can you buy a petrol car in the US, where the fuel filling system is not
> designed to deal with fugitive emissions?
> Can you buy a petrol car in the US that doesn't run on ULP?
>
> New cars, of course.

You understand that those requirements were introduced by the Federal
government, right?

>> Something that is *yet* to happen is *not* a fact :)
>
> **True enough, but as night follows day, the other states will follow
> Cal. California is the largest car market in the US. Car manufacturers
> will build cars for California. Other states will buy those cars.

And yet, for what must be 30 years all of the US manufacturers made
"California Specific" variants that weren't available in other states.

Amazing.

>> Sorry Trevor, but by "they" I meant people making "climate predictions".
>
> **It was clear, by your inclusion of the IPCC, that you inferred the
> IPCC made such nonsensical predictions. Your back pedal is noted.

ROTFL :)

>> I'm not sure that the IPCC actually existed in the 1980's, did they?
>
> **The IPCC was formed in 1988. And the IPCC NEVER claimed we would all
> be dead by 2000. In fact, I am unaware of any climate scientist making
> such a claim.

Oh, right. So, because you're unaware it never happened. No problem I
guess, as if you were you would just dismiss them as a crank.

You tend to do that with opinions you don't agree with :)

> The IPCC predictions are not as clear cut. If you ever took the time to
> read them, you would realise that the IPCC models a wide range of
> variables, to provide several different possible outcomes.

And yet you chant their mantra as if it was a certainty.

You're strange.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 5/09/2021 9:07 am, keithr0 wrote:
> On 4/09/2021 3:23 pm, Daryl wrote:

>> It would be possible to make electric motors and other drive line
>> parts last a very long time but that would cost extra so its not
>> likely to happen plus if they start lasting too long the car makers
>> would be putting themselves out of business.
>> There are also moving parts related to the controllers such as the
>> accelerator pedals/switches, they can and will fail, how often will
>> depend on the quality of the OE parts installed.
>>
> When was the last time you had an accelerator pedal wear out? That's
> something that I've never experienced in 63 years of driving.

Older style pedal assemblies that are noting other than a bent piece of
metal rod that pulls on a cable? Not very often although I have had to
rebush a couple over the years when the hole in their bracket gets
elongated.

Modern "drive by wire" assemblies can be as unreliable as anything else.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 4/09/2021 5:55 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 4/09/2021 4:42 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 3/09/2021 8:03 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> **You won't win that argument. Nods likes noisy, grossly inefficient
>>>> vehicles. Quiet, fast, fuel efficient vehicles are no use to him.
>>>
>>> Jesus you can talk some utter shit at times Trevor.
>>
>> **I'll try to be honest and straightforward like you always are.
>
> Good choice. It would go some way to giving your arguments some
> credibility.
>
>>> I like *lots* of different vehicles and for lots of different
>>> reasons. I don't go out of my way to like a vehicle just because it's
>>> horribly inefficient any more than I do to hate a vehicle that is as
>>> efficient as it can possibly be. Efficiency has never been a major
>>> concern of mine as far as vehicles go, but just to counter your
>>> bullshit with some reality I actually own vehicles that are good
>>> examples of *both* ends of the spectrum.
>>>
>>>> H2  makes some sense for a fuel cell vehicle, but no sense for an IC
>>>> engined one. As you say, it will be grossly inefficient on many levels.
>>>
>>> And yet here are companies like Deutz, Cummins and Toyota putting
>>> money into the idea. Maybe they should have just asked you to begin
>>> with and saved all that coin.
>>
>> **They can draw their own conclusions. There is some logic in using H2
>> for prime movers, but almost no sense for passenger vehicles.
>
> It's being researched as we speak, and we will know soon enough.

Provided that fuel cells powerful enough can be economically produced,
trucking would be a prime market. Truck owners do care about efficiency
and long maintenance periods since they directly impact their bottom line.

The torque curve of electric transmission is a much better fit for heavy
vehicles than IC engine plus gear box systems. Also, with electric
transmission, it would be practical to drive all the wheels on a semi,
and that would seem to be something of an advantage.

The whole argument on IC vs electric seems to be the same as the one
that horse owners put up against steam engines and steam engine owners
put up against IC engines - fear of change.