WTF?
The Swiss get a lot of their power from GREEN HYDRO, but unfortunately
that is seasonal, and is less this time of year. So they have to import
electrons from other cuntries, generated from fossil fuels, and that is
struggling due to war in the Ukraine. So a raft of power-rationing
measures are coming in.
Well anything that shows up both the tree-huggers and Elon Mush makes me
chuckle.

On 10/12/2022 11:56 am, Allan Pease wrote:
> WTF?
> The Swiss get a lot of their power from GREEN HYDRO, but unfortunately
> that is seasonal, and is less this time of year. So they have to import
> electrons from other cuntries, generated from fossil fuels, and that is
> struggling due to war in the Ukraine. So a raft of power-rationing
> measures are coming in.
> Well anything that shows up both the tree-huggers and Elon Mush makes me
> chuckle.
>
Something like that was always going to happen especially when you
increase demand and not supply.
I haven't checked if its true but I read somewhere a while ago that in
the UK they banned charging of EV's in peak times, seems their power
grid couldn't keep up.

--
Daryl

On 10-Dec-22 2:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 10/12/2022 11:56 am, Allan Pease wrote:
>> WTF?
>> The Swiss get a lot of their power from GREEN HYDRO, but unfortunately
>> that is seasonal, and is less this time of year. So they have to
>> import electrons from other cuntries, generated from fossil fuels, and
>> that is struggling due to war in the Ukraine. So a raft of
>> power-rationing measures are coming in.
>> Well anything that shows up both the tree-huggers and Elon Mush makes
>> me chuckle.
>>
> Something like that was always going to happen especially when you
> increase demand and not supply.
> I haven't checked if its true but I read somewhere a while ago that in
> the UK they banned charging of EV's in peak times, seems their power
> grid couldn't keep up.
>

If I owned an EV, I'd almost certainly be charging it overnight on
relatively low cost off-peak electricity, which is predominantly
generated from coal.

Until and unless we have the infrastructure that allows EVs to be
charged overnight on non-fossil fuel generated electricity (and not the
offset nonsense which doesn't scale), the greenness of EV's is largely
illusory.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 10-Dec-22 2:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 10/12/2022 11:56 am, Allan Pease wrote:
>>> WTF?
>>> The Swiss get a lot of their power from GREEN HYDRO, but
>>> unfortunately that is seasonal, and is less this time of year. So
>>> they have to import electrons from other cuntries, generated from
>>> fossil fuels, and that is struggling due to war in the Ukraine. So a
>>> raft of power-rationing measures are coming in.
>>> Well anything that shows up both the tree-huggers and Elon Mush
>>> makes me chuckle.
>>>
>> Something like that was always going to happen especially when you
>> increase demand and not supply.
>> I haven't checked if its true but I read somewhere a while ago that
>> in the UK they banned charging of EV's in peak times, seems their
>> power grid couldn't keep up.
>>
>
> If I owned an EV, I'd almost certainly be charging it overnight on
> relatively low cost off-peak electricity, which is predominantly
> generated from coal.
>
> Until and unless we have the infrastructure that allows EVs to be
> charged overnight on non-fossil fuel generated electricity (and not
> the offset nonsense which doesn't scale), the greenness of EV's is
> largely illusory.

The DLP went to the recent Victorian State election with one of their
policies being to build three high tech low emission coal fired power
stations, a practical solution that would provide ample cheap power for
our State and the rest of the country but unfortunately current
generations don't embrace reality only ideology.

>
> Sylvia.

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

FUCK PUTIN!!

Allan Pease wrote:
> WTF?
> The Swiss get a lot of their power from GREEN HYDRO, but unfortunately
> that is seasonal, and is less this time of year. So they have to
> import electrons from other cuntries, generated from fossil fuels, and
> that is struggling due to war in the Ukraine. So a raft of
> power-rationing measures are coming in.
> Well anything that shows up both the tree-huggers and Elon Mush makes
> me chuckle.
>

https://auto.hindustantimes.com/auto/news/is-switzerland-banning-electric-vehicles-here-s-all-you-need-to-know-41670307309247.html

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

FUCK PUTIN!!

On 10/12/2022 12:20 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 10-Dec-22 2:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 10/12/2022 11:56 am, Allan Pease wrote:
>>> WTF?
>>> The Swiss get a lot of their power from GREEN HYDRO, but
>>> unfortunately that is seasonal, and is less this time of year. So
>>> they have to import electrons from other cuntries, generated from
>>> fossil fuels, and that is struggling due to war in the Ukraine. So a
>>> raft of power-rationing measures are coming in.
>>> Well anything that shows up both the tree-huggers and Elon Mush makes
>>> me chuckle.
>>>
>> Something like that was always going to happen especially when you
>> increase demand and not supply.
>> I haven't checked if its true but I read somewhere a while ago that in
>> the UK they banned charging of EV's in peak times, seems their power
>> grid couldn't keep up.
>>
>
> If I owned an EV, I'd almost certainly be charging it overnight on
> relatively low cost off-peak electricity, which is predominantly
> generated from coal.
>
> Until and unless we have the infrastructure that allows EVs to be
> charged overnight on non-fossil fuel generated electricity (and not the
> offset nonsense which doesn't scale), the greenness of EV's is largely
> illusory.
>

Completely illusory. Currently there is nothing green about EV's aside
from the lack of emissions. Factor in everything else to produce the
vehicles and power to keep an EV on the road and the 'green' argument
falls over completely.

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On 10/12/2022 3:20 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 10-Dec-22 2:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 10/12/2022 11:56 am, Allan Pease wrote:
>>> WTF?
>>> The Swiss get a lot of their power from GREEN HYDRO, but
>>> unfortunately that is seasonal, and is less this time of year. So
>>> they have to import electrons from other cuntries, generated from
>>> fossil fuels, and that is struggling due to war in the Ukraine. So a
>>> raft of power-rationing measures are coming in.
>>> Well anything that shows up both the tree-huggers and Elon Mush makes
>>> me chuckle.
>>>
>> Something like that was always going to happen especially when you
>> increase demand and not supply.
>> I haven't checked if its true but I read somewhere a while ago that in
>> the UK they banned charging of EV's in peak times, seems their power
>> grid couldn't keep up.
>>
>
> If I owned an EV, I'd almost certainly be charging it overnight on
> relatively low cost off-peak electricity, which is predominantly
> generated from coal.

I'd be charging an EV from my solar, plenty of excess capacity here.
A friend who owns a Tesla suggested I should buy an EV to save on petrol
since I export so much power from the solar but it makes no economic
sense, you can buy a huge amount of petrol for the changeover cost of an EV.

>
> Until and unless we have the infrastructure that allows EVs to be
> charged overnight on non-fossil fuel generated electricity (and not the
> offset nonsense which doesn't scale), the greenness of EV's is largely
> illusory.

Agree, that might change in the future but its certainly not "green" at
the moment.

>
> Sylvia.

--
Daryl

On 10/12/2022 4:29 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 10/12/2022 12:20 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 10-Dec-22 2:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2022 11:56 am, Allan Pease wrote:
>>>> WTF?
>>>> The Swiss get a lot of their power from GREEN HYDRO, but
>>>> unfortunately that is seasonal, and is less this time of year. So
>>>> they have to import electrons from other cuntries, generated from
>>>> fossil fuels, and that is struggling due to war in the Ukraine. So a
>>>> raft of power-rationing measures are coming in.
>>>> Well anything that shows up both the tree-huggers and Elon Mush
>>>> makes me chuckle.
>>>>
>>> Something like that was always going to happen especially when you
>>> increase demand and not supply.
>>> I haven't checked if its true but I read somewhere a while ago that
>>> in the UK they banned charging of EV's in peak times, seems their
>>> power grid couldn't keep up.
>>>
>>
>> If I owned an EV, I'd almost certainly be charging it overnight on
>> relatively low cost off-peak electricity, which is predominantly
>> generated from coal.
>>
>> Until and unless we have the infrastructure that allows EVs to be
>> charged overnight on non-fossil fuel generated electricity (and not
>> the offset nonsense which doesn't scale), the greenness of EV's is
>> largely illusory.
>>
>
> Completely illusory. Currently there is nothing green about EV's aside
> from the lack of emissions. Factor in everything else to produce the
> vehicles and power to keep an EV on the road and the 'green' argument
> falls over completely.

So, why is an EV "Less green" to build and keep on the road?

On 12/12/2022 9:00 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 10/12/2022 4:29 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> On 10/12/2022 12:20 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 10-Dec-22 2:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2022 11:56 am, Allan Pease wrote:
>>>>> WTF?
>>>>> The Swiss get a lot of their power from GREEN HYDRO, but
>>>>> unfortunately that is seasonal, and is less this time of year. So
>>>>> they have to import electrons from other cuntries, generated from
>>>>> fossil fuels, and that is struggling due to war in the Ukraine. So
>>>>> a raft of power-rationing measures are coming in.
>>>>> Well anything that shows up both the tree-huggers and Elon Mush
>>>>> makes me chuckle.
>>>>>
>>>> Something like that was always going to happen especially when you
>>>> increase demand and not supply.
>>>> I haven't checked if its true but I read somewhere a while ago that
>>>> in the UK they banned charging of EV's in peak times, seems their
>>>> power grid couldn't keep up.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If I owned an EV, I'd almost certainly be charging it overnight on
>>> relatively low cost off-peak electricity, which is predominantly
>>> generated from coal.
>>>
>>> Until and unless we have the infrastructure that allows EVs to be
>>> charged overnight on non-fossil fuel generated electricity (and not
>>> the offset nonsense which doesn't scale), the greenness of EV's is
>>> largely illusory.
>>>
>>
>> Completely illusory. Currently there is nothing green about EV's aside
>> from the lack of emissions. Factor in everything else to produce the
>> vehicles and power to keep an EV on the road and the 'green' argument
>> falls over completely.
>
> So, why is an EV "Less green" to build and keep on the road?
>
Good question, I recently watched a video where someone (you tuber
called WatchJRgo) in the US purchased a 2013 Tesla Model S for US$7000
because it had major faults, battery was faulty as was the main drive
unit (coolant seals had leaked damaging the motor) and he discovered
that it would of cost a lot more than it was worth to repair it so a
very expensive car was junk after 9yrs.
The point is that if every car was junk after just 9yrs that means a lot
more cars need to be made which uses a lot of resources which is a
factor that needs to be considered.
Many of us drive cars much older than 9 yrs and whilst they emit much
more than an EV their life is more than double an EV's.

--
Daryl

On 13/12/2022 7:58 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 12/12/2022 9:00 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 10/12/2022 4:29 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2022 12:20 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 10-Dec-22 2:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>>> On 10/12/2022 11:56 am, Allan Pease wrote:
>>>>>> WTF?
>>>>>> The Swiss get a lot of their power from GREEN HYDRO, but
>>>>>> unfortunately that is seasonal, and is less this time of year. So
>>>>>> they have to import electrons from other cuntries, generated from
>>>>>> fossil fuels, and that is struggling due to war in the Ukraine. So
>>>>>> a raft of power-rationing measures are coming in.
>>>>>> Well anything that shows up both the tree-huggers and Elon Mush
>>>>>> makes me chuckle.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Something like that was always going to happen especially when you
>>>>> increase demand and not supply.
>>>>> I haven't checked if its true but I read somewhere a while ago that
>>>>> in the UK they banned charging of EV's in peak times, seems their
>>>>> power grid couldn't keep up.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I owned an EV, I'd almost certainly be charging it overnight on
>>>> relatively low cost off-peak electricity, which is predominantly
>>>> generated from coal.
>>>>
>>>> Until and unless we have the infrastructure that allows EVs to be
>>>> charged overnight on non-fossil fuel generated electricity (and not
>>>> the offset nonsense which doesn't scale), the greenness of EV's is
>>>> largely illusory.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Completely illusory. Currently there is nothing green about EV's
>>> aside from the lack of emissions. Factor in everything else to
>>> produce the vehicles and power to keep an EV on the road and the
>>> 'green' argument falls over completely.
>>
>> So, why is an EV "Less green" to build and keep on the road?
>>
> Good question, I recently watched a video where someone (you tuber
> called WatchJRgo) in the US purchased a 2013 Tesla Model S for US$7000
> because it had major faults, battery was faulty as was the main drive
> unit (coolant seals had leaked damaging the motor) and he discovered
> that it would of cost a lot more than it was worth to repair it so a
> very expensive car was junk after 9yrs.
> The point is that if every car was junk after just 9yrs that means a lot
> more cars need to be made which uses a lot of resources which is a
> factor that needs to be considered.
> Many of us drive cars much older than 9 yrs and whilst they emit much
> more than an EV their life is more than double an EV's.
>
That's now and that's Tesla, they are a premium brand charging
outrageous prices. At present there isn't a critical mass of EVs to make
it worthwhile setting up a 3rd party battery manufacture/repair
organisation, but that day will likely come, and refurbished batteries
will become available.

There are a lot less parts to manufacture in an EV so the car itself
should be cheaper to build and use less resources in its construction.
At present of course the battery is the problem, but economies of scale,
battery repair, and recycling should bring the cost and environmental
impact down.

As for the impact of charging them, in clockys homeland they generate so
much power from wind and sun that, on windy sunny days, they actually
pay consumers to use power and there are a lot of EVs there. You just
adapt the grid to meet the needs, I suspect that, on a hot afternoon,
the load imposed by millions of air conditioners would exceed that of
EVs charging.

On 13/12/2022 10:31 am, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 13/12/2022 7:58 am, Daryl wrote:

>> Good question, I recently watched a video where someone (you tuber
>> called WatchJRgo) in the US purchased a 2013 Tesla Model S for US$7000
>> because it had major faults, battery was faulty as was the main drive
>> unit (coolant seals had leaked damaging the motor) and he discovered
>> that it would of cost a lot more than it was worth to repair it so a
>> very expensive car was junk after 9yrs.
>> The point is that if every car was junk after just 9yrs that means a
>> lot more cars need to be made which uses a lot of resources which is a
>> factor that needs to be considered.
>> Many of us drive cars much older than 9 yrs and whilst they emit much
>> more than an EV their life is more than double an EV's.
>>
> That's now and that's Tesla, they are a premium brand charging
> outrageous prices.

They are indeed, but then no one markets an EV that could be considered
"cheap" when compared to a similar ICE powered car.

At present there isn't a critical mass of EVs to make
> it worthwhile setting up a 3rd party battery manufacture/repair
> organisation, but that day will likely come, and refurbished batteries
> will become available.

Possibly, but that's the Trevor Wilson approach to problem solving:
Factoring in solutions that don't yet exist. The reality is that
batteries *may* get cheaper in the future, and they *may not*. At this
point in time, no one can say with certainty.

> There are a lot less parts to manufacture in an EV so the car itself
> should be cheaper to build and use less resources in its construction.
> At present of course the battery is the problem, but economies of scale,
> battery repair, and recycling should bring the cost and environmental
> impact down.

Again, massive assumption based on nothing other than what you *want* to
happen. The biggest "environmental impact" concerned with EV's is
manufacturing the batteries as far as I'm aware, and regardless of how
much you upscale the production numbers that aspect is always going to
remain "dirty". Not unless they move to some new "clean" battery
manufacturing process and so far there's nothing on the horizon to make
that possible.

> As for the impact of charging them, in clockys homeland they generate so
> much power from wind and sun that, on windy sunny days, they actually
> pay consumers to use power and there are a lot of EVs there.

That's nice, but I'm not sure how that's relevant to anyone here.

> You just adapt the grid to meet the needs,

Nothing like a bit of overly simplistic problem solving, huh? :)

> I suspect that, on a hot afternoon, the load imposed by millions of air conditioners would exceed that of
> EVs charging.

And how do you arrive at that conclusion?

Tesla advises that when using a standard 10amp 2.3kW power outlet in
Australia it would take 32 hours to fully charge a model 3 battery from
flat, and regardless of battery charge state every hour of home charging
will add 15km to the vehicle's range. That's a shit-tonne of power to
recharge an EV, and far more than what the average person would be
likely to use their household air conditioner in one sitting.

However, you're missing the point. Whether charging your EV consumes
more or less power than an afternoon's worth of household air
conditioner use is completely irrelevant as EV owners wouldn't be doing
it place of running their air conditioners. They'd be doing it in
*addition* to running them.

And therein lies the problem.

The grid system in this country, and particularly in Victoria, is such
that it can barely cope with the load imposed on it now and power
companies have to resort to offering incentives to get people to turn
off heavy consumption items like air conditioners in summer to preserve
the supply integrity and avoid brownouts. Adding a fleet of plug in EV's
to the grid is only ever going to make matters worse, and while calls of
"update the grid" are a nice simplistic way of dealing with the problem
it is *not* a simple solution that can be implemented in a reasonable
amount of time or at an affordable cost.

There is no easy solution here. Plug in EV's are going to cause *far*
more problems than they solve for some time in this country.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 13/12/2022 10:31 am, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 13/12/2022 7:58 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 12/12/2022 9:00 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2022 4:29 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2022 12:20 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> On 10-Dec-22 2:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 11:56 am, Allan Pease wrote:
>>>>>>> WTF?
>>>>>>> The Swiss get a lot of their power from GREEN HYDRO, but
>>>>>>> unfortunately that is seasonal, and is less this time of year. So
>>>>>>> they have to import electrons from other cuntries, generated from
>>>>>>> fossil fuels, and that is struggling due to war in the Ukraine.
>>>>>>> So a raft of power-rationing measures are coming in.
>>>>>>> Well anything that shows up both the tree-huggers and Elon Mush
>>>>>>> makes me chuckle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Something like that was always going to happen especially when you
>>>>>> increase demand and not supply.
>>>>>> I haven't checked if its true but I read somewhere a while ago
>>>>>> that in the UK they banned charging of EV's in peak times, seems
>>>>>> their power grid couldn't keep up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If I owned an EV, I'd almost certainly be charging it overnight on
>>>>> relatively low cost off-peak electricity, which is predominantly
>>>>> generated from coal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Until and unless we have the infrastructure that allows EVs to be
>>>>> charged overnight on non-fossil fuel generated electricity (and not
>>>>> the offset nonsense which doesn't scale), the greenness of EV's is
>>>>> largely illusory.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Completely illusory. Currently there is nothing green about EV's
>>>> aside from the lack of emissions. Factor in everything else to
>>>> produce the vehicles and power to keep an EV on the road and the
>>>> 'green' argument falls over completely.
>>>
>>> So, why is an EV "Less green" to build and keep on the road?
>>>
>> Good question, I recently watched a video where someone (you tuber
>> called WatchJRgo) in the US purchased a 2013 Tesla Model S for US$7000
>> because it had major faults, battery was faulty as was the main drive
>> unit (coolant seals had leaked damaging the motor) and he discovered
>> that it would of cost a lot more than it was worth to repair it so a
>> very expensive car was junk after 9yrs.
>> The point is that if every car was junk after just 9yrs that means a
>> lot more cars need to be made which uses a lot of resources which is a
>> factor that needs to be considered.
>> Many of us drive cars much older than 9 yrs and whilst they emit much
>> more than an EV their life is more than double an EV's.
>>
> That's now and that's Tesla, they are a premium brand charging
> outrageous prices.

No doubt about that but over time it will be interesting to see if other
EV makes last any better.

At present there isn't a critical mass of EVs to make
> it worthwhile setting up a 3rd party battery manufacture/repair
> organisation, but that day will likely come, and refurbished batteries
> will become available.

I think that that is happening now but on a small scale.
>
> There are a lot less parts to manufacture in an EV so the car itself
> should be cheaper to build and use less resources in its construction.

Only if you don't include the battery.
Problem is late model EV's are fairly complex devices and when they fail
and they do (I subscribe to an international car technicians forum and
there are lots of repair questions about EV's and hybrids) they are
going to be expensive to repair.

> At present of course the battery is the problem, but economies of scale,
> battery repair, and recycling should bring the cost and environmental
> impact down.
>
> As for the impact of charging them, in clockys homeland they generate so
> much power from wind and sun that, on windy sunny days, they actually
> pay consumers to use power and there are a lot of EVs there. You just
> adapt the grid to meet the needs, I suspect that, on a hot afternoon,
> the load imposed by millions of air conditioners would exceed that of
> EVs charging.

Eventually it will all sort itself out but there are certainly problems
at the moment.

--
Daryl

On 13/12/2022 8:58 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 12/12/2022 9:00 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 10/12/2022 4:29 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2022 12:20 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 10-Dec-22 2:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>>> On 10/12/2022 11:56 am, Allan Pease wrote:
>>>>>> WTF?
>>>>>> The Swiss get a lot of their power from GREEN HYDRO, but
>>>>>> unfortunately that is seasonal, and is less this time of year. So
>>>>>> they have to import electrons from other cuntries, generated from
>>>>>> fossil fuels, and that is struggling due to war in the Ukraine. So
>>>>>> a raft of power-rationing measures are coming in.
>>>>>> Well anything that shows up both the tree-huggers and Elon Mush
>>>>>> makes me chuckle.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Something like that was always going to happen especially when you
>>>>> increase demand and not supply.
>>>>> I haven't checked if its true but I read somewhere a while ago that
>>>>> in the UK they banned charging of EV's in peak times, seems their
>>>>> power grid couldn't keep up.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I owned an EV, I'd almost certainly be charging it overnight on
>>>> relatively low cost off-peak electricity, which is predominantly
>>>> generated from coal.
>>>>
>>>> Until and unless we have the infrastructure that allows EVs to be
>>>> charged overnight on non-fossil fuel generated electricity (and not
>>>> the offset nonsense which doesn't scale), the greenness of EV's is
>>>> largely illusory.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Completely illusory. Currently there is nothing green about EV's
>>> aside from the lack of emissions. Factor in everything else to
>>> produce the vehicles and power to keep an EV on the road and the
>>> 'green' argument falls over completely.
>>
>> So, why is an EV "Less green" to build and keep on the road?
>>
> Good question, I recently watched a video where someone (you tuber
> called WatchJRgo) in the US purchased a 2013 Tesla Model S for US$7000
> because it had major faults, battery was faulty as was the main drive
> unit (coolant seals had leaked damaging the motor) and he discovered
> that it would of cost a lot more than it was worth to repair it so a
> very expensive car was junk after 9yrs.
> The point is that if every car was junk after just 9yrs that means a lot
> more cars need to be made which uses a lot of resources which is a
> factor that needs to be considered.

Cars, of all types, have a *design life* of 10 years. After that, they
get very much more expensive to run (unless it's a Toyota).

> Many of us drive cars much older than 9 yrs and whilst they emit much

You mean those of us who make poor business/life choices - like you?

> more than an EV their life is more than double an EV's. >
The EV platform, with the exception of the batteries, has an
exceptionally long life. Unfortunately the cost of replacement batteries
at the 10 year mark, when the vehicle has reached its depreciation
nadir, renders the battery purchase cost uneconomic. That may change
when battery leasing becomes an option more generally, ie. buy the car
but lease the batteries.

--
Xeno

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

On 13/12/2022 7:31 am, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 13/12/2022 7:58 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 12/12/2022 9:00 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2022 4:29 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2022 12:20 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> On 10-Dec-22 2:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 11:56 am, Allan Pease wrote:
>>>>>>> WTF?
>>>>>>> The Swiss get a lot of their power from GREEN HYDRO, but
>>>>>>> unfortunately that is seasonal, and is less this time of year. So
>>>>>>> they have to import electrons from other cuntries, generated from
>>>>>>> fossil fuels, and that is struggling due to war in the Ukraine.
>>>>>>> So a raft of power-rationing measures are coming in.
>>>>>>> Well anything that shows up both the tree-huggers and Elon Mush
>>>>>>> makes me chuckle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Something like that was always going to happen especially when you
>>>>>> increase demand and not supply.
>>>>>> I haven't checked if its true but I read somewhere a while ago
>>>>>> that in the UK they banned charging of EV's in peak times, seems
>>>>>> their power grid couldn't keep up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If I owned an EV, I'd almost certainly be charging it overnight on
>>>>> relatively low cost off-peak electricity, which is predominantly
>>>>> generated from coal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Until and unless we have the infrastructure that allows EVs to be
>>>>> charged overnight on non-fossil fuel generated electricity (and not
>>>>> the offset nonsense which doesn't scale), the greenness of EV's is
>>>>> largely illusory.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Completely illusory. Currently there is nothing green about EV's
>>>> aside from the lack of emissions. Factor in everything else to
>>>> produce the vehicles and power to keep an EV on the road and the
>>>> 'green' argument falls over completely.
>>>
>>> So, why is an EV "Less green" to build and keep on the road?
>>>
>> Good question, I recently watched a video where someone (you tuber
>> called WatchJRgo) in the US purchased a 2013 Tesla Model S for US$7000
>> because it had major faults, battery was faulty as was the main drive
>> unit (coolant seals had leaked damaging the motor) and he discovered
>> that it would of cost a lot more than it was worth to repair it so a
>> very expensive car was junk after 9yrs.
>> The point is that if every car was junk after just 9yrs that means a
>> lot more cars need to be made which uses a lot of resources which is a
>> factor that needs to be considered.
>> Many of us drive cars much older than 9 yrs and whilst they emit much
>> more than an EV their life is more than double an EV's.
>>
> That's now and that's Tesla, they are a premium brand charging
> outrageous prices. At present there isn't a critical mass of EVs to make
> it worthwhile setting up a 3rd party battery manufacture/repair
> organisation, but that day will likely come, and refurbished batteries
> will become available.
>
> There are a lot less parts to manufacture in an EV so the car itself
> should be cheaper to build and use less resources in its construction.
> At present of course the battery is the problem, but economies of scale,
> battery repair, and recycling should bring the cost and environmental
> impact down.
>
> As for the impact of charging them, in clockys homeland they generate so
> much power from wind and sun that, on windy sunny days, they actually
> pay consumers to use power and there are a lot of EVs there. You just
> adapt the grid to meet the needs, I suspect that, on a hot afternoon,
> the load imposed by millions of air conditioners would exceed that of
> EVs charging.

The issue with your argument is that if I drive to Perth I have traveled
the length of the Netherlands plus over 100km.

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On 13/12/2022 11:26 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 13/12/2022 10:31 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 13/12/2022 7:58 am, Daryl wrote:
>
>>> Good question, I recently watched a video where someone (you tuber
>>> called WatchJRgo) in the US purchased a 2013 Tesla Model S for
>>> US$7000 because it had major faults, battery was faulty as was the
>>> main drive unit (coolant seals had leaked damaging the motor) and he
>>> discovered that it would of cost a lot more than it was worth to
>>> repair it so a very expensive car was junk after 9yrs.
>>> The point is that if every car was junk after just 9yrs that means a
>>> lot more cars need to be made which uses a lot of resources which is
>>> a factor that needs to be considered.
>>> Many of us drive cars much older than 9 yrs and whilst they emit much
>>> more than an EV their life is more than double an EV's.
>>>
>> That's now and that's Tesla, they are a premium brand charging
>> outrageous prices.
>
> They are indeed, but then no one markets an EV that could be considered
> "cheap" when compared to a similar ICE powered car.
>
>  At present there isn't a critical mass of EVs to make
>> it worthwhile setting up a 3rd party battery manufacture/repair
>> organisation, but that day will likely come, and refurbished batteries
>> will become available.
>
> Possibly, but that's the Trevor Wilson approach to problem solving:
> Factoring in solutions that don't yet exist. The reality is that
> batteries *may* get cheaper in the future, and they *may not*. At this
> point in time, no one can say with certainty.
>
>> There are a lot less parts to manufacture in an EV so the car itself
>> should be cheaper to build and use less resources in its construction.
>> At present of course the battery is the problem, but economies of
>> scale, battery repair, and recycling should bring the cost and
>> environmental impact down.
>
> Again, massive assumption based on nothing other than what you *want* to
> happen. The biggest "environmental impact" concerned with EV's is
> manufacturing the batteries as far as I'm aware, and regardless of how
> much you upscale the production numbers that aspect is always going to
> remain "dirty". Not unless they move to some new "clean" battery
> manufacturing process and so far there's nothing on the horizon to make
> that possible.
>
>> As for the impact of charging them, in clockys homeland they generate
>> so much power from wind and sun that, on windy sunny days, they
>> actually pay consumers to use power and there are a lot of EVs there.
>
> That's nice, but I'm not sure how that's relevant to anyone here.
>
>> You just adapt the grid to meet the needs,
>
> Nothing like a bit of overly simplistic problem solving, huh? :)
>
>> I suspect that, on a hot afternoon, the load imposed by millions of
>> air conditioners would exceed that of EVs charging.
>
> And how do you arrive at that conclusion?
>
> Tesla advises that when using a standard 10amp 2.3kW power outlet in
> Australia it would take 32 hours to fully charge a model 3 battery from
> flat, and regardless of battery charge state every hour of home charging
> will add 15km to the vehicle's range. That's a shit-tonne of power to
> recharge an EV, and far more than what the average person would be
> likely to use their household air conditioner in one sitting.

There's a huge flaw in your argument. Our AC unit is 2.4 kW and that is
considered *small* by anyone's standards. My mate has an 8.5 kW unit and
that really hammers his power bill. Anyway, according to your reckoning,
15 kilometres in a BEV car is equivalent (roughly) to 1 hour of my AC
use. The flaw in your argument is that most people do not do a lot of
miles on a daily basis so would only be topping off their batteries.
Take as an example a person who drives 30 km to work and 30 km back
home. 4 hours or so of topping off their BEV and it's done. If you need
a really large *fast* top up, say from nearly flat, nip down to the
nearest fast charger. For me, that's a 2.5 kilometre drive away from
here. Won't suit everyone, I know, but as demand builds, so with the
infrastructure.
>
> However, you're missing the point. Whether charging your EV consumes
> more or less power than an afternoon's worth of household air
> conditioner use is completely irrelevant as EV owners wouldn't be doing
> it place of running their air conditioners. They'd be doing it in
> *addition* to running them.
>
> And therein lies the problem.
>
> The grid system in this country, and particularly in Victoria, is such
> that it can barely cope with the load imposed on it now and power
> companies have to resort to offering incentives to get people to turn
> off heavy consumption items like air conditioners in summer to preserve
> the supply integrity and avoid brownouts. Adding a fleet of plug in EV's
> to the grid is only ever going to make matters worse, and while calls of
> "update the grid" are a nice simplistic way of dealing with the problem
> it is *not* a simple solution that can be implemented in a reasonable
> amount of time or at an affordable cost.

The writing has been on the wall for years. If I recall correctly, we
the electricity subscribers were hit with a huge price hike for grid
upgrading. Back then it was for the introduction of *renewables* to the
grid. If *local* urban grids aren't coping now, then best you look to
the electricity companies - they must have lied when they said the grid
was being upgraded at *our* cost!
>
> There is no easy solution here. Plug in EV's are going to cause *far*
> more problems than they solve for some time in this country.

--
Xeno

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

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 5:58:40 PM UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
> On 13/12/2022 11:26 am, Noddy wrote:
> > On 13/12/2022 10:31 am, Keithr0 wrote:
> >> On 13/12/2022 7:58 am, Daryl wrote:
> >
> >>> Good question, I recently watched a video where someone (you tuber
> >>> called WatchJRgo) in the US purchased a 2013 Tesla Model S for
> >>> US$7000 because it had major faults, battery was faulty as was the
> >>> main drive unit (coolant seals had leaked damaging the motor) and he
> >>> discovered that it would of cost a lot more than it was worth to
> >>> repair it so a very expensive car was junk after 9yrs.
> >>> The point is that if every car was junk after just 9yrs that means a
> >>> lot more cars need to be made which uses a lot of resources which is
> >>> a factor that needs to be considered.
> >>> Many of us drive cars much older than 9 yrs and whilst they emit much
> >>> more than an EV their life is more than double an EV's.
> >>>
> >> That's now and that's Tesla, they are a premium brand charging
> >> outrageous prices.
> >
> > They are indeed, but then no one markets an EV that could be considered
> > "cheap" when compared to a similar ICE powered car.
> >
> > At present there isn't a critical mass of EVs to make
> >> it worthwhile setting up a 3rd party battery manufacture/repair
> >> organisation, but that day will likely come, and refurbished batteries
> >> will become available.
> >
> > Possibly, but that's the Trevor Wilson approach to problem solving:
> > Factoring in solutions that don't yet exist. The reality is that
> > batteries *may* get cheaper in the future, and they *may not*. At this
> > point in time, no one can say with certainty.
> >
> >> There are a lot less parts to manufacture in an EV so the car itself
> >> should be cheaper to build and use less resources in its construction.
> >> At present of course the battery is the problem, but economies of
> >> scale, battery repair, and recycling should bring the cost and
> >> environmental impact down.
> >
> > Again, massive assumption based on nothing other than what you *want* to
> > happen. The biggest "environmental impact" concerned with EV's is
> > manufacturing the batteries as far as I'm aware, and regardless of how
> > much you upscale the production numbers that aspect is always going to
> > remain "dirty". Not unless they move to some new "clean" battery
> > manufacturing process and so far there's nothing on the horizon to make
> > that possible.
> >
> >> As for the impact of charging them, in clockys homeland they generate
> >> so much power from wind and sun that, on windy sunny days, they
> >> actually pay consumers to use power and there are a lot of EVs there.
> >
> > That's nice, but I'm not sure how that's relevant to anyone here.
> >
> >> You just adapt the grid to meet the needs,
> >
> > Nothing like a bit of overly simplistic problem solving, huh? :)
> >
> >> I suspect that, on a hot afternoon, the load imposed by millions of
> >> air conditioners would exceed that of EVs charging.
> >
> > And how do you arrive at that conclusion?
> >
> > Tesla advises that when using a standard 10amp 2.3kW power outlet in
> > Australia it would take 32 hours to fully charge a model 3 battery from
> > flat, and regardless of battery charge state every hour of home charging
> > will add 15km to the vehicle's range. That's a shit-tonne of power to
> > recharge an EV, and far more than what the average person would be
> > likely to use their household air conditioner in one sitting.
> There's a huge flaw in your argument. Our AC unit is 2.4 kW and that is
> considered *small* by anyone's standards. My mate has an 8.5 kW unit and
> that really hammers his power bill. Anyway, according to your reckoning,
> 15 kilometres in a BEV car is equivalent (roughly) to 1 hour of my AC
> use. The flaw in your argument is that most people do not do a lot of
> miles on a daily basis so would only be topping off their batteries.
> Take as an example a person who drives 30 km to work and 30 km back
> home. 4 hours or so of topping off their BEV and it's done. If you need
> a really large *fast* top up, say from nearly flat, nip down to the
> nearest fast charger. For me, that's a 2.5 kilometre drive away from
> here. Won't suit everyone, I know, but as demand builds, so with the
> infrastructure.
> >
> > However, you're missing the point. Whether charging your EV consumes
> > more or less power than an afternoon's worth of household air
> > conditioner use is completely irrelevant as EV owners wouldn't be doing
> > it place of running their air conditioners. They'd be doing it in
> > *addition* to running them.
> >
> > And therein lies the problem.
> >
> > The grid system in this country, and particularly in Victoria, is such
> > that it can barely cope with the load imposed on it now and power
> > companies have to resort to offering incentives to get people to turn
> > off heavy consumption items like air conditioners in summer to preserve
> > the supply integrity and avoid brownouts. Adding a fleet of plug in EV's
> > to the grid is only ever going to make matters worse, and while calls of
> > "update the grid" are a nice simplistic way of dealing with the problem
> > it is *not* a simple solution that can be implemented in a reasonable
> > amount of time or at an affordable cost.
> The writing has been on the wall for years. If I recall correctly, we
> the electricity subscribers were hit with a huge price hike for grid
> upgrading. Back then it was for the introduction of *renewables* to the
> grid. If *local* urban grids aren't coping now, then best you look to
> the electricity companies - they must have lied when they said the grid
> was being upgraded at *our* cost!
> >
> > There is no easy solution here. Plug in EV's are going to cause *far*
> > more problems than they solve for some time in this country.
>
>
>
> --
> Xeno
>
>
> Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
> (with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

T'is the season to be jolly. Merry Xmas to ALL except the "warriors". Catch you all next Xmas.
Hard to beleive how the unproven CVT in the XV of 10 years ago jusy keeps on keeping on.
Eh Nod!

Feral

On 13/12/2022 9:23 am, Xeno wrote:
> On 13/12/2022 8:58 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 12/12/2022 9:00 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2022 4:29 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2022 12:20 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> On 10-Dec-22 2:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 11:56 am, Allan Pease wrote:
>>>>>>> WTF?
>>>>>>> The Swiss get a lot of their power from GREEN HYDRO, but
>>>>>>> unfortunately that is seasonal, and is less this time of year. So
>>>>>>> they have to import electrons from other cuntries, generated from
>>>>>>> fossil fuels, and that is struggling due to war in the Ukraine.
>>>>>>> So a raft of power-rationing measures are coming in.
>>>>>>> Well anything that shows up both the tree-huggers and Elon Mush
>>>>>>> makes me chuckle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Something like that was always going to happen especially when you
>>>>>> increase demand and not supply.
>>>>>> I haven't checked if its true but I read somewhere a while ago
>>>>>> that in the UK they banned charging of EV's in peak times, seems
>>>>>> their power grid couldn't keep up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If I owned an EV, I'd almost certainly be charging it overnight on
>>>>> relatively low cost off-peak electricity, which is predominantly
>>>>> generated from coal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Until and unless we have the infrastructure that allows EVs to be
>>>>> charged overnight on non-fossil fuel generated electricity (and not
>>>>> the offset nonsense which doesn't scale), the greenness of EV's is
>>>>> largely illusory.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Completely illusory. Currently there is nothing green about EV's
>>>> aside from the lack of emissions. Factor in everything else to
>>>> produce the vehicles and power to keep an EV on the road and the
>>>> 'green' argument falls over completely.
>>>
>>> So, why is an EV "Less green" to build and keep on the road?
>>>
>> Good question, I recently watched a video where someone (you tuber
>> called WatchJRgo) in the US purchased a 2013 Tesla Model S for US$7000
>> because it had major faults, battery was faulty as was the main drive
>> unit (coolant seals had leaked damaging the motor) and he discovered
>> that it would of cost a lot more than it was worth to repair it so a
>> very expensive car was junk after 9yrs.
>> The point is that if every car was junk after just 9yrs that means a
>> lot more cars need to be made which uses a lot of resources which is a
>> factor that needs to be considered.
>
> Cars, of all types, have a *design life* of 10 years. After that, they
> get very much more expensive to run (unless it's a Toyota).
>

Errmmm, no. Most cars will easily do double that without any major
repair costs if well maintained. There were exceptions of course but
those can and should be avoided. Give anything with a Nissan badge a
miss for a start :-)

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On 14/12/2022 12:54 pm, Honor Big wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 5:58:40 PM UTC+11, Xeno wrote:
>> On 13/12/2022 11:26 am, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 13/12/2022 10:31 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 13/12/2022 7:58 am, Daryl wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Good question, I recently watched a video where someone (you tuber
>>>>> called WatchJRgo) in the US purchased a 2013 Tesla Model S for
>>>>> US$7000 because it had major faults, battery was faulty as was the
>>>>> main drive unit (coolant seals had leaked damaging the motor) and he
>>>>> discovered that it would of cost a lot more than it was worth to
>>>>> repair it so a very expensive car was junk after 9yrs.
>>>>> The point is that if every car was junk after just 9yrs that means a
>>>>> lot more cars need to be made which uses a lot of resources which is
>>>>> a factor that needs to be considered.
>>>>> Many of us drive cars much older than 9 yrs and whilst they emit much
>>>>> more than an EV their life is more than double an EV's.
>>>>>
>>>> That's now and that's Tesla, they are a premium brand charging
>>>> outrageous prices.
>>>
>>> They are indeed, but then no one markets an EV that could be considered
>>> "cheap" when compared to a similar ICE powered car.
>>>
>>> At present there isn't a critical mass of EVs to make
>>>> it worthwhile setting up a 3rd party battery manufacture/repair
>>>> organisation, but that day will likely come, and refurbished batteries
>>>> will become available.
>>>
>>> Possibly, but that's the Trevor Wilson approach to problem solving:
>>> Factoring in solutions that don't yet exist. The reality is that
>>> batteries *may* get cheaper in the future, and they *may not*. At this
>>> point in time, no one can say with certainty.
>>>
>>>> There are a lot less parts to manufacture in an EV so the car itself
>>>> should be cheaper to build and use less resources in its construction.
>>>> At present of course the battery is the problem, but economies of
>>>> scale, battery repair, and recycling should bring the cost and
>>>> environmental impact down.
>>>
>>> Again, massive assumption based on nothing other than what you *want* to
>>> happen. The biggest "environmental impact" concerned with EV's is
>>> manufacturing the batteries as far as I'm aware, and regardless of how
>>> much you upscale the production numbers that aspect is always going to
>>> remain "dirty". Not unless they move to some new "clean" battery
>>> manufacturing process and so far there's nothing on the horizon to make
>>> that possible.
>>>
>>>> As for the impact of charging them, in clockys homeland they generate
>>>> so much power from wind and sun that, on windy sunny days, they
>>>> actually pay consumers to use power and there are a lot of EVs there.
>>>
>>> That's nice, but I'm not sure how that's relevant to anyone here.
>>>
>>>> You just adapt the grid to meet the needs,
>>>
>>> Nothing like a bit of overly simplistic problem solving, huh? :)
>>>
>>>> I suspect that, on a hot afternoon, the load imposed by millions of
>>>> air conditioners would exceed that of EVs charging.
>>>
>>> And how do you arrive at that conclusion?
>>>
>>> Tesla advises that when using a standard 10amp 2.3kW power outlet in
>>> Australia it would take 32 hours to fully charge a model 3 battery from
>>> flat, and regardless of battery charge state every hour of home charging
>>> will add 15km to the vehicle's range. That's a shit-tonne of power to
>>> recharge an EV, and far more than what the average person would be
>>> likely to use their household air conditioner in one sitting.
>> There's a huge flaw in your argument. Our AC unit is 2.4 kW and that is
>> considered *small* by anyone's standards. My mate has an 8.5 kW unit and
>> that really hammers his power bill. Anyway, according to your reckoning,
>> 15 kilometres in a BEV car is equivalent (roughly) to 1 hour of my AC
>> use. The flaw in your argument is that most people do not do a lot of
>> miles on a daily basis so would only be topping off their batteries.
>> Take as an example a person who drives 30 km to work and 30 km back
>> home. 4 hours or so of topping off their BEV and it's done. If you need
>> a really large *fast* top up, say from nearly flat, nip down to the
>> nearest fast charger. For me, that's a 2.5 kilometre drive away from
>> here. Won't suit everyone, I know, but as demand builds, so with the
>> infrastructure.
>>>
>>> However, you're missing the point. Whether charging your EV consumes
>>> more or less power than an afternoon's worth of household air
>>> conditioner use is completely irrelevant as EV owners wouldn't be doing
>>> it place of running their air conditioners. They'd be doing it in
>>> *addition* to running them.
>>>
>>> And therein lies the problem.
>>>
>>> The grid system in this country, and particularly in Victoria, is such
>>> that it can barely cope with the load imposed on it now and power
>>> companies have to resort to offering incentives to get people to turn
>>> off heavy consumption items like air conditioners in summer to preserve
>>> the supply integrity and avoid brownouts. Adding a fleet of plug in EV's
>>> to the grid is only ever going to make matters worse, and while calls of
>>> "update the grid" are a nice simplistic way of dealing with the problem
>>> it is *not* a simple solution that can be implemented in a reasonable
>>> amount of time or at an affordable cost.
>> The writing has been on the wall for years. If I recall correctly, we
>> the electricity subscribers were hit with a huge price hike for grid
>> upgrading. Back then it was for the introduction of *renewables* to the
>> grid. If *local* urban grids aren't coping now, then best you look to
>> the electricity companies - they must have lied when they said the grid
>> was being upgraded at *our* cost!
>>>
>>> There is no easy solution here. Plug in EV's are going to cause *far*
>>> more problems than they solve for some time in this country.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Xeno
>>
>>
>> Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
>> (with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
>
> T'is the season to be jolly. Merry Xmas to ALL except the "warriors". Catch you all next Xmas.
> Hard to beleive how the unproven CVT in the XV of 10 years ago jusy keeps on keeping on.
> Eh Nod!
>
> Feral
>

Same to you. Long time no see :-)

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On 14/12/2022 6:09 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 13/12/2022 9:23 am, Xeno wrote:
>> On 13/12/2022 8:58 am, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2022 9:00 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2022 4:29 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 10/12/2022 12:20 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> On 10-Dec-22 2:34 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 11:56 am, Allan Pease wrote:
>>>>>>>> WTF?
>>>>>>>> The Swiss get a lot of their power from GREEN HYDRO, but
>>>>>>>> unfortunately that is seasonal, and is less this time of year.
>>>>>>>> So they have to import electrons from other cuntries, generated
>>>>>>>> from fossil fuels, and that is struggling due to war in the
>>>>>>>> Ukraine. So a raft of power-rationing measures are coming in.
>>>>>>>> Well anything that shows up both the tree-huggers and Elon Mush
>>>>>>>> makes me chuckle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Something like that was always going to happen especially when
>>>>>>> you increase demand and not supply.
>>>>>>> I haven't checked if its true but I read somewhere a while ago
>>>>>>> that in the UK they banned charging of EV's in peak times, seems
>>>>>>> their power grid couldn't keep up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I owned an EV, I'd almost certainly be charging it overnight on
>>>>>> relatively low cost off-peak electricity, which is predominantly
>>>>>> generated from coal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Until and unless we have the infrastructure that allows EVs to be
>>>>>> charged overnight on non-fossil fuel generated electricity (and
>>>>>> not the offset nonsense which doesn't scale), the greenness of
>>>>>> EV's is largely illusory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Completely illusory. Currently there is nothing green about EV's
>>>>> aside from the lack of emissions. Factor in everything else to
>>>>> produce the vehicles and power to keep an EV on the road and the
>>>>> 'green' argument falls over completely.
>>>>
>>>> So, why is an EV "Less green" to build and keep on the road?
>>>>
>>> Good question, I recently watched a video where someone (you tuber
>>> called WatchJRgo) in the US purchased a 2013 Tesla Model S for
>>> US$7000 because it had major faults, battery was faulty as was the
>>> main drive unit (coolant seals had leaked damaging the motor) and he
>>> discovered that it would of cost a lot more than it was worth to
>>> repair it so a very expensive car was junk after 9yrs.
>>> The point is that if every car was junk after just 9yrs that means a
>>> lot more cars need to be made which uses a lot of resources which is
>>> a factor that needs to be considered.
>>
>> Cars, of all types, have a *design life* of 10 years. After that, they
>> get very much more expensive to run (unless it's a Toyota).
>>
>
> Errmmm, no. Most cars will easily do double that without any major
> repair costs if well maintained. There were exceptions of course but
> those can and should be avoided. Give anything with a Nissan badge a
> miss for a start :-)
>
I'm talking about design life, what the engineers intended. I expect 10
years of pretty much repair free life from my Toyota and 200,000 klm.
Any more than that is bonus time - and a Toyota will be likely to grant
it. But a Nissan, 100k and the bills will start piling on, especially if
it is a Navara.

--
Xeno

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