On 11/07/2023 8:00 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 11/07/2023 6:19 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> **Since the 1980s (which is when I first began my exploration of
>> computers), Apple has always been far too expensive for what it
>> offers. It's been almost 40 years and the company has never deviated
>> from that course. I suspect it is unlikely they ever will.
>>
> You do have a rather mono-ocular view of things Trevor, they don't offer
> value to you, but, in certain applications, apparently people find that
> they do.

I'm sure they do.

> I've never had an Apple computer, and have rarely used one, but I have
> an iPad, and an iPod nano because they do what they do better than any
> other option that I've found.

Better, or different?

I've know people who swear by Iphones and claim they're better than any
Android, but when you ask them what Android phones they've used to know
they'll mention something they used 10 years ago. I mean, if people want
to use a particular brand then knock yourself out, but "better" is
remarkably subjective. I have a couple of 10 inch Galaxy Tablets and
they work amazingly well.

My wife bought me an Ipod nano some years ago for Christmas because I
mentioned that I wanted to get an mp3 player to use while I ride around
on the tractor. I can't remember what version it was, but it was the
little square silver one.

And I fucking *hated* it. Not because it didn't work well, as it did.
But because the software it needed to have installed on my pc in order
to move files across completely *fucked* the sort order I had for over
60 thousand music files. It never told me it was going to do it and
never asked if I wanted to. It just did it itself. I had everything
sorted exactly the way *I* wanted it to be and it stomped over the whole
lot and completely rearranged everything.

Fucking useless, and that sums up the whole "Apple" experience for me.
Retard products made by retards who think you should do as *they* want
you to.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 11/07/2023 7:47 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 11/07/2023 6:43 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> **That would depend on your metric. Clearly, quite a few Tesla owners
>> feel that they are decent value for money. Including one of customers,
>> who is on his second Tesla, which is garaged beside his, slightly
>> slower, Ferrari.
>
> Slightly slower? I suppose that, as you say, it depends on your metric,
> if it is 0-100 the the Tesla would likely win, put them on a race track
> and I doubt it. On a 1000km drive, the Ferrari would arrive hours earlier.

**"Hours earlier"? I very much doubt that.

[Anecdote] Back in the 1970s, I would drive from Sydney to Thredbo to
ski. When I bought my first 2 Litre Escort, I drove hard (except near
Goulburn, of course) and made it in 4 hours 20 mins. I told a mate of my
best time to Thredbo. He was surprised. His best time, in his Porsche
was 4 hours dead. We both calculated our times, from Liverpool to
Thredbo, as city traffic would invalidate times back then.

So, I reckon a Tesla would be MUCH closer to a Ferrari, point to point,
than my humble Escort was to a Porsche.

But yes, a modern Ferrari will easily clean up a Tesla on a road trip.
But hours over a 1,000km drive? Very unlikely, unless you are factoring
in re-fuelling/charging times.

I will, however, remind you that the cheapest Ferrari is still 4 or 5
times the price of a top of the line Tesla Model 3. And probably less
reliable.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 12/07/2023 5:56 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 11/07/2023 7:47 pm, Keithr0 wrote:

>> Slightly slower? I suppose that, as you say, it depends on your
>> metric, if it is 0-100 the the Tesla would likely win, put them on a
>> race track and I doubt it. On a 1000km drive, the Ferrari would arrive
>> hours earlier.
>
> **"Hours earlier"? I very much doubt that.

Doubt all you like like :)

> [Anecdote] Back in the 1970s, I would drive from Sydney to Thredbo to
> ski. When I bought my first 2 Litre Escort, I drove hard (except near
> Goulburn, of course) and made it in 4 hours 20 mins. I told a mate of my
> best time to Thredbo. He was surprised. His best time, in his Porsche
> was 4 hours dead. We both calculated our times, from Liverpool to
> Thredbo, as city traffic would invalidate times back then.
>
> So, I reckon a Tesla would be MUCH closer to a Ferrari, point to point,
> than my humble Escort was to a Porsche.

That's a nice story Trev, but without knowing anything specific about
the cars then it's of little value to any argument other than to be a
trivial tidbit.

> But yes, a modern Ferrari will easily clean up a Tesla on a road trip.
> But hours over a 1,000km drive? Very unlikely, unless you are factoring
> in re-fuelling/charging times.

Go back and look at the lap times in the link I posted in another
thread. Over a 1000km race around the Zhejiang Circuit in China the lap
times between them is such that a Ferrari SF90 would finish the race an
hour and a quarter ahead of a Tesla model S.

Assuming, of course, that a Tesla could manage a thousand km's at full
speed without needing to be recharged, and we all know that's
impossible. At full throttle the Tesla's range is probably limited to
around 150km's or so, which would see it need *many* lengthy charge
stops to cover that distance making the thing lucky to be able to finish
the race on the same day :)
--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 12/07/2023 7:07 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 12/07/2023 5:56 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 11/07/2023 7:47 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>
>>> Slightly slower? I suppose that, as you say, it depends on your
>>> metric, if it is 0-100 the the Tesla would likely win, put them on a
>>> race track and I doubt it. On a 1000km drive, the Ferrari would
>>> arrive hours earlier.
>>
>> **"Hours earlier"? I very much doubt that.
>
> Doubt all you like like :)
>
>> [Anecdote] Back in the 1970s, I would drive from Sydney to Thredbo to
>> ski. When I bought my first 2 Litre Escort, I drove hard (except near
>> Goulburn, of course) and made it in 4 hours 20 mins. I told a mate of
>> my best time to Thredbo. He was surprised. His best time, in his
>> Porsche was 4 hours dead. We both calculated our times, from Liverpool
>> to Thredbo, as city traffic would invalidate times back then.
>>
>> So, I reckon a Tesla would be MUCH closer to a Ferrari, point to
>> point, than my humble Escort was to a Porsche.
>
> That's a nice story Trev, but without knowing anything specific about
> the cars then it's of little value to any argument other than to be a
> trivial tidbit.

**It points to the difficulties of shaving huge amounts of time from a
journey of a few hundred km.

>
>> But yes, a modern Ferrari will easily clean up a Tesla on a road trip.
>> But hours over a 1,000km drive? Very unlikely, unless you are
>> factoring in re-fuelling/charging times.
>
> Go back and look at the lap times in the link I posted in another
> thread. Over a 1000km race around the Zhejiang Circuit in China the lap
> times between them is such that a Ferrari SF90 would finish the race an
> hour and a quarter ahead of a Tesla model S.

**Which is NOT "hours". It's a bit over an hour.

>
> Assuming, of course, that a Tesla could manage a thousand km's at full
> speed without needing to be recharged, and we all know that's
> impossible.

**And the Ferrari will require a number of fuel stops to manage that
distance as well. Provided it doesn't break down, of course.

At full throttle the Tesla's range is probably limited to
> around 150km's or so, which would see it need *many* lengthy charge
> stops to cover that distance making the thing lucky to be able to finish
> the race on the same day :)

**Sure.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 12/07/2023 7:40 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 12/07/2023 7:07 am, Noddy wrote:

>> That's a nice story Trev, but without knowing anything specific about
>> the cars then it's of little value to any argument other than to be a
>> trivial tidbit.
>
> **It points to the difficulties of shaving huge amounts of time from a
> journey of a few hundred km.

Well, no. Not really. You're talking about two completely irrelevant
cars with a whole host of variables in each case making it a worthless
anecdote.

Cool story, but completely irrelevant to anything being discussed here.

>>> But yes, a modern Ferrari will easily clean up a Tesla on a road
>>> trip. But hours over a 1,000km drive? Very unlikely, unless you are
>>> factoring in re-fuelling/charging times.
>>
>> Go back and look at the lap times in the link I posted in another
>> thread. Over a 1000km race around the Zhejiang Circuit in China the
>> lap times between them is such that a Ferrari SF90 would finish the
>> race an hour and a quarter ahead of a Tesla model S.
>
> **Which is NOT "hours". It's a bit over an hour.

I'm sure that when Keith mentioned "hours" he wasn't being literal, but
in any case an hour and a quarter winning margin over a competitor in a
car race is phenomenal in anyone's books. If the race was held at
Bathurst over the usual one thousand kilometres, being *that* far behind
would be more than enough to label you with a "Did Not Finish" result.

>> Assuming, of course, that a Tesla could manage a thousand km's at full
>> speed without needing to be recharged, and we all know that's impossible.
>
> **And the Ferrari will require a number of fuel stops to manage that
> distance as well. Provided it doesn't break down, of course.

Of course. Total refuelling time for the Ferrari over the course of the
race might be 10 minutes, but given that the Ferrari is likely to get
further on a tank of juice at full noise than the Tesla is on a full
charge the Ferrari driver could pit the car, take a shower and have
lunch while his pit crew did a full service on his car and he'd *still*
finish well ahead given the time it would take for the Tesla's battery
to be recharged.

>  At full throttle the Tesla's range is probably limited to
>> around 150km's or so, which would see it need *many* lengthy charge
>> stops to cover that distance making the thing lucky to be able to
>> finish the race on the same day :)
>
> **Sure.

So Keith's assessment of "hours" was only wrong in that he should have
added "many" to it :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 11/7/2023 6:36 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 11/07/2023 2:07 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 11/07/2023 1:30 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 11/07/2023 12:25 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> Fuel cells will be the way we will eventually go I would think.
>>>
>>> **Very probably, since Japan (the whole nation) is moving very hard
>>> in that area. BEVs will have their place though.
>>
>> A limited place.
>>
>> BEV's best period is now, filling the gap in between people using
>> ICE's and the roll out of an effective Hydrogen refuelling network.
>> Once that happens I think BEV's will disappear pretty quickly.
>
> **We'll see. Many city BEV owners charge their cars from rooftop Solar.

Do they?
How do EV owners who use their cars for commuting in normal daytime
hours charge their cars?
OK for people who work from home but then they don't need any car let
alone a very expensive EV.
In theory they could charge their EV's from a battery at night that was
charged by solar during the day but to do that they would need a very
large solar system and a very large expensive battery, a system big
enough to both charge a battery and provide enough power to reduce
electricity bills is not cheap.
My son told me just a couple of days ago that its not uncommon to be
installing solar and battery systems costing up to $60,000.

> Zero cost. H2 will always cost something. The idea of never (or rarely)
> paying for fuel is compelling.

Nothing is for free, I have 11.2 kw of PV solar panels plus solar hot
water and during the winter my credit is going down because I'm actually
getting an electricity bill, the feed in tariffs are so low that they
are worth next to nothing so whilst an EV owner may not be paying for
petrol they are still paying and when you add up all the costs they are
still more expensive to buy and run than a ICE vehicle.
For example 2 couples I know bought new Hyundai's, one is an petrol i30
which cost around $30k, the other is an i30based plug in hybrid which
cost about $53k, the PHEV uses bugger all fuel (less than 1.0lt/100km
which is impressive) and is charged from their solar/battery but the
solar and battery cost a bit over $20k.

>
>>
>>
>>>   Battery
>>>> EV's have far too many short-comings and with the "renewable" energy
>>>> grid turning out to be the fizzer it looks like it's going to be we
>>>> simply won't have the power generating capacity to accommodate a
>>>> national fleet of plug in EV's.
>>>
>>> **That old chestnut. The reality trumps ignorance every time:
>>>
>>> https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-will-overload-the-power-grid
>>>
>>> IOW: If ALL vehicles are EV (BEV or fuel cell), we will need to find
>>> another 20 ~ 25% of electricity for them. At the rate Solar PV panels
>>> are being rolled out, we should comfortably meet that demand.
>>
>> Rubbish :)
>
> **So you say. Do you dispute the 25% thing or the fact that we are
> rolling out Solar PV at a massive rate?
>
> Here's the figures on Solar PV installations:
>
> https://pv-map.apvi.org.au/analyses
>
> Note the steepness of the graph.

Whilst I'm in favor of solar and other renewables they are coming at a
cost, feed in tariffs are going down and they say its because there is
so much power coming from solar that during the day there is a surplus
of power, might be different on warm summer days when a lot of AC's are
running.
In an ideal EV world people would have to commute to work at night time
in their EV's then charge them during the day when the sun is out but I
can't see that happening anytime soon or ever.
>
>
>
>>
>> Firstly, fuel cell vehicles will have little to no impact on the power
>> grid requirements.
>
> **Huh? The only way to generate 'green H2' is using electricity.
>
>  Secondly, A Tesla being charged at home on a regular
>> power point will pull 2kW an hour to give 15Km of range. 2kW per hour
>> is roughly the the same consumption rate of your average medium sized
>> split system air conditioner.  Our current power grid, at least here
>> in Victoria, is in *such* a piss poor inadequate state that we
>> *already* have power companies offering people financial incentives to
>> turn off air conditioners over Summer as the grid cannot cope, and
>> it's only going to get worse as coal powered power stations are shut
>> down before an adequate supply of alternative generation is introduced.
>
> **I presented data outlining the implications of a full implementation
> of EVs in the US. Australia is very similar. We will need around 25%
> more generating capacity than we have today, WHEN everyone is driving
> EVs. That day is likely to be well into the 2030s. We have time to
> install crap-loads more Solar PV, wind turbines and batteries.
>
>>
>>>> Not unless they start building a string of Nuclear power stations
>>>> some time soon, and I can't see that happening....
>>>
>>> **25% more power. Needing a "string of nuclear power stations"?
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>> You live in La-La Land.
>
> **No, I don't. I live in a world of facts and figures. Like the ones I
> presented to you.
>
>  Our grid cannot cope with the demands placed on
>> it now. Believing that an additional 25% load could be easily achieved
>> is on a par with believing in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny :)
>
> **"Easy"? No. Do-able? Absolutely!
>
>>
>>>> The issue is certainly not anywhere near as cut and dried as Trev
>>>> likes to think it is :)
>>>
>>> **Did I say it was cut and dried?
>>
>> You certainly seem to imply that it is.
>
> **Uh-huh.
>
>>
>>>>> Nonsense, Tesla's main claim to fame is excellent marketing, there
>>>>> is nothing special about their cars, the main point of difference
>>>>> between Tesla and other EV's is their charging network which by all
>>>>> accounts is far superior to any other.
>>>>
>>>> Shame their cars aren't :)
>>>
>>> **They seem to be doing just fine. I get that you don't like the
>>> looks and you don't care about the performance though.

No one said that Tesla isn't selling cars and making money, no doubt
they are but IMHO their success is down to excellent marketing and hype
over "climate change" rather than them making good products.

--
Daryl

On 11/7/2023 6:43 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

> **ICE running on H2? Are you fucking serious? You have been presented
> with pages of data that proves it will never happen.

I've presented you with evidence that its already happened which you
choose to ignore.

It will be BEVs or
> fuel cell cars. That's it. H2 ICE might be for niche vehicles only.

Rubbish, the biggest car maker in the world are working on hydrogen
powered ICE vehicles and they seem to think that they are a viable option.

>
>> The biggest car maker in the world Toyota have spent a lot of money
>> developing other low emission car technologies and there is little
>> doubt   that they would know a lot more about the subject that us mere
>> mortals.
>
> **They also have a HUGE number of HUGE production facilities, dedicated
> to ICE/hybrid cars. Don't forget: When the EV car world moved to Li-Ion
> batteries, Toyota clung to NiMh batteries, simply because they had
> invested so much into that technology. That is when Tesla had a
> jump-start over everyone else. They started with a clean sheet. Toyota
> doesn't.
>

Toyota also have a long history of making high quality reliable cars,
Tesla doesn't.

--
Daryl

On 12/7/2023 5:56 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 11/07/2023 7:47 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 11/07/2023 6:43 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> **That would depend on your metric. Clearly, quite a few Tesla owners
>>> feel that they are decent value for money. Including one of
>>> customers, who is on his second Tesla, which is garaged beside his,
>>> slightly slower, Ferrari.
>>
>> Slightly slower? I suppose that, as you say, it depends on your
>> metric, if it is 0-100 the the Tesla would likely win, put them on a
>> race track and I doubt it. On a 1000km drive, the Ferrari would arrive
>> hours earlier.
>
> **"Hours earlier"? I very much doubt that.
>
> [Anecdote] Back in the 1970s, I would drive from Sydney to Thredbo to
> ski. When I bought my first 2 Litre Escort, I drove hard (except near
> Goulburn, of course) and made it in 4 hours 20 mins. I told a mate of my
> best time to Thredbo. He was surprised. His best time, in his Porsche
> was 4 hours dead. We both calculated our times, from Liverpool to
> Thredbo, as city traffic would invalidate times back then.
>
> So, I reckon a Tesla would be MUCH closer to a Ferrari, point to point,
> than my humble Escort was to a Porsche.
>
> But yes, a modern Ferrari will easily clean up a Tesla on a road trip.
> But hours over a 1,000km drive? Very unlikely, unless you are factoring
> in re-fuelling/charging times.

I would think that that was exactly what he was factoring in and why
wouldn't he?

>
> I will, however, remind you that the cheapest Ferrari is still 4 or 5
> times the price of a top of the line Tesla Model 3. And probably less
> reliable.
>

Easy fixed, just buy a SH Porsche Boxster for one third the price of a
Model 3 and it would still arrive after a 1000km drive hours ahead of
the Model 3:-)

--
Daryl

On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 10:55:47 +1000, Noddy wrote:

> On 11/07/2023 10:01 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 9/07/2023 10:56 pm, Daryl wrote:
>
>>> And now we have Musk selling junk, there are con men everywhere:-)
>>>
>>>
>> **Now that is an idiotic thing to say. Tesla cars are not only
>> profitable, but they offer decent value for money.
>
> Really?
>
> The cheapest car in Tesla's line up is the "3", which is around 65 grand
> on the road for the bare bones base model, and 75 grand for the "long
> range" if you want a car to really do anything.
>
> What part of that is "decent value for money"?

lol!
Poor old Fraudster. Always equating "value" with 'cheapest'. As has been
pointed out Fraudster, the hot Tesla is terrific value.

Anyhoo, this chucklesome "decent value for maney" blurt of yours is
*another* classic to add to your collection of idiotic opinions. Quick
recap'

1. AWD makes zero difference to a cars handling.
2. The best way to buy a new car is a low-ball interest loan.
3. A car price sticker from 1970 is worth that same, literal value in 2023.
4. (latest). There is no such thing as "Oncost" or TCO.

That's an hysterically fine collection for someone who likes to pronounce/
bray their status as 'expert' on all things vehicular.

snip unread
I mean... What *is* the point?

alvey

On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 12:13:24 +1000, Daryl wrote:

> On 11/7/2023 10:01 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 9/07/2023 10:56 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 9/7/2023 7:13 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 9/07/2023 5:53 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 9/07/2023 5:20 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/07/2023 4:20 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **Yeah, well, I've been telling anyone who will listen, since the
>>>>>>>> mid-1980s, that Apple is evil. They still are. My $500.00 Oppo
>>>>>>>> does everything a $1,200.00 iPhone can.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As does my $390 Pixel 6a.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Damn!
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't really give a crap about the cost. My current phone is a
>>>>> Galaxy S21 Ultra which at the time I bought it was just as
>>>>> expensive, if not more, as any Iphone then on the market.
>>>>>
>>>>> My dislike for Apple was about Steve Jobs and everything he stood
>>>>> for, and the fact that the cunt of a thing is dead doesn't change my
>>>>> view and make me suddenly want to spend money with a company that he
>>>>> had anything to do with.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> **Smart move. I've been a PC (IBM compatible) guy since the 1980s. In
>>>> fact, a mate asked me to suggest 'the ultimate PC', back in 2010.
>>>> Gigabyte MB, Intel i5 (first gen) CPU, crap-loads of RAM, etc.
>>>> Sometime around 2013-4 he decided to 'upgrade' to an Apple Mac thing.
>>>> Looked sexy. Did some fancy video stuff, but when it came to doing
>>>> day to day stuff, it was no faster than his old PC. He gave me his
>>>> old i5 machine.
>>>>
>>>> When his Mac went down, the bill was so horrendous, he bought a new
>>>> machine. The video sub-system had failed. $2,200.00. The same fault
>>>> in his old PC would have cost around $200.00 to fix.
>>>>
>>>> Then his new Mac failed. Yep, you guessed it - Another new iMac.
>>>>
>>>> The new one bit the dust too. Another new iMac.
>>>
>>> Many schools in Vic used mostly Macs, considerably more expensive but
>>> according to the people whose job it was to look after them they were
>>> bought mostly because they were considerably more reliable.
>>> My nephews wife is a very highly paid graphic designer, apparently in
>>> that industry they exclusively use Macs.
>>> Make of that what you will.
>>> These days they have mostly gotten rid of desktop computers and the
>>> students almost all have iPads
>>>
>>>
>>>> Here's the kicker: I still wheel out his old PC now and again (I
>>>> retired it in late 2018, for a new HP laptop (which still works a
>>>> treat, though it needs a battery), when I need some of it's
>>>> facilities.
>>>
>>> A couple of days ago I decided to fire up my old Sony laptop that has
>>> car tuning software installed, it booted up properly but when it
>>> restarted after an update it locked up and I couldn't do anything with
>>> it.
>>> Thought that it was junk but I removed the battery, let it sit for a
>>> while and when I tried it again it booted up properly:-)
>>>>
>>>> You can stick your Apple shit where the Sun don't shine. Yeah and
>>>> Jobs was just a con-man sales-droid, who was able to work out what
>>>> people wanted to buy, before they knew it. In my business, the late
>>>> Amar Bose was just such a con-man. 'No highs, no lows, it must be
>>>> Bose'.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> And now we have Musk selling junk, there are con men everywhere:-)
>>>
>>>
>> **Now that is an idiotic thing to say. Tesla cars are not only
>> profitable, but they offer decent value for money.
>
> I did put a smiley at the end of my post but now you are being idiotic,
> nothing made by Tesla is "decent value for money".

Subjective. Quite a lot of people believe that 2 seater cars, however old,
are lousy "value for money"....

On 12/07/2023 10:27 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 11/7/2023 6:43 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> **ICE running on H2? Are you fucking serious? You have been presented
>> with pages of data that proves it will never happen.
>
> I've presented you with evidence that its already happened which you
> choose to ignore.

**Actually, you didn't inform me of anything I was not already aware of.
I ignored nothing. Just because Toyota has built a handful of cobbled
together cars to prove a point does not mean those cars have any
rightful place in the market. They don't, except under VERY specific
conditions. And, I can't think of any conditions right now, where an H2
ICE car makes any kind of sense. H2 fuel cell vehicles are another
matter entirely. Toyota and Japan are embracing H2 technology in a very
big way. Toyota is pumping a lot of their energy into promoting fuel
cell vehicles. Which makes a great of of sense and will be viable. H2
ICE makes no economic sense.

>
>  It will be BEVs or
>> fuel cell cars. That's it. H2 ICE might be for niche vehicles only.
>
> Rubbish, the biggest car maker in the world are working on hydrogen
> powered ICE vehicles and they seem to think that they are a viable option.

**The biggest car maker in the world is working on hybrids, BEVs and
fuel cell vehicles. They are just mucking about with H2 ICE cars for
reasons best understood by Toyota. It has nothing to do with a viable
vehicle. The data does not add up.

>
>>
>>> The biggest car maker in the world Toyota have spent a lot of money
>>> developing other low emission car technologies and there is little
>>> doubt   that they would know a lot more about the subject that us
>>> mere mortals.
>>
>> **They also have a HUGE number of HUGE production facilities,
>> dedicated to ICE/hybrid cars. Don't forget: When the EV car world
>> moved to Li-Ion batteries, Toyota clung to NiMh batteries, simply
>> because they had invested so much into that technology. That is when
>> Tesla had a jump-start over everyone else. They started with a clean
>> sheet. Toyota doesn't.
>>
>
> Toyota also have a long history of making high quality reliable cars,
> Tesla doesn't.

**True enough, though it is early days for Tesla. The Chinese built
Tesla cars are WAY better than the US built ones.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 12:25:37 +1000, Noddy wrote:

> On 11/07/2023 12:13 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 11/7/2023 10:01 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>>> **Now that is an idiotic thing to say. Tesla cars are not only
>>> profitable, but they offer decent value for money.
>>
>> I did put a smiley at the end of my post but now you are being idiotic,
>> nothing made by Tesla is "decent value for money".
>
> I agree. There is nothing that I can see in anything they make that
> would go even remotely close to being considered "value for money".

lol!
Absolutely no one with an iq above that of a pipi would have written that.

On 12/07/2023 10:19 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 11/7/2023 6:36 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

>> **We'll see. Many city BEV owners charge their cars from rooftop Solar.
>
> Do they?
> How do EV owners who use their cars for commuting in normal daytime
> hours charge their cars?

Yeah, I haven't been able to work that out, either. I haven't seen any
reliable data published anywhere about the number of BEV owners who
charge their car during the day via solar, so how Trevor can cite "many"
is beyond me. I'm sure there are *some*, but I would think that the
majority would be like anyone else in that they use their car during the
day in which case solar charging isn't a viable option for most of them.

> OK for people who work from home but then they don't need any car let
> alone a very expensive EV.

That's another interesting point.

In another post Trevor cited "city dwellers" who used solar to charge
their BEV's during the day, and again I don't know what he bases that
on. When you mention "city dwellers" my immediate impression is of
people who live in apartment buildings in the CBD area, in which case
I'm not sure where they would pull their solar from.

I'm also not sure why, if you lived and worked in town, why you would
ever need a car let alone an over priced BEV that would spend the
overwhelming majority of it's time in a car park plugged into a charger.

The idea certainly makes little sense....

> In theory they could charge their EV's from a battery at night that was
> charged by solar during the day but to do that they would need a very
> large solar system and a very large expensive battery, a system big
> enough to both charge a battery and provide enough power to reduce
> electricity bills is not cheap.
> My son told me just a couple of days ago that its not uncommon to be
> installing solar and battery systems costing up to $60,000.

Yeah, they're frightfully expensive.

I've only got until the end of this year before the premium feed in
tariffs come to an end and I move onto the great rip off rates like
everyone else. When I do I'm going to look at putting in a 15kW solar
system, but it won't use batteries. The price of them is utterly
ridiculous, and so much so that you would be highly unlikely to ever
reach the break even point over the normal service life of the batteries.

>> Zero cost. H2 will always cost something. The idea of never (or
>> rarely) paying for fuel is compelling.
>
> Nothing is for free, I have 11.2 kw of PV solar panels plus solar hot
> water and during the winter my credit is going down because I'm actually
> getting an electricity bill, the feed in tariffs are so low that they
> are worth next to nothing so whilst an EV owner may not be paying for
> petrol they are still paying and when you add up all the costs they are
> still more expensive to buy and run than a ICE vehicle.

They certainly are. For most people I would imagine they make little
sense at all from an economic perspective.

> For example 2 couples I know bought new Hyundai's, one is an petrol i30
> which cost around $30k, the other is an i30based plug in hybrid which
> cost about $53k, the PHEV uses bugger all fuel (less than 1.0lt/100km
> which is impressive) and is charged from their solar/battery but the
> solar and battery cost a bit over $20k.

You have to take many things into account, not the least of which is
servicing and running costs over the life of the vehicle. If you do the
math, Electric cars don't work.

For example, take the I30 you mentioned. The out the door price of 30
grand is 23 thousand cheaper than the PHEV equivalent I30 based car from
the same manufacturer. If you figure that the average ownership period
for a new car these days is 5 years, the servicing costs over that 5
year period would be 2 grand tops and the average fuel consumption based
on a national average of 15,500km's per year would work out to just
under 10 thousand bucks at today's prices over that 5 year period you
end up being 11 thousand bucks in the shit by the time you're looking to
trade in the PHEV and buy something else.

Petrol prices will increase over that 5 years, of course, but even if
they *doubled* in that time you *still* wouldn't hit the break even
point where the PHEV became a cheaper option in the long run. Sound like
a smart deal to you? It doesn't to me....

>> **So you say. Do you dispute the 25% thing or the fact that we are
>> rolling out Solar PV at a massive rate?
>>
>> Here's the figures on Solar PV installations:
>>
>> https://pv-map.apvi.org.au/analyses
>>
>> Note the steepness of the graph.
>
> Whilst I'm in favor of solar and other renewables they are coming at a
> cost, feed in tariffs are going down and they say its because there is
> so much power coming from solar that during the day there is a surplus
> of power, might be different on warm summer days when a lot of AC's are
> running.

I'm all for renewable energy, but it's currently not working out to be
the economical alternative many people predicted it would be and what's
happening now in South Australia is a perfect example of how it can all
get fucked into a cocked hat in a real big hurry.

South Australia has done really well to be the most progressive state in
the country where it comes to implementing renewable power generation,
and in something like a mere 16 years they have gone from renewable
energy making up just 1% of the total generated output to close to 80%
of all power generated coming from renewable sources. That's a
staggering achievement, but it's come at an enormous cost with the price
of electricity in South Australia now being the most expensive in the
country by some considerable margin.

Quite simply, they've gone fuck nut crazy implementing this new tech and
it's cost them a fortune, and now the end user gets stuck with a power
price that is currently almost 40% more expensive that what it is in NSW
in order to pay for it all.

People and businesses in South Australia are hurting, and this is
*clearly* not the answer.

> In an ideal EV world people would have to commute to work at night time
> in their EV's then charge them during the day when the sun is out but I
> can't see that happening anytime soon or ever.

Well, the world is changing.

One thing that Covid taught us all is that a lot of people can work more
flexible hours and the country won't fall over like many people thought
it would. For example, for the last 3 years now my wife has been working
3 days a week from home in her own office here, and her job still gets
done just fine. It's the reason why the Santa Fe is coming up to 5 years
old and only has 50k km's on it's clock.

She's more than happy to do that and it works in her particular
situation, but that working environment doesn't suit everyone. There
would be a great many people who can't work from home for whatever
reason, and the idea that the majority of people could charge their EV's
during the day from solar is fanciful bullshit.

>>>> **They seem to be doing just fine. I get that you don't like the
>>>> looks and you don't care about the performance though.
>
> No one said that Tesla isn't selling cars and making money, no doubt
> they are but IMHO their success is down to excellent marketing and hype
> over "climate change" rather than them making good products.

I certainly don't think they make good products, and I think they've
largely got this far thanks to a lack of any real competition in what
essentially is *still* a very niche market. Still, in spite of that
they've managed to be on the verge of bankruptcy a couple of times with
Musk doing his usual chest beating bullshit about "sleeping on the
factory floor" and all that other rubbish.

Their fortunes will change in the next 2 or 3 years. I know I certainly
wouldn't be interested in buying any shares in their company :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 12/07/2023 11:56 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 12/07/2023 10:27 am, Daryl wrote:

>> Toyota also have a long history of making high quality reliable cars,
>> Tesla doesn't.
>
> **True enough, though it is early days for Tesla.

Early days? The company has been around for 20 years and has been making
cars for most of that time. It would be reasonable to consider them to
have well and truly past their "probationary period" by now, and if
they're not making quality car by this point in time then it's either
because they're incapable of doing so, or they simply don't want to.

> The Chinese built Tesla cars are WAY better than the US built ones.

That may be so, but that's a bit like saying cat shit and dog shit are
somewhat different, but at the end of the day they're still both shit.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 12/7/2023 11:56 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 12/07/2023 10:27 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 11/7/2023 6:43 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> **ICE running on H2? Are you fucking serious? You have been presented
>>> with pages of data that proves it will never happen.
>>
>> I've presented you with evidence that its already happened which you
>> choose to ignore.
>
> **Actually, you didn't inform me of anything I was not already aware of.
> I ignored nothing. Just because Toyota has built a handful of cobbled
> together cars to prove a point does not mean those cars have any
> rightful place in the market. They don't, except under VERY specific
> conditions. And, I can't think of any conditions right now, where an H2
> ICE car makes any kind of sense. H2 fuel cell vehicles are another
> matter entirely. Toyota and Japan are embracing H2 technology in a very
> big way. Toyota is pumping a lot of their energy into promoting fuel
> cell vehicles. Which makes a great of of sense and will be viable. H2
> ICE makes no economic sense.
>
H2 ICE cars make no *practical sense* either. Toyota's H2 ICE experiment
proved that beyond any doubt when they showed an H2 ICE vehicle full to
the brim with compressed H2 tanks.
>>
>>   It will be BEVs or
>>> fuel cell cars. That's it. H2 ICE might be for niche vehicles only.
>>
>> Rubbish, the biggest car maker in the world are working on hydrogen
>> powered ICE vehicles and they seem to think that they are a viable
>> option.

I'd say they are going through the motions to prove fuel cell vehicles
are the only viable option.
>
> **The biggest car maker in the world is working on hybrids, BEVs and
> fuel cell vehicles. They are just mucking about with H2 ICE cars for
> reasons best understood by Toyota. It has nothing to do with a viable
> vehicle. The data does not add up.

The Toyota H2 ICE test vehicle *proved* beyond a shadow of doubt that H2
ICE vehicles are not at all *practical*.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> The biggest car maker in the world Toyota have spent a lot of money
>>>> developing other low emission car technologies and there is little
>>>> doubt   that they would know a lot more about the subject that us
>>>> mere mortals.
>>>
>>> **They also have a HUGE number of HUGE production facilities,
>>> dedicated to ICE/hybrid cars. Don't forget: When the EV car world
>>> moved to Li-Ion batteries, Toyota clung to NiMh batteries, simply
>>> because they had invested so much into that technology. That is when
>>> Tesla had a jump-start over everyone else. They started with a clean
>>> sheet. Toyota doesn't.
>>>
>>
>> Toyota also have a long history of making high quality reliable cars,
>> Tesla doesn't.
>
> **True enough, though it is early days for Tesla. The Chinese built
> Tesla cars are WAY better than the US built ones.
>
>

--
Xeno

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

On 12/7/2023 12:06 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 12/07/2023 10:19 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 11/7/2023 6:36 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>>> **We'll see. Many city BEV owners charge their cars from rooftop Solar.
>>
>> Do they?
>> How do EV owners who use their cars for commuting in normal daytime
>> hours charge their cars?
>
> Yeah, I haven't been able to work that out, either. I haven't seen any
> reliable data published anywhere about the number of BEV owners who
> charge their car during the day via solar, so how Trevor can cite "many"
> is beyond me. I'm sure there are *some*, but I would think that the
> majority would be like anyone else in that they use their car during the
> day in which case solar charging isn't a viable option for most of them.
>
>> OK for people who work from home but then they don't need any car let
>> alone a very expensive EV.
>
> That's another interesting point.
>
> In another post Trevor cited "city dwellers" who used solar to charge
> their BEV's during the day, and again I don't know what he bases that
> on. When you mention "city dwellers" my immediate impression is of
> people who live in apartment buildings in the CBD area, in which case
> I'm not sure where they would pull their solar from.
>
> I'm also not sure why, if you lived and worked in town, why you would
> ever need a car let alone an over priced BEV that would spend the
> overwhelming majority of it's time in a car park plugged into a charger.
>
> The idea certainly makes little sense....
>
>> In theory they could charge their EV's from a battery at night that
>> was charged by solar during the day but to do that they would need a
>> very large solar system and a very large expensive battery, a system
>> big enough to both charge a battery and provide enough power to reduce
>> electricity bills is not cheap.
>> My son told me just a couple of days ago that its not uncommon to be
>> installing solar and battery systems costing up to $60,000.
>
> Yeah, they're frightfully expensive.
>
> I've only got until the end of this year before the premium feed in
> tariffs come to an end and I move onto the great rip off rates like
> everyone else. When I do I'm going to look at putting in a 15kW solar
> system, but it won't use batteries. The price of them is utterly
> ridiculous, and so much so that you would be highly unlikely to ever
> reach the break even point over the normal service life of the batteries.
>
>>> Zero cost. H2 will always cost something. The idea of never (or
>>> rarely) paying for fuel is compelling.
>>
>> Nothing is for free, I have 11.2 kw of PV solar panels plus solar hot
>> water and during the winter my credit is going down because I'm
>> actually getting an electricity bill, the feed in tariffs are so low
>> that they are worth next to nothing so whilst an EV owner may not be
>> paying for petrol they are still paying and when you add up all the
>> costs they are still more expensive to buy and run than a ICE vehicle.
>
> They certainly are. For most people I would imagine they make little
> sense at all from an economic perspective.
>
>> For example 2 couples I know bought new Hyundai's, one is an petrol
>> i30 which cost around $30k, the other is an i30based plug in hybrid
>> which cost about $53k, the PHEV uses bugger all fuel (less than
>> 1.0lt/100km which is impressive) and is charged from their
>> solar/battery but the solar and battery cost a bit over $20k.
>
> You have to take many things into account, not the least of which is
> servicing and running costs over the life of the vehicle. If you do the
> math, Electric cars don't work.

Do the math? You? Hahahahahha You flunked year 9, ran away from the
year 9 final exam so you judging *anything* on a numerical basis has to
be as funny as hell!

<Darren's mathematical hilarity snipped>

--
Xeno

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

On 12/7/2023 12:06 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 12/07/2023 10:19 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 11/7/2023 6:36 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>>> **We'll see. Many city BEV owners charge their cars from rooftop Solar.
>>
>> Do they?
>> How do EV owners who use their cars for commuting in normal daytime
>> hours charge their cars?
>
> Yeah, I haven't been able to work that out, either. I haven't seen any
> reliable data published anywhere about the number of BEV owners who
> charge their car during the day via solar, so how Trevor can cite "many"
> is beyond me. I'm sure there are *some*, but I would think that the
> majority would be like anyone else in that they use their car during the
> day in which case solar charging isn't a viable option for most of them.
>
>> OK for people who work from home but then they don't need any car let
>> alone a very expensive EV.
>
> That's another interesting point.
>
> In another post Trevor cited "city dwellers" who used solar to charge
> their BEV's during the day, and again I don't know what he bases that
> on. When you mention "city dwellers" my immediate impression is of
> people who live in apartment buildings in the CBD area, in which case
> I'm not sure where they would pull their solar from.
>
> I'm also not sure why, if you lived and worked in town, why you would
> ever need a car let alone an over priced BEV that would spend the
> overwhelming majority of it's time in a car park plugged into a charger.
>
> The idea certainly makes little sense....
>
>> In theory they could charge their EV's from a battery at night that
>> was charged by solar during the day but to do that they would need a
>> very large solar system and a very large expensive battery, a system
>> big enough to both charge a battery and provide enough power to reduce
>> electricity bills is not cheap.
>> My son told me just a couple of days ago that its not uncommon to be
>> installing solar and battery systems costing up to $60,000.
>
> Yeah, they're frightfully expensive.
>
> I've only got until the end of this year before the premium feed in
> tariffs come to an end and I move onto the great rip off rates like
> everyone else. When I do I'm going to look at putting in a 15kW solar
> system, but it won't use batteries. The price of them is utterly
> ridiculous, and so much so that you would be highly unlikely to ever
> reach the break even point over the normal service life of the batteries.
>
>>> Zero cost. H2 will always cost something. The idea of never (or
>>> rarely) paying for fuel is compelling.
>>
>> Nothing is for free, I have 11.2 kw of PV solar panels plus solar hot
>> water and during the winter my credit is going down because I'm
>> actually getting an electricity bill, the feed in tariffs are so low
>> that they are worth next to nothing so whilst an EV owner may not be
>> paying for petrol they are still paying and when you add up all the
>> costs they are still more expensive to buy and run than a ICE vehicle.
>
> They certainly are. For most people I would imagine they make little
> sense at all from an economic perspective.
>
>> For example 2 couples I know bought new Hyundai's, one is an petrol
>> i30 which cost around $30k, the other is an i30based plug in hybrid
>> which cost about $53k, the PHEV uses bugger all fuel (less than
>> 1.0lt/100km which is impressive) and is charged from their
>> solar/battery but the solar and battery cost a bit over $20k.
>
> You have to take many things into account, not the least of which is
> servicing and running costs over the life of the vehicle. If you do the
> math, Electric cars don't work.
>
> For example, take the I30 you mentioned. The out the door price of 30
> grand is 23 thousand cheaper than the PHEV equivalent I30 based car from
> the same manufacturer. If you figure that the average ownership period
> for a new car these days is 5 years, the servicing costs over that 5
> year period would be 2 grand tops and the average fuel consumption based
> on a national average of 15,500km's per year would work out to just
> under 10 thousand bucks at today's prices over that 5 year period you
> end up being 11 thousand bucks in the shit by the time you're looking to
> trade in the PHEV and buy something else.
>
> Petrol prices will increase over that 5 years, of course, but even if
> they *doubled* in that time you *still* wouldn't hit the break even
> point where the PHEV became a cheaper option in the long run. Sound like
> a smart deal to you? It doesn't to me....

Buying a BEV or even a PHEV is certainly not an economic decision, if
people have plenty of money to spend and are either just interested in
the tech or are greenies then good luck to them but for people who are
just getting by financially EV's don't make a lot of sense.
>
>>> **So you say. Do you dispute the 25% thing or the fact that we are
>>> rolling out Solar PV at a massive rate?
>>>
>>> Here's the figures on Solar PV installations:
>>>
>>> https://pv-map.apvi.org.au/analyses
>>>
>>> Note the steepness of the graph.
>>
>> Whilst I'm in favor of solar and other renewables they are coming at a
>> cost, feed in tariffs are going down and they say its because there is
>> so much power coming from solar that during the day there is a surplus
>> of power, might be different on warm summer days when a lot of AC's
>> are running.
>
> I'm all for renewable energy, but it's currently not working out to be
> the economical alternative many people predicted it would be and what's
> happening now in South Australia is a perfect example of how it can all
> get fucked into a cocked hat in a real big hurry.
>
> South Australia has done really well to be the most progressive state in
> the country where it comes to implementing renewable power generation,
> and in something like a mere 16 years they have gone from renewable
> energy making up just 1% of the total generated output to close to 80%
> of all power generated coming from renewable sources. That's a
> staggering achievement, but it's come at an enormous cost with the price
> of electricity in South Australia now being the most expensive in the
> country by some considerable margin.
>
> Quite simply, they've gone fuck nut crazy implementing this new tech and
> it's cost them a fortune, and now the end user gets stuck with a power
> price that is currently almost 40% more expensive that what it is in NSW
> in order to pay for it all.
>
> People and businesses in South Australia are hurting, and this is
> *clearly* not the answer.
>
>> In an ideal EV world people would have to commute to work at night
>> time in their EV's then charge them during the day when the sun is out
>> but I can't see that happening anytime soon or ever.
>
> Well, the world is changing.
>
> One thing that Covid taught us all is that a lot of people can work more
> flexible hours and the country won't fall over like many people thought
> it would. For example, for the last 3 years now my wife has been working
> 3 days a week from home in her own office here, and her job still gets
> done just fine. It's the reason why the Santa Fe is coming up to 5 years
> old and only has 50k km's on it's clock.
>
> She's more than happy to do that and it works in her particular
> situation, but that working environment doesn't suit everyone. There
> would be a great many people who can't work from home for whatever
> reason, and the idea that the majority of people could charge their EV's
> during the day from solar is fanciful bullshit.
>
>
Yep, I know quite a few people that work from home including my youngest
and his girlfriend, the IT company he works for is based in Sydney as is
the accounting company his girlfriend works for.

--
Daryl

On 12/07/2023 1:38 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 12/7/2023 12:06 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> Petrol prices will increase over that 5 years, of course, but even if
>> they *doubled* in that time you *still* wouldn't hit the break even
>> point where the PHEV became a cheaper option in the long run. Sound
>> like a smart deal to you? It doesn't to me....
>
> Buying a BEV or even a PHEV is certainly not an economic decision, if
> people have plenty of money to spend and are either just interested in
> the tech or are greenies then good luck to them but for people who are
> just getting by financially EV's don't make a lot of sense.

Virtually none. Despite whatever feelings of environmental friendliness
some buyers may have, they're doing jack shit to save the planet in any
real terms.

There was a story in the paper the other day about how "Transport" in
Australia makes up 15% of our total greenhouse emissions. Given that the
country's total as a whole is 1.1% of the world total output, then our
vehicle related emissions are absolutely fuck nothing and so
ridiculously small that if Australia's total transport system magically
ground to a complete halt tomorrow the effect that would have on the
planet's well-being would be nil.

That, to me at least, makes the idea of buying an EV make even *less*
sense.....

>> She's more than happy to do that and it works in her particular
>> situation, but that working environment doesn't suit everyone. There
>> would be a great many people who can't work from home for whatever
>> reason, and the idea that the majority of people could charge their
>> EV's during the day from solar is fanciful bullshit.
>>
>>
> Yep, I know quite a few people that work from home including my youngest
> and his girlfriend, the IT company he works for is based in Sydney as is
> the accounting company his girlfriend works for.

It actually works in the company's favour, as people who work from home
tend to spend more time at the "coal face" so to speak. The bonus, for
the company at least, is reduced costs.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 12/07/2023 12:19 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 12/07/2023 11:56 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 12/07/2023 10:27 am, Daryl wrote:
>
>>> Toyota also have a long history of making high quality reliable cars,
>>> Tesla doesn't.
>>
>> **True enough, though it is early days for Tesla.
>
> Early days? The company has been around for 20 years and has been making
> cars for most of that time.

**Mercedes Benz has been around for more than 120 years and still builds
some shockers. 20 years is an eyeblink for a startup.

It would be reasonable to consider them to
> have well and truly past their "probationary period" by now, and if
> they're not making quality car by this point in time then it's either
> because they're incapable of doing so, or they simply don't want to.

**I dunno about that. Growing pains and all.

>
>  > The Chinese built Tesla cars are WAY better than the US built ones.
>
> That may be so,

**It most definitely is so.

but that's a bit like saying cat shit and dog shit are
> somewhat different, but at the end of the day they're still both shit.

**Except that the Chinese built Teslas are as well built as any car I've
seen outside Lexus.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 12/07/2023 10:19 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 11/7/2023 6:36 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 11/07/2023 2:07 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 11/07/2023 1:30 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 11/07/2023 12:25 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Fuel cells will be the way we will eventually go I would think.
>>>>
>>>> **Very probably, since Japan (the whole nation) is moving very hard
>>>> in that area. BEVs will have their place though.
>>>
>>> A limited place.
>>>
>>> BEV's best period is now, filling the gap in between people using
>>> ICE's and the roll out of an effective Hydrogen refuelling network.
>>> Once that happens I think BEV's will disappear pretty quickly.
>>
>> **We'll see. Many city BEV owners charge their cars from rooftop Solar.
>
> Do they?

**Sure do.

> How do EV owners who use their cars for commuting in normal daytime
> hours charge their cars?

**I realise that the big city is different to Bumfuck Vic. Here in the
big city most people use public transport to get to work, or they work
from home. Sure, there are a lot of people who drive, but most don't.

> OK for people who work from home but then they don't need any car let
> alone a very expensive EV.

**Most people need a car, some of the time. For me, a BEV would work
just fine, most of the time. I work from home, but I do go out from time
to time.

> In theory they could charge their EV's from a battery at night that was
> charged by solar during the day but to do that they would need a very
> large solar system and a very large expensive battery, a system big
> enough to both charge a battery and provide enough power to reduce
> electricity bills is not cheap.

**Your thinking arse about:

https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/can-you-use-an-electric-vehicle-to-power-your-home-bi-directional-charging/

Double the value of your BEV.

> My son told me just a couple of days ago that its not uncommon to be
> installing solar and battery systems costing up to $60,000.

**'Not uncommon' is not equivalent to 'common'. However, I don't know
what kinds of costs are involved, as I haven't researched such things
recently. Fortunately, costs are headed only one way - DOWN. Still you
could use your BEV to run your home.

>
>> Zero cost. H2 will always cost something. The idea of never (or
>> rarely) paying for fuel is compelling.
>
> Nothing is for free, I have 11.2 kw of PV solar panels plus solar hot
> water and during the winter my credit is going down because I'm actually
> getting an electricity bill, the feed in tariffs are so low that they
> are worth next to nothing so whilst an EV owner may not be paying for
> petrol they are still paying and when you add up all the costs they are
> still more expensive to buy and run than a ICE vehicle.

**They sure are. For now. Costs are falling and fuel prices are rising.

> For example 2 couples I know bought new Hyundai's, one is an petrol i30
> which cost around $30k, the other is an i30based plug in hybrid which
> cost about $53k, the PHEV uses bugger all fuel (less than 1.0lt/100km
> which is impressive) and is charged from their solar/battery but the
> solar and battery cost a bit over $20k.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>   Battery
>>>>> EV's have far too many short-comings and with the "renewable"
>>>>> energy grid turning out to be the fizzer it looks like it's going
>>>>> to be we simply won't have the power generating capacity to
>>>>> accommodate a national fleet of plug in EV's.
>>>>
>>>> **That old chestnut. The reality trumps ignorance every time:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-will-overload-the-power-grid
>>>>
>>>> IOW: If ALL vehicles are EV (BEV or fuel cell), we will need to find
>>>> another 20 ~ 25% of electricity for them. At the rate Solar PV
>>>> panels are being rolled out, we should comfortably meet that demand.
>>>
>>> Rubbish :)
>>
>> **So you say. Do you dispute the 25% thing or the fact that we are
>> rolling out Solar PV at a massive rate?
>>
>> Here's the figures on Solar PV installations:
>>
>> https://pv-map.apvi.org.au/analyses
>>
>> Note the steepness of the graph.
>
> Whilst I'm in favor of solar and other renewables they are coming at a
> cost, feed in tariffs are going down and they say its because there is
> so much power coming from solar that during the day there is a surplus
> of power, might be different on warm summer days when a lot of AC's are
> running.

**And the fact that the authorities have been sitting on their hands for
the last decade (thanks to the COALition). Now the adults are in charge,
I am hopeful that things will change. Here is one of the best ideas I've
heard:

https://www.energy.vic.gov.au/grants/neighbourhood-battery-initiative

It may solve a host of problems.

> In an ideal EV world people would have to commute to work at night time
> in their EV's then charge them during the day when the sun is out but I
> can't see that happening anytime soon or ever.

**Unless you happen to work shift, yes. But there are other ways to skin
a cat.

>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Firstly, fuel cell vehicles will have little to no impact on the
>>> power grid requirements.
>>
>> **Huh? The only way to generate 'green H2' is using electricity.
>>
>>   Secondly, A Tesla being charged at home on a regular
>>> power point will pull 2kW an hour to give 15Km of range. 2kW per hour
>>> is roughly the the same consumption rate of your average medium sized
>>> split system air conditioner.  Our current power grid, at least here
>>> in Victoria, is in *such* a piss poor inadequate state that we
>>> *already* have power companies offering people financial incentives
>>> to turn off air conditioners over Summer as the grid cannot cope, and
>>> it's only going to get worse as coal powered power stations are shut
>>> down before an adequate supply of alternative generation is introduced.
>>
>> **I presented data outlining the implications of a full implementation
>> of EVs in the US. Australia is very similar. We will need around 25%
>> more generating capacity than we have today, WHEN everyone is driving
>> EVs. That day is likely to be well into the 2030s. We have time to
>> install crap-loads more Solar PV, wind turbines and batteries.
>>
>>>
>>>>> Not unless they start building a string of Nuclear power stations
>>>>> some time soon, and I can't see that happening....
>>>>
>>>> **25% more power. Needing a "string of nuclear power stations"?
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> You live in La-La Land.
>>
>> **No, I don't. I live in a world of facts and figures. Like the ones I
>> presented to you.
>>
>>   Our grid cannot cope with the demands placed on
>>> it now. Believing that an additional 25% load could be easily
>>> achieved is on a par with believing in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter
>>> Bunny :)
>>
>> **"Easy"? No. Do-able? Absolutely!
>>
>>>
>>>>> The issue is certainly not anywhere near as cut and dried as Trev
>>>>> likes to think it is :)
>>>>
>>>> **Did I say it was cut and dried?
>>>
>>> You certainly seem to imply that it is.
>>
>> **Uh-huh.
>>
>>>
>>>>>> Nonsense, Tesla's main claim to fame is excellent marketing, there
>>>>>> is nothing special about their cars, the main point of difference
>>>>>> between Tesla and other EV's is their charging network which by
>>>>>> all accounts is far superior to any other.
>>>>>
>>>>> Shame their cars aren't :)
>>>>
>>>> **They seem to be doing just fine. I get that you don't like the
>>>> looks and you don't care about the performance though.
>
> No one said that Tesla isn't selling cars and making money, no doubt
> they are but IMHO their success is down to excellent marketing and hype
> over "climate change" rather than them making good products.

On 12/7/2023 1:54 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 12/07/2023 1:38 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 12/7/2023 12:06 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> Petrol prices will increase over that 5 years, of course, but even if
>>> they *doubled* in that time you *still* wouldn't hit the break even
>>> point where the PHEV became a cheaper option in the long run. Sound
>>> like a smart deal to you? It doesn't to me....
>>
>> Buying a BEV or even a PHEV is certainly not an economic decision, if
>> people have plenty of money to spend and are either just interested in
>> the tech or are greenies then good luck to them but for people who are
>> just getting by financially EV's don't make a lot of sense.
>
> Virtually none. Despite whatever feelings of environmental friendliness
> some buyers may have, they're doing jack shit to save the planet in any
> real terms.
>
> There was a story in the paper the other day about how "Transport" in
> Australia makes up 15% of our total greenhouse emissions. Given that the
> country's total as a whole is 1.1% of the world total output, then our
> vehicle related emissions are absolutely fuck nothing and so
> ridiculously small that if Australia's total transport system magically
> ground to a complete halt tomorrow the effect that would have on the
> planet's well-being would be nil.
>
> That, to me at least, makes the idea of buying an EV make even *less*
> sense.....
>
>
Agree, they are just "feel good" purchases for greenies.

>>> She's more than happy to do that and it works in her particular
>>> situation, but that working environment doesn't suit everyone. There
>>> would be a great many people who can't work from home for whatever
>>> reason, and the idea that the majority of people could charge their
>>> EV's during the day from solar is fanciful bullshit.
>>>
>>>
>> Yep, I know quite a few people that work from home including my
>> youngest and his girlfriend, the IT company he works for is based in
>> Sydney as is the accounting company his girlfriend works for.
>
> It actually works in the company's favour, as people who work from home
> tend to spend more time at the "coal face" so to speak. The bonus, for
> the company at least, is reduced costs.
>
Certainly is a big cost reduction, my son is thinking of getting out of
the factory he leases, he doesn't use the office space anymore, the
office and sales staff work out of home so its just used for storage,
much cheaper to rent a storage container and have his workers pickup the
stock they need for each job from there, he could save up to $40k pa.

--
Daryl

On 12/07/2023 9:57 am, alvey wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 12:25:37 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>
>> On 11/07/2023 12:13 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 11/7/2023 10:01 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>> **Now that is an idiotic thing to say. Tesla cars are not only
>>>> profitable, but they offer decent value for money.
>>>
>>> I did put a smiley at the end of my post but now you are being idiotic,
>>> nothing made by Tesla is "decent value for money".
>>
>> I agree. There is nothing that I can see in anything they make that
>> would go even remotely close to being considered "value for money".
>
> lol!
> Absolutely no one with an iq above that of a pipi would have written that.
>

How much did he blow on that slow and rough as guts deathtrap of a
"truck" of his?

That alone makes any Tesla look like excellent value for money.

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 12/7/2023 3:28 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 12/07/2023 10:19 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 11/7/2023 6:36 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 11/07/2023 2:07 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 11/07/2023 1:30 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 11/07/2023 12:25 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Fuel cells will be the way we will eventually go I would think.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Very probably, since Japan (the whole nation) is moving very hard
>>>>> in that area. BEVs will have their place though.
>>>>
>>>> A limited place.
>>>>
>>>> BEV's best period is now, filling the gap in between people using
>>>> ICE's and the roll out of an effective Hydrogen refuelling network.
>>>> Once that happens I think BEV's will disappear pretty quickly.
>>>
>>> **We'll see. Many city BEV owners charge their cars from rooftop Solar.
>>
>> Do they?
>
> **Sure do.
>
>> How do EV owners who use their cars for commuting in normal daytime
>> hours charge their cars?
>
> **I realise that the big city is different to Bumfuck Vic. Here in the
> big city most people use public transport to get to work, or they work
> from home. Sure, there are a lot of people who drive, but most don't.

Most is a big call, head out onto to any hwy or fwy at 6.30am and they
are jammed packed with tradie utes, an hour or 2 later the roads are
still jammed with traffic with people heading to work.
People who work in offices can work from home but tradies, factory
workers, medical staff, police, hospitality, school staff and a very
long list of others don't or can't work from home, if "most" work from
home where the hell does all the traffic come from.
>
>> OK for people who work from home but then they don't need any car let
>> alone a very expensive EV.
>
> **Most people need a car, some of the time. For me, a BEV would work
> just fine, most of the time. I work from home, but I do go out from time
> to time.

A BEV would work for a lot of what my MB does but I have no intention of
buying one, I'd rather spend my money on an OS holiday than on something
I neither want or need.

>
>> In theory they could charge their EV's from a battery at night that
>> was charged by solar during the day but to do that they would need a
>> very large solar system and a very large expensive battery, a system
>> big enough to both charge a battery and provide enough power to reduce
>> electricity bills is not cheap.
>
> **Your thinking arse about:
>
> https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/can-you-use-an-electric-vehicle-to-power-your-home-bi-directional-charging/
>
> Double the value of your BEV.

Not yet available in Australia but even if it was I don't think that its
a great idea, a battery only has so many charge/discharge cycles, using
the battery that way must reduce its life.
>
>> My son told me just a couple of days ago that its not uncommon to be
>> installing solar and battery systems costing up to $60,000.
>
> **'Not uncommon' is not equivalent to 'common'. However, I don't know
> what kinds of costs are involved, as I haven't researched such things
> recently. Fortunately, costs are headed only one way - DOWN.

Are they?
I haven't priced a system recently but my son has been in the solar
business for at least 15yrs and he is saying that the end price to the
customer is going up.
The Vic Govt solar rebate actually caused prices to increase, the
administration costs plus the way that business's are expected to carry
the cost of the rebate till they Govt gets around to reimbursing them
has cost more than the rebate so another Labor well intentioned screw up
does the opposite to what it was supposed to do.
Pre covid prices were going down but not any more, there is also calls
to ban solar panels sourced from Chinese companies that use "forced"
cheap labour, if that takes effect expect prices to go up even more.

Still you
> could use your BEV to run your home.
>
You could when it becomes available and then risk wearing out your cars
battery quicker.

--
Daryl

On 12/07/2023 5:56 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 11/07/2023 7:47 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 11/07/2023 6:43 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> **That would depend on your metric. Clearly, quite a few Tesla owners
>>> feel that they are decent value for money. Including one of
>>> customers, who is on his second Tesla, which is garaged beside his,
>>> slightly slower, Ferrari.
>>
>> Slightly slower? I suppose that, as you say, it depends on your
>> metric, if it is 0-100 the the Tesla would likely win, put them on a
>> race track and I doubt it. On a 1000km drive, the Ferrari would arrive
>> hours earlier.
>
> **"Hours earlier"? I very much doubt that.

How long does it take to recharge a Tesla?

> [Anecdote] Back in the 1970s, I would drive from Sydney to Thredbo to
> ski. When I bought my first 2 Litre Escort, I drove hard (except near
> Goulburn, of course) and made it in 4 hours 20 mins. I told a mate of my
> best time to Thredbo. He was surprised. His best time, in his Porsche
> was 4 hours dead. We both calculated our times, from Liverpool to
> Thredbo, as city traffic would invalidate times back then.
>
> So, I reckon a Tesla would be MUCH closer to a Ferrari, point to point,
> than my humble Escort was to a Porsche.
>
> But yes, a modern Ferrari will easily clean up a Tesla on a road trip.
> But hours over a 1,000km drive? Very unlikely, unless you are factoring
> in re-fuelling/charging times.
>
> I will, however, remind you that the cheapest Ferrari is still 4 or 5
> times the price of a top of the line Tesla Model 3. And probably less
> reliable.
>

On 12/7/2023 3:46 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 12/07/2023 9:57 am, alvey wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 12:25:37 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/07/2023 12:13 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 11/7/2023 10:01 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>>> **Now that is an idiotic thing to say. Tesla cars are not only
>>>>> profitable, but they offer decent value for money.
>>>>
>>>> I did put a smiley at the end of my post but now you are being idiotic,
>>>> nothing made by Tesla is "decent value for money".
>>>
>>> I agree. There is nothing that I can see in anything they make that
>>> would go even remotely close to being considered "value for money".
>>
>> lol!
>> Absolutely no one with an iq above that of a pipi would have written
>> that.
>>
>
>
> How much did he blow on that slow and rough as guts deathtrap of a
> "truck" of his?
>
> That alone makes any Tesla look like excellent value for money.
>
Which one? He has two deathtrap trucks!

--
Xeno

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