The IC engine ain't dead yet

[Noddy]

While a lot of people are getting excited about EV development and
governments around the world pushing ridiculous deadline targets for
them to become your only new car choice, some people are thankfully not
only exploring other zero emissions possibilities and apparently making
good progress.

> https://www.deutz.com/en/media/press-releases/deutz-hydrogen-engine-ready-for-the-market

It's early days, but Deutz is doing well. Cummins are also looking at
the possibility of using Hydrogen combustion engines in their lineup.

> https://www.h2-view.com/story/cummins-to-test-new-hydrogen-fuelled-internal-combustion-engine/

As I said, it's early days and the road ahead will be long and strewn
with technological potholes, but clearly there is potential for the
Internal Combustion Engine to exist in today's zero emissions world.

How knows? Development could progress to the point where Electric looks
like a bad choice :)







--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[alvey]

When normal people;
a) refer to an "IC engine" they're referring to a petrol engine.
b) declare that "new car prices have fallen", it is understood by other
normal people to mean the *relative* price.
c) claim that they did something it is usually true.

And then there's Darren...


alvey
“My old man was a returned serviceman Ron (he fought in Korea) and *hated*
Asians with a passion…”. Fraudster, 09Oct08
https://nominal-rolls.dva.gov.au/

[Yosemite Sam]

On 3/09/2021 12:28 pm, alvey wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 11:36:39 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>
>> While a lot of people are getting excited about EV development and
>> governments around the world pushing ridiculous deadline targets for
>> them to become your only new car choice, some people are thankfully not
>> only exploring other zero emissions possibilities and apparently making
>> good progress.
>>
>>> https://www.deutz.com/en/media/press-releases/deutz-hydrogen-engine-ready-for-the-market
>> It's early days, but Deutz is doing well. Cummins are also looking at
>> the possibility of using Hydrogen combustion engines in their lineup.
>>
>>> https://www.h2-view.com/story/cummins-to-test-new-hydrogen-fuelled-internal-combustion-engine/
>> As I said, it's early days and the road ahead will be long and strewn
>> with technological potholes, but clearly there is potential for the
>> Internal Combustion Engine to exist in today's zero emissions world.
>>
>> How knows? Development could progress to the point where Electric looks
>> like a bad choice :)
> When normal people;
> a) refer to an "IC engine" they're referring to a petrol engine.

isn't a hydrogen engine an IC (Internal Combusion) engine? I believe so.

> b) declare that "new car prices have fallen", it is understood by other
> normal people to mean the *relative* price.

yep

> c) claim that they did something it is usually true.
>
> And then there's Darren...

yep

>
>
> alvey
> “My old man was a returned serviceman Ron (he fought in Korea) and *hated*
> Asians with a passion…”. Fraudster, 09Oct08
> https://nominal-rolls.dva.gov.au/
>

so easy to disprove that false claim, and insult to all who did serve in
that conflict


--
"A mans got to know his limitations"
- clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry

[Daryl]

Looks like hydrogen is best suited to engines that started life burning
diesel because they are already built stronger to suit higher compression.
No reason they couldn't be adapted for use in cars.
Certainly a better option for those who don't have access to fast
charging or need to travel longer distances and don't want to waste time
waiting for batteries to charge.
My guess is we will have a mixture of both technologies.


--
Daryl

[Yosemite Sam]

more likely that electric/petrol hybrids will become the norm, at least
in the near future. EV's won't become popular until replaceable/swapable
batteries become standard imo

[Xeno]

Yes, Toyota is putting their efforts into hybrids, PHEVs and not as much
into BEVs. That said, development strategies in hybrids and the like
flow directly into BEVs. What they are looking into is development into
hydrogen fuel cell hybrids. That should be interesting.

> in the near future. EV's won't become popular until replaceable/swapable
> batteries become standard imo
>

I'm more concerned, at this stage, at the requirements of raw materials
for batteries and electric motors - the rare earths, for instance, like
lithium. Is there sufficient capacity for total replacement of *all*
petrol and diesel fueled IC engined vehicles? I doubt it, they aren't
called rare earths for nothing.

--

Xeno


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

[Yosemite Sam]

the stupid ideologically driven governments we have today ignore such
practical considerations

[Clocky]

Indeed, but as he has proven many times he has no morals, so that won't
bother him in the slightest.

That his mates don't question or comment on his claim and evidently are
happy to enable such a lowlife speaks volumes of the kind of people they
are too.

[Yosemite Sam]

yes indeed. he can say anything and and not a peep out of them

[Noddy]

On 3/09/2021 1:09 pm, Daryl wrote:

> On 3/9/21 11:36 am, Noddy wrote:

>> As I said, it's early days and the road ahead will be long and strewn
>> with technological potholes, but clearly there is potential for the
>> Internal Combustion Engine to exist in today's zero emissions world.
>>
>> How knows? Development could progress to the point where Electric
>> looks like a bad choice :)
>>
>>
> Looks like hydrogen is best suited to engines that started life burning
> diesel because they are already built stronger to suit higher compression.

It's probably the easiest starting point, sure.

> No reason they couldn't be adapted for use in cars.

Not at all.

> Certainly a better option for those who don't have access to fast
> charging or need to travel longer distances and don't want to waste time
> waiting for batteries to charge.
> My guess is we will have a mixture of both technologies.

I think so too, but in any case *both* will need some significant
improvements if they're going to be employed with the same level of
convenience that petrol & diesel affords us now.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Noddy <m...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> https://www.deutz.com/en/media/press-releases/deutz-hydrogen-engine-ready-for-the-market
>
> It's early days, but Deutz is doing well. Cummins are also looking at
> the possibility of using Hydrogen combustion engines in their lineup.
>
>> https://www.h2-view.com/story/cummins-to-test-new-hydrogen-fuelled-internal-combustion-engine/
>
> As I said, it's early days and the road ahead will be long and strewn
> with technological potholes, but clearly there is potential for the
> Internal Combustion Engine to exist in today's zero emissions world.

It was early days in the mid-80s, here in Australia:
https://csiropedia.csiro.au/hydrogen-power-1984/

Looked quite promising, I don't suppose anyone knows what the fate
of that hydrogen-powered car project was? Seems like the sort of
thing that the Australian car industry might have been wiser to
focus on.

Some solar hydrogen generation research is still going on here at
least:
https://arena.gov.au/projects/solar-thermochemical-hydrogen-research-and-development/
https://arena.gov.au/projects/efficient-solar-hydrogen-generation/

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[Xeno]

On 3/9/21 3:21 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> Noddy <m...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.deutz.com/en/media/press-releases/deutz-hydrogen-engine-ready-for-the-market
>>
>> It's early days, but Deutz is doing well. Cummins are also looking at
>> the possibility of using Hydrogen combustion engines in their lineup.
>>
>>> https://www.h2-view.com/story/cummins-to-test-new-hydrogen-fuelled-internal-combustion-engine/
>>
>> As I said, it's early days and the road ahead will be long and strewn
>> with technological potholes, but clearly there is potential for the
>> Internal Combustion Engine to exist in today's zero emissions world.
>
> It was early days in the mid-80s, here in Australia:
> https://csiropedia.csiro.au/hydrogen-power-1984/

The same problems that existed with burning hydrogen instead of petrol
in IC engines way back then still exist now. The two most notable being
where you source the hydrogen and its storage.

>
> Looked quite promising, I don't suppose anyone knows what the fate
> of that hydrogen-powered car project was? Seems like the sort of
> thing that the Australian car industry might have been wiser to
> focus on.
>
> Some solar hydrogen generation research is still going on here at
> least:
> https://arena.gov.au/projects/solar-thermochemical-hydrogen-research-and-development/
> https://arena.gov.au/projects/efficient-solar-hydrogen-generation/
>

Hydrogen fuel cells will the the most likely use in cars, if it is used
at all.

[Sylvia Else]

Using hydrogen in an internal combustion engine is just silly. It's
inefficient at every level, and hydrogen takes up a lot of space and is
difficult to store. An internal combustion engine using hydrogen will
also still release oxides of nitrogen (NOx).

Sylvia.

[Trevor Wilson]

**You won't win that argument. Nods likes noisy, grossly inefficient
vehicles. Quiet, fast, fuel efficient vehicles are no use to him. H2
makes some sense for a fuel cell vehicle, but no sense for an IC engined
one. As you say, it will be grossly inefficient on many levels. BTW:
Don't get too hung up on the NOx thing. NOx emissions are MUCH lower on
an H2 engined vehicle, than they are on an ICE vehicle.

[Xeno]

He isn't bright enough to understand those simple facts. Hydrogen as a
fuel cell has a lot more promise but, even then, only if the hydrogen
comes from a sustainable resource.

[Xeno]

Correction, they are lower *only* if you promote further inefficiency
from the hydrogen IC engine.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Xeno <xeno...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> On 3/9/21 3:21 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> Noddy <m...@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://www.deutz.com/en/media/press-releases/deutz-hydrogen-engine-ready-for-the-market
>>>
>>> It's early days, but Deutz is doing well. Cummins are also looking at
>>> the possibility of using Hydrogen combustion engines in their lineup.
>>>
>>>> https://www.h2-view.com/story/cummins-to-test-new-hydrogen-fuelled-internal-combustion-engine/
>>>
>>> As I said, it's early days and the road ahead will be long and strewn
>>> with technological potholes, but clearly there is potential for the
>>> Internal Combustion Engine to exist in today's zero emissions world.
>>
>> It was early days in the mid-80s, here in Australia:
>> https://csiropedia.csiro.au/hydrogen-power-1984/
>
> The same problems that existed with burning hydrogen instead of petrol
> in IC engines way back then still exist now. The two most notable being
> where you source the hydrogen and its storage.

The storage tanks that they were developing seemed convincing. As
for sourcing the hydrogen it's not dissimilar to the problem of
sourcing electricity, only the technology for generating hydrogen
efficiently from solar energy isn't as advanced.

>> Looked quite promising, I don't suppose anyone knows what the fate
>> of that hydrogen-powered car project was? Seems like the sort of
>> thing that the Australian car industry might have been wiser to
>> focus on.
>>
>> Some solar hydrogen generation research is still going on here at
>> least:
>> https://arena.gov.au/projects/solar-thermochemical-hydrogen-research-and-development/
>> https://arena.gov.au/projects/efficient-solar-hydrogen-generation/
>>
> Hydrogen fuel cells will the the most likely use in cars, if it is used
> at all.

It's not clear if hydrogen fuel cells can be made to last as long
as many common IC engines (I mean it isn't clear when you try to
research the topic, there are differing claims all over the
place). But that aside, hydrogen fuel cells do seem more promising
these days, but it's interesting to see the IC approach isn't dead.

[Daryl]

On 3/9/21 4:27 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

You seems to be obsessed with efficiency yet how "efficient" is an EV
that takes hours to fully charge?
Rather depends on you definition of efficient.
Any vehicle that can be refueled in minutes rather than hours is more
efficient, maybe not "fuel efficient" but still more efficient than an EV.


--
Daryl

[Daryl]

I haven't seen any number regarding fuel efficiency for hydrogen engines
but current ICE's aren't all that efficient yet they have been doing a
good job of moving people and goods for more than a century.
Hydrogen engines aren't a new idea but the current crop are still in
development so its a bit early to be dismissing the idea.
EV's can fill some of our transportation needs but they are a long way
from being a complete solution especially for people outside of cities
and so far they aren't very good for heavy vehicles or machinery.


--
Daryl

[Trevor Wilson]

**You seem to be of the impression that you will have a choice in how
your new car will be powered in a few years.

Hint: You won't.

And, here's the rub: Fossil fuels will be taxed so high in a few years,
that only the truly dedicated and/or very wealthy, will be able to
afford fuel for their fossil fueled vehicles.

> Rather depends on you definition of efficient.

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

Why am I concerned about efficiency?

A: Because EVERY SINGLE human on this planet will have to cut emissions
to reduce the impact of global warming. Now I realise that you don't
care, but that is irrelevant, as Australia, as a whole, will be
penalised by the international community for failing to cut CO2 emissions.

> Any vehicle that can be refueled in minutes rather than hours is more
> efficient, maybe not "fuel efficient" but still more efficient than an EV.

**You have a weird, unscientific, way of measuring efficiency.

[keithr0]

It probably has its uses but compared to fuel cell/ electric motor
setups it is less efficient and much more complex.

A hydrogen/air fuel cell is about 75% efficient, and electric motors
95+%, the most efficient IC motors to my knowledge are at about 45%, and
they would need a gearbox and transmission. Using hub motors the
electric route need no transmission of any kind, even using chassis
mounted motors, it would only need drive shafts. The IC setup would also
need far more maintenance than the fuel cell one.

Fuel cell setups are being tested in extreme conditions, we'll see how
they perform.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/08/massive-mine-truck-and-a-baja-off-road-racer-both-find-use-for-fuel-cells/

[Clocky]

The problem is that the fraud only has a lose grip on understanding IC
engines. He denies that which he doesn't understand... and given he
couldn't pass year 9 that is pretty much everything else.

He also can't understand that hydrogen brings with it it's own complexities.

[Noddy]

On 3/09/2021 4:23 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:

> On 03-Sep-21 11:36 am, Noddy wrote:

>> As I said, it's early days and the road ahead will be long and strewn
>> with technological potholes, but clearly there is potential for the
>> Internal Combustion Engine to exist in today's zero emissions world.
>>
>> How knows? Development could progress to the point where Electric
>> looks like a bad choice :)
>>
>
>
> Using hydrogen in an internal combustion engine is just silly.

Why? :)

> It's inefficient at every level,

As far as the average motorist is concerned, "efficiency" is measured in
cost per Kilometer. Not the energy value of the fuel itself. The average
punter most likely couldn't give a crap about the efficiency of the
fuel. If it allowed them to do what they needed to do and it cost less
than petrol would to do it, they'll take it on.

> and hydrogen takes up a lot of space and is difficult to store.

Hydrogen takes up no more space and is no more difficult to store than
any other gaseous fuel.

> An internal combustion engine using hydrogen will
> also still release oxides of nitrogen (NOx).

In very, very, very, very small numbers. Tests have shown that Hydrogen
burning ICE's which employ catalytic converters and an Exhaust Gas
Recirculation system have NOx outputs of less than 1 part per million.

Whether or not Hydrogen becomes the saviour of the internal combustion
engine is something that remains to be seen, but there is absolutely
*no* reason whatsoever why the idea should not to be explored.

[Noddy]

On 3/09/2021 4:27 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 3/09/2021 4:23 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:

>> Using hydrogen in an internal combustion engine is just silly. It's
>> inefficient at every level, and hydrogen takes up a lot of space and
>> is difficult to store. An internal combustion engine using hydrogen
>> will also still release oxides of nitrogen (NOx).
>>
>> Sylvia.
>>
>
> **You won't win that argument. Nods likes noisy, grossly inefficient
> vehicles. Quiet, fast, fuel efficient vehicles are no use to him.

Jesus you can talk some utter shit at times Trevor.

I like *lots* of different vehicles and for lots of different reasons. I
don't go out of my way to like a vehicle just because it's horribly
inefficient any more than I do to hate a vehicle that is as efficient as
it can possibly be. Efficiency has never been a major concern of mine as
far as vehicles go, but just to counter your bullshit with some reality
I actually own vehicles that are good examples of *both* ends of the
spectrum.

> H2 makes some sense for a fuel cell vehicle, but no sense for an IC engined
> one. As you say, it will be grossly inefficient on many levels.

And yet here are companies like Deutz, Cummins and Toyota putting money
into the idea. Maybe they should have just asked you to begin with and
saved all that coin.

> BTW: Don't get too hung up on the NOx thing. NOx emissions are MUCH lower on
> an H2 engined vehicle, than they are on an ICE vehicle.

Ridiculously so.

[Noddy]

On 3/09/2021 5:17 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

> On 3/09/2021 4:50 pm, Daryl wrote:

>> You seems to be obsessed with efficiency yet how "efficient" is an EV
>> that takes hours to fully charge?
>
> **You seem to be of the impression that you will have a choice in how
> your new car will be powered in a few years.
>
> Hint: You won't.

Here's Trev with his crystal ball again :)

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

I'll be right then :)

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

All lovey, and totally insignificant detail.

You seem to be completely ignorant of one tiny, but incredibly important
fact, and that is that as far as "efficiency" is concerned in relation
to vehicles, the average person couldn't give a kilogram of pigshit
about the efficiency rating of the *fuel* they use. All they're
interested in is how much it costs them to run their car per week, and
the effiency of the fuel itself has little bearing on that.

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

> Why am I concerned about efficiency?

Because you're a whackjob :)

> A: Because EVERY SINGLE human on this planet will have to cut emissions
> to reduce the impact of global warming. Now I realise that you don't
> care, but that is irrelevant, as Australia, as a whole, will be
> penalised by the international community for failing to cut CO2 emissions.

Really? What are they going to do? Send us a strongly worded letter?

Are you seriously suggesting that countries like the US, Russia, China
and India who produce more climate destroying emissions in a week than
we do in a *year* are going to get up in our face about the 1% of global
output that *we're* responsible for?

>> Any vehicle that can be refueled in minutes rather than hours is more
>> efficient, maybe not "fuel efficient" but still more efficient than an
>> EV.
>
> **You have a weird, unscientific, way of measuring efficiency.

From the bloke who talks about the efficiency of different fuels as if
it actually *means* something to the average guy in the street.

He's here all week Folks, otherwise he's not.

[Noddy]

On 3/09/2021 4:58 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 3/9/21 4:23 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:

>> Using hydrogen in an internal combustion engine is just silly. It's
>> inefficient at every level, and hydrogen takes up a lot of space and
>> is difficult to store. An internal combustion engine using hydrogen
>> will also still release oxides of nitrogen (NOx).
>>
>
> I haven't seen any number regarding fuel efficiency for hydrogen engines
> but current ICE's aren't all that efficient yet they have been doing a
> good job of moving people and goods for more than a century.

There's two ways of comparing efficiency when talking about vehicles.

One is to compare the energy values of various fuels and their use,
which means something to the boffins who get excited about useless
triviality, and then there's the "cost per week to run" type efficiency
that the average Joe would use to compare running this car against that.

Most people today wouldn't have the slightest clue about how efficient
the engine in their car is in relation to how much of the fuel it burns
is converted into power, and why some people think that such things
would suddenly be of any interest to anyone is a mystery.

> Hydrogen engines aren't a new idea but the current crop are still in
> development so its a bit early to be dismissing the idea.

Indeed.

> EV's can fill some of our transportation needs but they are a long way
> from being a complete solution especially for people outside of cities
> and so far they aren't very good for heavy vehicles or machinery.

Yep. Okay for people in the inner city areas, but not much chop for
anything beyond the suburban fringe. Roughly 28% of the population of
this country, which equates to around 7 million people, live in rural or
remote areas, and Electric Vehicles are going to be completely useless
to just about every single one of them.

[Noddy]

On 3/09/2021 5:37 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 3/09/2021 11:36 am, Noddy wrote:

>> As I said, it's early days and the road ahead will be long and strewn
>> with technological potholes, but clearly there is potential for the
>> Internal Combustion Engine to exist in today's zero emissions world.
>>
>> How knows? Development could progress to the point where Electric
>> looks like a bad choice :)
>
> It probably has its uses but compared to fuel cell/ electric motor
> setups it is less efficient and much more complex.

I dunno about "much more complex". It's certainly different, but they
both have their own degrees of complexity.

> A hydrogen/air fuel cell is about 75% efficient, and electric motors
> 95+%, the most efficient IC motors to my knowledge are at about 45%, and
> they would need a gearbox and transmission. Using hub motors the
> electric route need no transmission of any kind, even using chassis
> mounted motors, it would only need drive shafts. The IC setup would also
> need far more maintenance than the fuel cell one.

They would, same as they do now so nothing changes there. It's not like
EV's would be maintenance free.

As far as the efficiency is concerned it's an interesting technical
tidbit, but whether it means anything to the man in the street remains
to be seen. Apart from the weekly running cost most people are probably
completely oblivious as to how "efficient" their petrol powered car
actually is, and most probably couldn't care about it one way or the other.

> Fuel cell setups are being tested in extreme conditions, we'll see how
> they perform.
>
> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/08/massive-mine-truck-and-a-baja-off-road-racer-both-find-use-for-fuel-cells/

They'll probably do okay, but I don't think their reliability in harsh
environments is really going to be an issue.

[Xeno]

On 3/9/21 7:57 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 3/09/2021 4:23 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 03-Sep-21 11:36 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> As I said, it's early days and the road ahead will be long and strewn
>>> with technological potholes, but clearly there is potential for the
>>> Internal Combustion Engine to exist in today's zero emissions world.
>>>
>>> How knows? Development could progress to the point where Electric
>>> looks like a bad choice :)
>>>
>>
>>
>> Using hydrogen in an internal combustion engine is just silly.
>
> Why? :)
>
>> It's inefficient at every level,
>
> As far as the average motorist is concerned, "efficiency" is measured in
> cost per Kilometer. Not the energy value of the fuel itself. The average
> punter most likely couldn't give a crap about the efficiency of the
> fuel. If it allowed them to do what they needed to do and it cost less
> than petrol would to do it, they'll take it on.
>
>> and hydrogen takes up a lot of space and is difficult to store.
>
> Hydrogen takes up no more space and is no more difficult to store than
> any other gaseous fuel.

You really can't read for comprehension, can you? One of the greatest
problem with compressed hydrogen is the storage space required compared
to petrol or LPG. Didn't you get *anything* from the video some time
back covering the issues with compressed hydrogen as a fuel.

>
>> An internal combustion engine using hydrogen will also still release
>> oxides of nitrogen (NOx).
>
> In  very, very, very, very small numbers. Tests have shown that Hydrogen
> burning ICE's which employ catalytic converters and an Exhaust Gas
> Recirculation system have NOx outputs of less than 1 part per million.

Yes but that is *after* you make them more inefficient.

>
> Whether or not Hydrogen becomes the saviour of the internal combustion
> engine is something that remains to be seen, but there is absolutely
> *no* reason whatsoever why the idea should not to be explored.

As a fuel cell, yes, as compressed hydrogen to burn in an ICE, no.

[Daryl]

On 3/9/21 5:17 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

> **You seem to be of the impression that you will have a choice in how
> your new car will be powered in a few years.
>
> Hint: You won't.

You make the assumption that some time in the future I would buy an EV
or even a new vehicle of any sort and you would be wrong.
For a start I'm 69yrs old and even if I remain healthy and continue to
drive into my 80's that's only 15 or so yrs away, I couldn't afford a
new EV even if I wanted one and if I did buy a low km ICE vehicle it
would most likely last me till I give up driving, the way its going my
almost 20yr old MB will last another 10yrs.
It will be many years before EV's are the common simply because we don't
have the electrical infrastructure that could handle that much
electricity consumption so I very much doubt that I will ever own one.
Despite what you might think I'm not against EV's, its just that by the
time they become affordable I'll most likely be either dead or not
driving anymore.

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

Is hydrogen a fossil fuel?
Why would one zero emission power source be taxed more than another and
we were talking about hydrogen powered vehicles?

>
>> Rather depends on you definition of efficient.
>
> **Efficient is how much energy content of the 'fuel' is converted into
> motive energy. The BEST conversion efficiency of a petrol car is 35%
> (more with hybrid technology) and around 45% with Diesel. Less
> transmission losses, of course. But wait: It gets worse. Those figures
> are the BEST efficiency attainable with an ICE vehicle. It is always
> much worse. A BEV operates at around 90% (or better) efficiency at all
> times. Some operate without any transmission. Less battery charging
> losses (around 30% loss).
>
> Why am I concerned about efficiency?
>
> A: Because EVERY SINGLE human on this planet will have to cut emissions
> to reduce the impact of global warming. Now I realise that you don't
> care, but that is irrelevant, as Australia, as a whole, will be
> penalised by the international community for failing to cut CO2 emissions.

Think about the entire process of powering an EV, not all that efficient
at all.
The objective is zero emissions, does how that is achieved matter?

>
>
>> Any vehicle that can be refueled in minutes rather than hours is more
>> efficient, maybe not "fuel efficient" but still more efficient than an
>> EV.
>
> **You have a weird, unscientific, way of measuring efficiency.
>

You don't even seem to understand the word.
Try thinking about a return journey of say 500km each way, with a
hydrogen powered vehicle you could drive to your destination, refuel
your vehicle, turn around and drive back but with an EV you would have
to spend many hours waiting for your vehicle to be recharged.
Imagine you owned a business and you had sent an employee on the journey
mentioned above, if they were driving an EV you would be paying their
wages for sitting around doing nothing waiting for the EV to recharge,
if that's not inefficient then what is.
For some reason you seem to be obsessed with EV's when there is more
than one way to achieve zero emissions.
I don't think car makers aren't as dumb as you seem to think they are,
if there is a market for a product that they can make a profit from then
they will make it, if they just make EV's they will be eliminating a lot
of potential customers.

--
Daryl

[Xeno]

The average person *will give a shit* if all the boot and rear seat
space is taken up with hydrogen tanks just to get a decent range.

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

You can compensate for the lower calorific value of LPG by upping the
compression ratio and altering the spark curve. It's a simple modification.

>
>> Why am I concerned about efficiency?
>
> Because you're a whackjob :)

You're the whackjob Darren. You invented your complete career in
automotive, remember?

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

Actually, it gets worse than that.

>
> Are you seriously suggesting that countries like the US, Russia, China
> and India who produce more climate destroying emissions in a week than
> we do in a *year* are going to get up in our face about the 1% of global
> output that *we're* responsible for?

We are responsible for *every ton of coal* that we export - no matter
where it is burnt.

>
>>> Any vehicle that can be refueled in minutes rather than hours is more
>>> efficient, maybe not "fuel efficient" but still more efficient than
>>> an EV.
>>
>> **You have a weird, unscientific, way of measuring efficiency.
>
> From the bloke who talks about the efficiency of different fuels as if
> it actually *means* something to the average guy in the street.
>
> He's here all week Folks, otherwise he's not.

And you, unfortunately, are here all the time just *faking it*.

[Daryl]

On 3/9/21 5:37 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 3/09/2021 11:36 am, Noddy wrote:
>> While a lot of people are getting excited about EV development and
>> governments around the world pushing ridiculous deadline targets for
>> them to become your only new car choice, some people are thankfully
>> not only exploring other zero emissions possibilities and apparently
>> making good progress.
>>
>>> https://www.deutz.com/en/media/press-releases/deutz-hydrogen-engine-ready-for-the-market
>>>
>>
>> It's early days, but Deutz is doing well. Cummins are also looking at
>> the possibility of using Hydrogen combustion engines in their lineup.
>>
>>> https://www.h2-view.com/story/cummins-to-test-new-hydrogen-fuelled-internal-combustion-engine/
>>>
>>
>> As I said, it's early days and the road ahead will be long and strewn
>> with technological potholes, but clearly there is potential for the
>> Internal Combustion Engine to exist in today's zero emissions world.
>>
>> How knows? Development could progress to the point where Electric
>> looks like a bad choice :)
>
> It probably has its uses but compared to fuel cell/ electric motor
> setups it is less efficient and much more complex.

Its actually quite simple and no more complex than a ICE running on LPG,
sure the pressures are higher and transport and storage of hydrogen is
more complex but the engines are nothing special.
If you want complex look no further than EV's electronics, fortunately
modern electronics are pretty reliable but nothing is 100% reliable.
I recently meet a mechanic whose job is servicing electric forklifts,
they use a lot of similar electronics to an EV and he is kept very busy
fixing electrical problems.

>
> A hydrogen/air fuel cell is about 75% efficient, and electric motors
> 95+%, the most efficient IC motors to my knowledge are at about 45%, and
> they would need a gearbox and transmission. Using hub motors the
> electric route need no transmission of any kind, even using chassis
> mounted motors, it would only need drive shafts. The IC setup would also
> need far more maintenance than the fuel cell one.

Most modern ICE vehicles will easily do 200,000km with nothing more than
routine servicing.
EV's still have suspension, steering, brakes driveshafts, wheels and
tyres, body parts etc etc that still need to be maintained so whist they
may need less maintenance on their power plants there will still be
servicing costs especially as they get older and I would expect that
servicing costs will go up because business's that service EV's will be
more specialised so they will charge accordingly.
Batteries will also eventually need to replaced and that won't be cheap.




--
Daryl

[Clocky]

Like his and the frauds weird "cars haven't gone down in price" position
that only looks at ticket prices and completely disregards affordability
and relativity to income. Then again Dazzler hinged his entire
retirement plan on the value of a single contract... the dimwit may as
well have placed it all on a greyhound at the TAB - he still would have
had a better chance of getting a return! So the level of stupid on
display by Derro and Dazzler should not be surprising.

[alvey]

On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 20:03:19 +1000, Noddy wrote:

> On 3/09/2021 4:27 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 3/09/2021 4:23 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>> Using hydrogen in an internal combustion engine is just silly. It's
>>> inefficient at every level, and hydrogen takes up a lot of space and
>>> is difficult to store. An internal combustion engine using hydrogen
>>> will also still release oxides of nitrogen (NOx).
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>
>> **You won't win that argument. Nods likes noisy, grossly inefficient
>> vehicles. Quiet, fast, fuel efficient vehicles are no use to him.
>
> Jesus you can talk some utter shit at times Trevor.

Because you say so does not actually make that true Fraudster. Why you
couldn't even name one car out of the "hundreds" you've claimed to have
owned to counter the accusation. lol!

Case in point above. Like many of your idiotic claims Der Der there is no
evidence to support your disagreement with Trev's summation.

Many people buy things that reflect their personality and you're one of
them Der Der. This explains why your historical preference is 100% full of
noisy, ugly, slow and inefficient vehicles.

You're a loser Fraudser. Always have been, always will be.



alvey
“As someone who owns a couple of V8 powered dinosaurs I couldn't give a
fuck about emissions or fuel economy…” Der Der, 02Apr18



snip whiney tedium.

[keithr0]

On 3/09/2021 11:00 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 3/9/21 5:17 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> And, here's the rub: Fossil fuels will be taxed so high in a few
>> years, that only the truly dedicated and/or very wealthy, will be able
>> to afford fuel for their fossil fueled vehicles.
>
> Is hydrogen a fossil fuel?

Hydrogen is not a fossil fuel, it is the most abundant element in the
universe. However it depends on where you get it from, "Blue Hydrogen"
is made from fossil fuel and can cause as much or more pollution as
burning the feedstock itself. "Green Hydrogen" on the other hand is made
by electrolysing water and is pollution free if sun or wind or some
other renewable source of electricity is used.

[keithr0]

On 3/09/2021 7:57 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 3/09/2021 4:23 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 03-Sep-21 11:36 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> As I said, it's early days and the road ahead will be long and strewn
>>> with technological potholes, but clearly there is potential for the
>>> Internal Combustion Engine to exist in today's zero emissions world.
>>>
>>> How knows? Development could progress to the point where Electric
>>> looks like a bad choice :)
>>>
>>
>>
>> Using hydrogen in an internal combustion engine is just silly.
>
> Why? :)
>
>> It's inefficient at every level,
>
> As far as the average motorist is concerned, "efficiency" is measured in
> cost per Kilometer. Not the energy value of the fuel itself. The average
> punter most likely couldn't give a crap about the efficiency of the
> fuel. If it allowed them to do what they needed to do and it cost less
> than petrol would to do it, they'll take it on.
>
>> and hydrogen takes up a lot of space and is difficult to store.
>
> Hydrogen takes up no more space and is no more difficult to store than
> any other gaseous fuel.

Actually it is more difficult, it doesn't liquify under pressure like
LPG (well not at any realistic pressure), and, being a very small
molecule, it need much better sealing to keep it in.

[keithr0]

You still have to spend several hundred dollars every 10,000km

> EV's still have suspension, steering, brakes driveshafts, wheels and
> tyres, body parts etc etc that still need to be maintained so whist they
> may need less maintenance on their power plants there will still be
> servicing costs especially as they get older and I would expect that
> servicing costs will go up because business's that service EV's will be
> more specialised so they will charge accordingly.

Suspension, steering, brakes driveshafts, wheels and tyres, body parts
etc etc will only need to be services as they always have been, there is
no reason to expect that would cost more. Anyway they represent only a
small fraction of maintenance costs. Actually brake maintenance should
be cheaper since, with electric transmission, you get dynamic braking
which can also be used to increase efficiency even further.

> Batteries will also eventually need to replaced and that won't be cheap.

I'm not talking about batteries, I'm talking about hydrogen/air fuel cells.

[Clocky]

On 3/09/2021 5:57 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 3/09/2021 4:23 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 03-Sep-21 11:36 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> As I said, it's early days and the road ahead will be long and strewn
>>> with technological potholes, but clearly there is potential for the
>>> Internal Combustion Engine to exist in today's zero emissions world.
>>>
>>> How knows? Development could progress to the point where Electric
>>> looks like a bad choice :)
>>>
>>
>>
>> Using hydrogen in an internal combustion engine is just silly.
>
> Why? :)
>
>> It's inefficient at every level,
>
> As far as the average motorist is concerned, "efficiency" is measured in
> cost per Kilometer. Not the energy value of the fuel itself. The average
> punter most likely couldn't give a crap about the efficiency of the
> fuel. If it allowed them to do what they needed to do and it cost less
> than petrol would to do it, they'll take it on.
>
>> and hydrogen takes up a lot of space and is difficult to store.
>
> Hydrogen takes up no more space and is no more difficult to store than
> any other gaseous fuel.
>

That is *completely* wrong.

[Daryl]

Only if you take your car to a dealer, servicing costs can be a lot less
if you stay away from dealers.

>
>> EV's still have suspension, steering, brakes driveshafts, wheels and
>> tyres, body parts etc etc that still need to be maintained so whist
>> they may need less maintenance on their power plants there will still
>> be servicing costs especially as they get older and I would expect
>> that servicing costs will go up because business's that service EV's
>> will be more specialised so they will charge accordingly.
>
> Suspension, steering, brakes driveshafts, wheels and tyres, body parts
> etc etc will only need to be services as they always have been, there is
> no reason to expect that would cost more.

Greed is why it will cost more, I expect servicing companies to charge a
higher rate because its "specialised work" even though there is nothing
particularly difficult about EV's or fuel cell vehicles.
Neighbour was a mechanic at a local Mitsubishi dealer and he said that
their retail labor rate was $130 ph which is already high but I'd expect
that to go up considerably because they won't want to lose the profit
they make servicing ICE vehicles.

Anyway they represent only a
> small fraction of maintenance costs. Actually brake maintenance should
> be cheaper since, with electric transmission, you get dynamic braking
> which can also be used to increase efficiency even further.
>
>> Batteries will also eventually need to replaced and that won't be cheap.
>
> I'm not talking about batteries, I'm talking about hydrogen/air fuel cells.

OK.

--
Daryl

[Clocky]

Nothing is "pollution free". Solar panel and wind farms don't appear out
of nowhere, the production of them uses a lot of energy and resources.
These have to be factored in to the equation. Electrolysis is also an
inefficient process.

[Falscher Bruce]

On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 9:10:13 PM UTC+8, Xeno wrote:
>
> > Think LPG Trevor. Compared to petrol it's calorific value is completely
> > shithouse, but people use it because even though it provides less
> > "bang", it costs way less bucks.
> You can compensate for the lower calorific value of LPG by upping the
> compression ratio and altering the spark curve. It's a simple modification.
> >

yes the liquid-injection Barra was pretty good. Pity Ford didn't bring it in years earlier.

[Noddy]

On 4/09/2021 9:23 am, keithr0 wrote:
> On 3/09/2021 7:57 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> Hydrogen takes up no more space and is no more difficult to store than
>> any other gaseous fuel.
>
> Actually it is more difficult, it doesn't liquify under pressure like
> LPG (well not at any realistic pressure), and, being a very small
> molecule, it need much better sealing to keep it in.

As I said in another post, it is *different*, certainly, but it's *not*
complicated. Hydrogen storage is already in use, and it's not like the
wheel needs to be reinvented.

[Xeno]

Yep, it had as much or more power than the equivalent petrol fueled
engine. I think it wasn't brought in earlier because Ford, and most
other manufacturers, thought the market a tad too niche.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 3/09/2021 11:00 pm, Daryl wrote:

> On 3/9/21 5:17 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> **You seem to be of the impression that you will have a choice in how
>> your new car will be powered in a few years.
>>
>> Hint: You won't.
>
> You make the assumption that some time in the future I would buy an EV
> or even a new vehicle of any sort and you would be wrong.

**I make no such assumption. IF you want a new car in a few years, your
choice of an ICE powered one will be extremely restricted. And, perhaps,
impossible.

> For a start I'm 69yrs old and even if I remain healthy and continue to
> drive into my 80's that's only 15 or so yrs away, I couldn't afford a
> new EV even if I wanted one and if I did buy a low km ICE vehicle it
> would most likely last me till I give up driving, the way its going my
> almost 20yr old MB will last another 10yrs.

**Sure. You're (possibly) making the assumption that ICE cars won't be
either taxed into oblivion, or the fuels that power them will still be
cheap and easily available.

> It will be many years before EV's are the common simply because we don't
> have the electrical infrastructure that could handle that much
> electricity consumption so I very much doubt that I will ever own one.

**And you base that claim on what, exactly?

Research suggests that a complete change to EVs would require
approximately a 20% increase in electricity generation for most Western,
developed nations:

https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-will-overload-the-power-grid

As for charging stations, there is this:

https://electricvehiclecouncil.com.au/about-ev/charger-map/

There are around 2,500 charging stations around Australia. Not many.
You're right, but, given the national fleet of EVs numbers around 1% of
the total number on the road, one can assume that the number of charging
stations will rise to meet the demand. After all: It is WAY easier to
plonk a couple of chargers in a spot, than it is to built a petrol station.

> Despite what you might think I'm not against EV's, its just that by the
> time they become affordable I'll most likely be either dead or not
> driving anymore.

**SIX years:

https://bestpractice.biz/electric-vehicles-to-reach-price-parity-with-internal-combustion-by-2027/

However, that fails to take one, very important factor into account:

The potential tax implications on fossil fuels. At some point in the
near future, our moronic leader will have to bend to the will of the
international community and introduce a tax system on fossil fuels.
Doing so, will accelerate the demise of petrol and Diesel vehicles.
Including yours.

>
>>
>> And, here's the rub: Fossil fuels will be taxed so high in a few
>> years, that only the truly dedicated and/or very wealthy, will be able
>> to afford fuel for their fossil fueled vehicles.
>
> Is hydrogen a fossil fuel?

**It can be derived from fossil fuels, but it can also be derived from
'splitting' water using electricity from Solar or wind energy, thus
providing a zero emission solution.

> Why would one zero emission power source be taxed more than another and
> we were talking about hydrogen powered vehicles?

**Huh?

>
>>
>>> Rather depends on you definition of efficient.
>>
>> **Efficient is how much energy content of the 'fuel' is converted into
>> motive energy. The BEST conversion efficiency of a petrol car is 35%
>> (more with hybrid technology) and around 45% with Diesel. Less
>> transmission losses, of course. But wait: It gets worse. Those figures
>> are the BEST efficiency attainable with an ICE vehicle. It is always
>> much worse. A BEV operates at around 90% (or better) efficiency at all
>> times. Some operate without any transmission. Less battery charging
>> losses (around 30% loss).
>>
>> Why am I concerned about efficiency?
>>
>> A: Because EVERY SINGLE human on this planet will have to cut
>> emissions to reduce the impact of global warming. Now I realise that
>> you don't care, but that is irrelevant, as Australia, as a whole, will
>> be penalised by the international community for failing to cut CO2
>> emissions.
>
> Think about the entire process of powering an EV, not all that efficient
> at all.

**It sure as Hell can be. This country has abundant renewable energy
sources. Just 3% of Australia's land area, dedicated to Solar PV power
generation, could, in theory, supply the entire planet's electricity
needs forever. Well, the next couple of billion years anyway. After than
time, we have bigger problems to face.

> The objective is zero emissions, does how that is achieved matter?

**It doesn't. What are you trying to say?

>>
>>
>>> Any vehicle that can be refueled in minutes rather than hours is more
>>> efficient, maybe not "fuel efficient" but still more efficient than
>>> an EV.
>>
>> **You have a weird, unscientific, way of measuring efficiency.
>>
> You don't even seem to understand the word.

**I understand the word perfectly:

"the ratio of the work done or energy developed by a machine, engine,
etc., to the energy supplied to it, usually expressed as a percentage."

EVs are FAR more efficient at converting 'fuel' into motive energy. By a
very considerable margin.

Re-fuelling is a different matter entirely. Either way, for the vast
majority of Australians, it is irrelevant.

How many kms do you drive every day?

> Try thinking about a return journey of say 500km each way, with a
> hydrogen powered vehicle you could drive to your destination, refuel
> your vehicle, turn around and drive back but with an EV you would have
> to spend many hours waiting for your vehicle to be recharged.

**Are you suggesting 1,000km without a single break? That would be
really dumb for any driver to attempt. An overnight break, while the car
is re-charged makes perfect sense for someone who likes to remain alive.

> Imagine you owned a business and you had sent an employee on the journey
> mentioned above,

**ANY employer who did so, should be locked up. I would NEVER do such a
thing. 1,000kms is way too long to force an employee on the road without
a break. Without several breaks, in fact.

Try using a real world example, rather than something that is patently
dangerous.

if they were driving an EV you would be paying their
> wages for sitting around doing nothing waiting for the EV to recharge,
> if that's not inefficient then what is.
> For some reason you seem to be obsessed with EV's when there is more
> than one way to achieve zero emissions.

**Sure. There's walking, riding a bicycle, etc.

> I don't think car makers aren't as dumb as you seem to think they are,

**When I see Ford doubling production of the BEV variant of their most
popular vehicle, I don't think that car makers are dumb at all. When I
see this:

https://www.racv.com.au/royalauto/transport/electric-vehicles/car-brands-going-electric.html

I don't think that car manufacturers are dumb at all. What I think is
dumb, are people who imagine that there are not HUGE changes coming very
quickly to the car business. Anyone not prepared for a wholesale change
to EVs is both stupid and likely to be out of business very soon.

> if there is a market for a product that they can make a profit from then
> they will make it, if they just make EV's they will be eliminating a lot
> of potential customers.

**You seem to imagine that they have a choice. They don't:

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/09/23/governor-newsom-announces-california-will-phase-out-gasoline-powered-cars-drastically-reduce-demand-for-fossil-fuel-in-californias-fight-against-climate-change/

When California introduces automobile legislation, the rest of the US
follows close behind.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/uk-plans-to-bring-forward-ban-on-fossil-fuel-vehicles-to-2030

https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/details/europe-to-ban-new-petrol-diesel-and-hybrid-cars-from-2035-130997/

The latest IPCC report tells us that shutting down all fossil fuel
industries is absolutely imperative. We have very little time to act to
save your grandkids from suffering through 60 Degree C Summer heatwaves.

[Noddy]

On 4/09/2021 9:32 am, keithr0 wrote:

> On 3/09/2021 11:20 pm, Daryl wrote:

>
>> EV's still have suspension, steering, brakes driveshafts, wheels and
>> tyres, body parts etc etc that still need to be maintained so whist
>> they may need less maintenance on their power plants there will still
>> be servicing costs especially as they get older and I would expect
>> that servicing costs will go up because business's that service EV's
>> will be more specialised so they will charge accordingly.
>
> Suspension, steering, brakes driveshafts, wheels and tyres, body parts
> etc etc will only need to be services as they always have been, there is
> no reason to expect that would cost more. Anyway they represent only a
> small fraction of maintenance costs. Actually brake maintenance should
> be cheaper since, with electric transmission, you get dynamic braking
> which can also be used to increase efficiency even further.

Don't kid yourself about this. The vehicle service industry is a
significant part of the automotive world, and if we all moved to
electric cars tomorrow the service industry would *not* lie down and
take a massive pay cut :)

You can comfortably bet *both* your balls that manufacturers will
introduce service schedules that make the maintenance costs of electric
vehicles to be just as expensive as ICE powered ones. They would *have*
to, as dealership networks simply won't survive without doing so.

[Noddy]

On 4/09/2021 12:01 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 3/09/2021 11:00 pm, Daryl wrote:

>> You make the assumption that some time in the future I would buy an EV
>> or even a new vehicle of any sort and you would be wrong.
>
> **I make no such assumption. IF you want a new car in a few years, your
> choice of an ICE powered one will be extremely restricted. And, perhaps,
> impossible.

It doesn't matter how often you bleat this shit, the reality is that you
have absolutely no idea if that will be the case.

>> For a start I'm 69yrs old and even if I remain healthy and continue to
>> drive into my 80's that's only 15 or so yrs away, I couldn't afford a
>> new EV even if I wanted one and if I did buy a low km ICE vehicle it
>> would most likely last me till I give up driving, the way its going my
>> almost 20yr old MB will last another 10yrs.
>
> **Sure. You're (possibly) making the assumption that ICE cars won't be
> either taxed into oblivion, or the fuels that power them will still be
> cheap and easily available.

And you are. What do you base your theories on that apparently make them
more correct than those of anyone else?

>> It will be many years before EV's are the common simply because we
>> don't have the electrical infrastructure that could handle that much
>> electricity consumption so I very much doubt that I will ever own one.
>
> **And you base that claim on what, exactly?
>
> Research suggests that a complete change to EVs would require
> approximately a 20% increase in electricity generation for most Western,
> developed nations:
>
> https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-will-overload-the-power-grid

That's nice. But we here in the land of Oz don't live in "most western
developed nations". We down here have a very sub standard power
generation network, and you basing your ideas of what will happen
according to some simplistic bullshit you read on the internet is a
total nonsense :)

> As for charging stations, there is this:
>
> https://electricvehiclecouncil.com.au/about-ev/charger-map/
>
> There are around 2,500 charging stations around Australia. Not many.
> You're right, but, given the national fleet of EVs numbers around 1% of
> the total number on the road, one can assume that the number of charging
> stations will rise to meet the demand. After all: It is WAY easier to
> plonk a couple of chargers in a spot, than it is to built a petrol station.

Is it? Presumably you're factoring in the cost of the real estate
necessary to accommodate those "chargers", as well as the power
requirements they'll need in order to work. Or do you think they'll just
"pop up" on footpaths everywhere and work by magic?

What will you do when you're out of juice and the couple of chargers are
busy charging cars while their owners are in the local cafe sipping
their Latte's?

>
>> Despite what you might think I'm not against EV's, its just that by
>> the time they become affordable I'll most likely be either dead or not
>> driving anymore.
>
> **SIX years:
>
> https://bestpractice.biz/electric-vehicles-to-reach-price-parity-with-internal-combustion-by-2027/

For fuck's sake :)

> However, that fails to take one, very important factor into account:
>
> The potential tax implications on fossil fuels. At some point in the
> near future, our moronic leader will have to bend to the will of the
> international community and introduce a tax system on fossil fuels.
> Doing so, will accelerate the demise of petrol and Diesel vehicles.
> Including yours.

Nope. What they will do is introduce a tax on EV's to compensate for the
loss of revenue they cause. The Australian Government earns close to 12
billion in fuel excises every year, and if you think they're going to
happily wave goodbye to that as people move to EV's you're completely
out of your bloody tree.

EV uses will pay. Just like we all do now.

> When California introduces automobile legislation, the rest of the US
> follows close behind.

ROTFL :) You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here
Trevor, and keep making this ridiculous claim as if it's real :)

Californian vehicle law relates to California, and *only* California.
They have had their own laws relating to vehicle emissions since the
1970's which have never applied in other states, and a great many
after-market parts come with a label affixed which states "Not legal for
highway use in California". Similarly, US manufacturers have made
"California specific" variants of their models for years which they need
to do to meet the requirements.

The rest of the US does *not* follow close behind California at all, and
you are simply making this shit up :)

> The latest IPCC report tells us that shutting down all fossil fuel
> industries is absolutely imperative. We have very little time to act to
> save your grandkids from suffering through 60 Degree C Summer heatwaves.

Weren't they telling us in the 1980's that if we didn't do something to
solve the emissions crisis we'd all be dead by the year 2000?

[keithr0]

Depends on whether those reseources are renewable or not

> These have to be factored in to the equation. Electrolysis is also an
> inefficient process.

Compared to what?

[keithr0]

I don't know about the fuel cells, but there is nothing to service on
the electric motors, the control electronics either works or it doesn't
so there is nothing to maintain there. The running gear will need very
little work just as it does today. There is no reason that service
intervals could not be 50000km or more, probably the tyres would wear
out first.

[keithr0]

Not that easy these days, even noddy admitted that he takes his car to
the dealers. I'm sure that I could maintain the MX-5 myself if I could
be bothered, the Mazda 3 not so much.

>>> EV's still have suspension, steering, brakes driveshafts, wheels and
>>> tyres, body parts etc etc that still need to be maintained so whist
>>> they may need less maintenance on their power plants there will still
>>> be servicing costs especially as they get older and I would expect
>>> that servicing costs will go up because business's that service EV's
>>> will be more specialised so they will charge accordingly.
>>
>> Suspension, steering, brakes driveshafts, wheels and tyres, body parts
>> etc etc will only need to be services as they always have been, there
>> is no reason to expect that would cost more.
>
> Greed is why it will cost more, I expect servicing companies to charge a
> higher rate because its "specialised work" even though there is nothing
> particularly difficult about EV's or fuel cell vehicles.
> Neighbour was a mechanic at a local Mitsubishi dealer and he said that
> their retail labor rate was $130 ph which is already high but I'd expect
> that to go up considerably because they won't want to lose the profit
> they make servicing ICE vehicles.

That's assuming that companies like Mitsubishi will survive in the car
industry into the future. The game changes, the current manufacturers
lose their advantage over new entrants to the market.

[Noddy]

Probably, but there will still be regular servicing, and I'd happily bet
the farm that the push by the dealership world for it to generate
comparable levels of income that it does now will be *very* strong indeed.

You have to bear in mind that manufacturers need dealers, and dealers
make very little money in selling cars. For the overwhelming majority of
them the selling of the cars is a means to an end in that it's their way
of getting customers onto their service books.

*That's* where they make their money.

[Noddy]

On 4/09/2021 1:25 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 4/09/2021 10:19 am, Daryl wrote:

>> Only if you take your car to a dealer, servicing costs can be a lot
>> less if you stay away from dealers.
>
> Not that easy these days, even noddy admitted that he takes his car to
> the dealers. I'm sure that I could maintain the MX-5 myself if I could
> be bothered, the Mazda 3 not so much.

Agreed.

The more complicated cars become, the more the "outside world" gets
excluded from them. New cars get plugged in and updated virtually every
time they go into the dealership service bay these days, and if that's
not happening then there is some "in service" recall being applied.

>>> Suspension, steering, brakes driveshafts, wheels and tyres, body
>>> parts etc etc will only need to be services as they always have been,
>>> there is no reason to expect that would cost more.
>>
>> Greed is why it will cost more, I expect servicing companies to charge
>> a higher rate because its "specialised work" even though there is
>> nothing particularly difficult about EV's or fuel cell vehicles.

They'll need to make up their revenue shortfall somewhere, and that's
most likely how they'll sell it.

>> Neighbour was a mechanic at a local Mitsubishi dealer and he said that
>> their retail labor rate was $130 ph which is already high but I'd
>> expect that to go up considerably because they won't want to lose the
>> profit they make servicing ICE vehicles.

There is very, very big money in servicing cars. As a former service
manager of a dealership with 6 technicians averaging between 30 and 40
cars a day I can tell you that the service department made more money
than every other department combined, and that certainly wasn't unusual.
Every other dealership I knew was the same.

That's precisely why every dealership has a service department, as the
income stream generated is enormous. None of them are ever going to want
to give that up, and in fact very few of them would ever manage to stay
in business if they did.

> That's assuming that companies like Mitsubishi will survive in the car
> industry into the future. The game changes, the current manufacturers
> lose their advantage over new entrants to the market.

And that's another distinct possibility right there. The carve up of the
"new world" is likely to see a few long established names disappear.

[Daryl]

On 4/9/21 12:01 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 3/09/2021 11:00 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 3/9/21 5:17 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> **You seem to be of the impression that you will have a choice in how
>>> your new car will be powered in a few years.
>>>
>>> Hint: You won't.
>>
>> You make the assumption that some time in the future I would buy an EV
>> or even a new vehicle of any sort and you would be wrong.
>
> **I make no such assumption. IF you want a new car in a few years, your
> choice of an ICE powered one will be extremely restricted. And, perhaps,
> impossible.
>
>> For a start I'm 69yrs old and even if I remain healthy and continue to
>> drive into my 80's that's only 15 or so yrs away, I couldn't afford a
>> new EV even if I wanted one and if I did buy a low km ICE vehicle it
>> would most likely last me till I give up driving, the way its going my
>> almost 20yr old MB will last another 10yrs.
>
> **Sure. You're (possibly) making the assumption that ICE cars won't be
> either taxed into oblivion, or the fuels that power them will still be
> cheap and easily available.
>
>> It will be many years before EV's are the common simply because we
>> don't have the electrical infrastructure that could handle that much
>> electricity consumption so I very much doubt that I will ever own one.
>
> **And you base that claim on what, exactly?

Because every summer we repeatedly hear that there may be blackouts due
to the systems inability to keep up with demand.

>
> Research suggests that a complete change to EVs would require
> approximately a 20% increase in electricity generation for most Western,
> developed nations:
>
> https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-will-overload-the-power-grid

That's 20% more for a system that is struggling now, power companies are
more interested in pocketing profits than upgrading infrastructure, we
care constantly reminded that it can't handle input from solar panels
which is a problem that's been known for many many years yet still no
one does anything about it so IMHO its fantasy assuming that they will
upgrade to accommodate EV's.

>
>
> As for charging stations, there is this:
>
> https://electricvehiclecouncil.com.au/about-ev/charger-map/
>
> There are around 2,500 charging stations around Australia. Not many.
> You're right, but, given the national fleet of EVs numbers around 1% of
> the total number on the road, one can assume that the number of charging
> stations will rise to meet the demand. After all: It is WAY easier to
> plonk a couple of chargers in a spot, than it is to built a petrol station.

Only if there is something to connect them to.

>
>
>> Despite what you might think I'm not against EV's, its just that by
>> the time they become affordable I'll most likely be either dead or not
>> driving anymore.
>
> **SIX years:
>
> https://bestpractice.biz/electric-vehicles-to-reach-price-parity-with-internal-combustion-by-2027/

Pure speculation and fantasy.

>
>
> However, that fails to take one, very important factor into account:
>
> The potential tax implications on fossil fuels. At some point in the
> near future, our moronic leader will have to bend to the will of the
> international community and introduce a tax system on fossil fuels.
> Doing so, will accelerate the demise of petrol and Diesel vehicles.
> Including yours.

If they do that and people stop buying fossil fuels where do you think
the tax revenue will come from?
They will make up the shortfall by taxing either EV's or electricity
that powers them or dream up some other way, possibly a pay as you drive
system, either way people will pay and if EV's become the norm EV owners
will pay the majority of the tax.
Either way we pay.

>
>>
>>>
>>> And, here's the rub: Fossil fuels will be taxed so high in a few
>>> years, that only the truly dedicated and/or very wealthy, will be
>>> able to afford fuel for their fossil fueled vehicles.
>>
>> Is hydrogen a fossil fuel?
>
> **It can be derived from fossil fuels, but it can also be derived from
> 'splitting' water using electricity from Solar or wind energy, thus
> providing a zero emission solution.
>
>> Why would one zero emission power source be taxed more than another
>> and we were talking about hydrogen powered vehicles?
>
> **Huh?

Just in case you missed it the rest of us were talking about hydrogen
fueled vehicles, it was you who went on a rant about fossil fuel powered
vehicles which is not what we were discussing

>
>>
>>>
>>>> Rather depends on you definition of efficient.
>>>
>>> **Efficient is how much energy content of the 'fuel' is converted
>>> into motive energy. The BEST conversion efficiency of a petrol car is
>>> 35% (more with hybrid technology) and around 45% with Diesel. Less
>>> transmission losses, of course. But wait: It gets worse. Those
>>> figures are the BEST efficiency attainable with an ICE vehicle. It is
>>> always much worse. A BEV operates at around 90% (or better)
>>> efficiency at all times. Some operate without any transmission. Less
>>> battery charging losses (around 30% loss).
>>>
>>> Why am I concerned about efficiency?
>>>
>>> A: Because EVERY SINGLE human on this planet will have to cut
>>> emissions to reduce the impact of global warming. Now I realise that
>>> you don't care, but that is irrelevant, as Australia, as a whole,
>>> will be penalised by the international community for failing to cut
>>> CO2 emissions.
>>
>> Think about the entire process of powering an EV, not all that
>> efficient at all.
>
> **It sure as Hell can be. This country has abundant renewable energy
> sources. Just 3% of Australia's land area, dedicated to Solar PV power
> generation, could, in theory, supply the entire planet's electricity
> needs forever. Well, the next couple of billion years anyway. After than
> time, we have bigger problems to face.
>
>> The objective is zero emissions, does how that is achieved matter?
>
> **It doesn't. What are you trying to say?

You seem to be saying that EV's are the only way when clearly they are
only part of the solution.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Any vehicle that can be refueled in minutes rather than hours is
>>>> more efficient, maybe not "fuel efficient" but still more efficient
>>>> than an EV.
>>>
>>> **You have a weird, unscientific, way of measuring efficiency.
>>>
>> You don't even seem to understand the word.
>
> **I understand the word perfectly:
>
> "the ratio of the work done or energy developed by a machine, engine,
> etc., to the energy supplied to it, usually expressed as a percentage."

Wrong again and only correct if you ignore the big picture and only talk
about machines.

>
> EVs are FAR more efficient at converting 'fuel' into motive energy. By a
> very considerable margin.
>
> Re-fuelling is a different matter entirely. Either way, for the vast
> majority of Australians, it is irrelevant.
>
> How many kms do you drive every day?
>
>
>> Try thinking about a return journey of say 500km each way, with a
>> hydrogen powered vehicle you could drive to your destination, refuel
>> your vehicle, turn around and drive back but with an EV you would have
>> to spend many hours waiting for your vehicle to be recharged.
>
> **Are you suggesting 1,000km without a single break? That would be
> really dumb for any driver to attempt. An overnight break, while the car
> is re-charged makes perfect sense for someone who likes to remain alive.

LOL, I used to do those sort of kms regularly as do many truck drivers
with the legislated breaks.

>
>> Imagine you owned a business and you had sent an employee on the
>> journey mentioned above,
>
> **ANY employer who did so, should be locked up.

So we should shut down all interstate transport?

I would NEVER do such a
> thing.

Truck drivers must be tougher that you then.
A 1000km might be a bit longer than average but 8-900km is pretty normal
in a 12hr shift.
Drive from Melb toward Syd or Syd toward Melb, do a change over half
way, have the required break then go back, it happens every day
thousands of times.

1,000kms is way too long to force an employee on the road without
> a break. Without several breaks, in fact.
>
> Try using a real world example, rather than something that is patently
> dangerous.

LOL, you have no idea what happens in the real world, get your head out
of your arse.

>
>  if they were driving an EV you would be paying their
>> wages for sitting around doing nothing waiting for the EV to recharge,
>> if that's not inefficient then what is.
>> For some reason you seem to be obsessed with EV's when there is more
>> than one way to achieve zero emissions.
>
> **Sure. There's walking, riding a bicycle, etc.

Or a vehicle powered by hydrogen which was what we were discussing.

>
>> I don't think car makers aren't as dumb as you seem to think they are,
>
> **When I see Ford doubling production of the BEV variant of their most
> popular vehicle, I don't think that car makers are dumb at all. When I
> see this:
>
> https://www.racv.com.au/royalauto/transport/electric-vehicles/car-brands-going-electric.html
>
>
> I don't think that car manufacturers are dumb at all. What I think is
> dumb, are people who imagine that there are not HUGE changes coming very
> quickly to the car business. Anyone not prepared for a wholesale change
> to EVs is both stupid and likely to be out of business very soon.
>
>
>
>> if there is a market for a product that they can make a profit from
>> then they will make it, if they just make EV's they will be
>> eliminating a lot of potential customers.
>
> **You seem to imagine that they have a choice. They don't:
>
> https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/09/23/governor-newsom-announces-california-will-phase-out-gasoline-powered-cars-drastically-reduce-demand-for-fossil-fuel-in-californias-fight-against-climate-change/
>
>
> When California introduces automobile legislation, the rest of the US
> follows close behind.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/uk-plans-to-bring-forward-ban-on-fossil-fuel-vehicles-to-2030
>
>
> https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/details/europe-to-ban-new-petrol-diesel-and-hybrid-cars-from-2035-130997/
>
>
> The latest IPCC report tells us that shutting down all fossil fuel
> industries is absolutely imperative. We have very little time to act to
> save your grandkids from suffering through 60 Degree C Summer heatwaves.
>

Are you a complete moron?
I'll repeat again that the discussion was about hydrogen fueled
vehicles, not whether or not EV's are good or bad, get your head out of
your arse and don't ignore the facts that EV's aren't suitable for all
applications and car companies won't ignore that market.

--
Daryl

[Daryl]

Agree and they will do it by claiming that EV's are more complicated so
they have to charge more to fix them.
They will try to make up the revenue that they made from consumables
like oil and filters somehow.
Electric motors are much better than they used to be but sooner or later
EV motor bearings will wear and fail as will other drive components,
mechanics work will be different but there will still be plenty of work
to do.

--
Daryl

[Trevor Wilson]

**And that is thanks to governments who sold off electricity assets.
Like it or not, we are going to have to upgrade the network.
Fortunately, Australia has both abundant renewable energy sources and a
small number of people who are willing to invest in those sources:

https://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/resources/technologies/large-scale-solar

"The large-scale solar sector's momentum slowed in 2020, but it still
added 893 MW of new capacity across 22 projects. This brought the
sector's total capacity to 3.9 GW and increased its contribution to
Australia's renewable generation from 9.3 per cent in 2019 to 10.9 per
cent in 2020."

So, we're more than halfway to that 20% target. If we get rid of that
abortion of a federal government at the next election, we might even
make it to 20%.

>>
>> Research suggests that a complete change to EVs would require
>> approximately a 20% increase in electricity generation for most
>> Western, developed nations:
>>
>> https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-will-overload-the-power-grid
>
>
> That's 20% more for a system that is struggling now, power companies are
> more interested in pocketing profits than upgrading infrastructure, we
> care constantly reminded that it can't handle input from solar panels
> which is a problem that's been known for many many years yet still no
> one does anything about it so IMHO its fantasy assuming that they will
> upgrade to accommodate EV's.

**As I said above: We're more than halfway there right now. With a
change in federal government, we may even make it all the way. With
Scummo in charge, we won't. He thinks his God will save him.

>>
>>
>> As for charging stations, there is this:
>>
>> https://electricvehiclecouncil.com.au/about-ev/charger-map/
>>
>> There are around 2,500 charging stations around Australia. Not many.
>> You're right, but, given the national fleet of EVs numbers around 1%
>> of the total number on the road, one can assume that the number of
>> charging stations will rise to meet the demand. After all: It is WAY
>> easier to plonk a couple of chargers in a spot, than it is to built a
>> petrol station.
>
> Only if there is something to connect them to.

**Sure:

https://www.chargefox.com/network/

All using renewable energy.

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

**OK. Cite your evidence to prove it wrong. I've submitted my evidence.
It's up to you to submit yours.

>>
>>
>> However, that fails to take one, very important factor into account:
>>
>> The potential tax implications on fossil fuels. At some point in the
>> near future, our moronic leader will have to bend to the will of the
>> international community and introduce a tax system on fossil fuels.
>> Doing so, will accelerate the demise of petrol and Diesel vehicles.
>> Including yours.
>
> If they do that and people stop buying fossil fuels where do you think
> the tax revenue will come from?

**Cars, trucks, buses, etc.

> They will make up the shortfall by taxing either EV's or electricity
> that powers them or dream up some other way, possibly a pay as you drive
> system, either way people will pay and if EV's become the norm EV owners
> will pay the majority of the tax.

**I realise that you guys down South are still operating in the stone
age. I guess you still have toll gates on those toll roads and the like.
Up here and in Qld, we all use these 'toll tag' things. They're little
electronic gizmos that 'talk' to these little radio thingys placed at
intervals along toll roads. Anyhoo, these things are likely to be rolled
out all over the joint, so that the gummint can keep track of where and
when you've driven. Cameras are another option. Up here, they have these
nasty little cameras on some roads and they check your average speed
over a stretch of road. If you exceed the average speed, they send you a
fine in the mail. That system could also be used.

> Either way we pay.

**Of course we do.

>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And, here's the rub: Fossil fuels will be taxed so high in a few
>>>> years, that only the truly dedicated and/or very wealthy, will be
>>>> able to afford fuel for their fossil fueled vehicles.
>>>
>>> Is hydrogen a fossil fuel?
>>
>> **It can be derived from fossil fuels, but it can also be derived from
>> 'splitting' water using electricity from Solar or wind energy, thus
>> providing a zero emission solution.
>>
>>> Why would one zero emission power source be taxed more than another
>>> and we were talking about hydrogen powered vehicles?
>>
>> **Huh?
>
> Just in case you missed it the rest of us were talking about hydrogen
> fueled vehicles, it was you who went on a rant about fossil fuel powered
> vehicles which is not what we were discussing

**There's only two, practical H2 types of vehicles: H2 fuel cell and
BEVs. I don't discount fuel cell vehicles. I reckon BEVs will be more
popular. Either way, what are YOU talking about.

**Fuel cell vehicles ARE EVs.

>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Any vehicle that can be refueled in minutes rather than hours is
>>>>> more efficient, maybe not "fuel efficient" but still more efficient
>>>>> than an EV.
>>>>
>>>> **You have a weird, unscientific, way of measuring efficiency.
>>>>
>>> You don't even seem to understand the word.
>>
>> **I understand the word perfectly:
>>
>> "the ratio of the work done or energy developed by a machine, engine,
>> etc., to the energy supplied to it, usually expressed as a percentage."
>
> Wrong again and only correct if you ignore the big picture and only talk
> about machines.

**It is the precise definition of efficiency.

>>
>> EVs are FAR more efficient at converting 'fuel' into motive energy. By
>> a very considerable margin.
>>
>> Re-fuelling is a different matter entirely. Either way, for the vast
>> majority of Australians, it is irrelevant.
>>
>> How many kms do you drive every day?

**HOW MANY KMS DO YOU DRIVE EACH DAY (on average)?

Answer here:

----



----

>>
>>
>>> Try thinking about a return journey of say 500km each way, with a
>>> hydrogen powered vehicle you could drive to your destination, refuel
>>> your vehicle, turn around and drive back but with an EV you would
>>> have to spend many hours waiting for your vehicle to be recharged.
>>
>> **Are you suggesting 1,000km without a single break? That would be
>> really dumb for any driver to attempt. An overnight break, while the
>> car is re-charged makes perfect sense for someone who likes to remain
>> alive.
>
> LOL, I used to do those sort of kms regularly as do many truck drivers
> with the legislated breaks.

**So they DO get breaks? You said without a break. Make up your mind.

>>
>>> Imagine you owned a business and you had sent an employee on the
>>> journey mentioned above,
>>
>> **ANY employer who did so, should be locked up.
>
> So we should shut down all interstate transport?

**1,000kms without a break is dangerous and stupid. Any company forcing
their drivers to operate as such should be shut down.

>
>  I would NEVER do such a
>> thing.
>
> Truck drivers must be tougher that you then.

**I'm sure they are. Considerably more stupid too. I won't risk my life
and the lives of other road users for a few Dollars.

> A 1000km might be a bit longer than average but 8-900km is pretty normal
> in a 12hr shift.

**OK. So now it's 800km, NOT 1,000km. Still far too much without a break.

> Drive from Melb toward Syd or Syd toward Melb, do a change over half
> way, have the required break then go back, it happens every day
> thousands of times.

**So, they DO have breaks. Sheesh! Make up your mind.

>
>  1,000kms is way too long to force an employee on the road without
>> a break. Without several breaks, in fact.
>>
>> Try using a real world example, rather than something that is patently
>> dangerous.
>
> LOL, you have no idea what happens in the real world, get your head out
> of your arse.

**I have a VERY good idea of what happens in the real world:

https://www.monash.edu/muarc/archive/our-publications/papers/fatigue

"International evidence has accumulated which suggests that fatigue may
be a significant contributor to truck crashes. Transportation Research
and Marketing (1985) concluded that fatigue was a primary cause in 41%
of heavy truck crashes in the western United States and a probable cause
in a further 18%. Jones and Stein (1987) conducted a study in Washington
State which found that the crash risk for drivers of articulated
vehicles who had driven for more than eight hours was double that of
drivers who had driven for less than eight hours. To put this in
perspective, this means that someone who has driven for more than eight
hours is operating at a similar risk to someone who has a BAC of .05."

Truck drivers are notorious for fiddling with their instrumentation and
taking quantities of drugs to keep them awake. I have assisted in an
accident involving a truck, that swerved into an embankment a few
hundred Metres in front of me for no apparent reason. I suspect the
driver fell asleep. Fortunately, no one was seriously injured.

>>
>>   if they were driving an EV you would be paying their
>>> wages for sitting around doing nothing waiting for the EV to
>>> recharge, if that's not inefficient then what is.
>>> For some reason you seem to be obsessed with EV's when there is more
>>> than one way to achieve zero emissions.
>>
>> **Sure. There's walking, riding a bicycle, etc.
>
> Or a vehicle powered by hydrogen which was what we were discussing.

**Sure. Fuel cell or BEVs are both good examples.

>>
>>> I don't think car makers aren't as dumb as you seem to think they are,
>>
>> **When I see Ford doubling production of the BEV variant of their most
>> popular vehicle, I don't think that car makers are dumb at all. When I
>> see this:
>>
>> https://www.racv.com.au/royalauto/transport/electric-vehicles/car-brands-going-electric.html
>>
>>
>> I don't think that car manufacturers are dumb at all. What I think is
>> dumb, are people who imagine that there are not HUGE changes coming
>> very quickly to the car business. Anyone not prepared for a wholesale
>> change to EVs is both stupid and likely to be out of business very soon.
>>
>>
>>
>>> if there is a market for a product that they can make a profit from
>>> then they will make it, if they just make EV's they will be
>>> eliminating a lot of potential customers.
>>
>> **You seem to imagine that they have a choice. They don't:
>>
>> https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/09/23/governor-newsom-announces-california-will-phase-out-gasoline-powered-cars-drastically-reduce-demand-for-fossil-fuel-in-californias-fight-against-climate-change/
>>
>>
>> When California introduces automobile legislation, the rest of the US
>> follows close behind.
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/uk-plans-to-bring-forward-ban-on-fossil-fuel-vehicles-to-2030
>>
>>
>> https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/details/europe-to-ban-new-petrol-diesel-and-hybrid-cars-from-2035-130997/
>>
>>
>> The latest IPCC report tells us that shutting down all fossil fuel
>> industries is absolutely imperative. We have very little time to act
>> to save your grandkids from suffering through 60 Degree C Summer
>> heatwaves.
>>
> Are you a complete moron?

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

> I'll repeat again that the discussion was about hydrogen fueled
> vehicles, not whether or not EV's are good or bad, get your head out of
> your arse and don't ignore the facts that EV's aren't suitable for all
> applications and car companies won't ignore that market.

**I can see a future for Diesel trucks, buses, farm equipment and some
others in the medium term, but not passenger vehicles.

[Daryl]

Electric motors have bearings which can and will wear out, how often
will depend on firstly how good the OE bearings are and secondly on the
conditions they operate in, if they are constantly running hot they will
wear out earlier than expected.
Car makers exist to make a profit so they won't always fit the highest
quality to save cost so don't expect electric motor bearings to last
forever.
It would be possible to make electric motors and other drive line parts
last a very long time but that would cost extra so its not likely to
happen plus if they start lasting too long the car makers would be
putting themselves out of business.
There are also moving parts related to the controllers such as the
accelerator pedals/switches, they can and will fail, how often will
depend on the quality of the OE parts installed.

--
Daryl

[Daryl]

How old is the 3?
If its out of warranty there is no reason you can't do it yourself, they
are far from being a complicated vehicle.
Last service on our WRX was 125k km for which the dealer quoted $830.00,
I did it myself for $300 including all parts.
It was engine oil and filter, spark plugs and air filter, gearbox and
diff oil change so nothing all that complicated.

>
>>>> EV's still have suspension, steering, brakes driveshafts, wheels and
>>>> tyres, body parts etc etc that still need to be maintained so whist
>>>> they may need less maintenance on their power plants there will
>>>> still be servicing costs especially as they get older and I would
>>>> expect that servicing costs will go up because business's that
>>>> service EV's will be more specialised so they will charge accordingly.
>>>
>>> Suspension, steering, brakes driveshafts, wheels and tyres, body
>>> parts etc etc will only need to be services as they always have been,
>>> there is no reason to expect that would cost more.
>>
>> Greed is why it will cost more, I expect servicing companies to charge
>> a higher rate because its "specialised work" even though there is
>> nothing particularly difficult about EV's or fuel cell vehicles.
>> Neighbour was a mechanic at a local Mitsubishi dealer and he said that
>> their retail labor rate was $130 ph which is already high but I'd
>> expect that to go up considerably because they won't want to lose the
>> profit they make servicing ICE vehicles.
>
> That's assuming that companies like Mitsubishi will survive in the car
> industry into the future. The game changes, the current manufacturers
> lose their advantage over new entrants to the market.

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



--
Daryl

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/09/2021 12:41 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 4/09/2021 12:01 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 3/09/2021 11:00 pm, Daryl wrote:
>
>>> You make the assumption that some time in the future I would buy an
>>> EV or even a new vehicle of any sort and you would be wrong.
>>
>> **I make no such assumption. IF you want a new car in a few years,
>> your choice of an ICE powered one will be extremely restricted. And,
>> perhaps, impossible.
>
> It doesn't matter how often you bleat this shit, the reality is that you
> have absolutely no idea if that will be the case.

**I more than an idea about these things. I am quite widely read on the
topic.

>
>>> For a start I'm 69yrs old and even if I remain healthy and continue
>>> to drive into my 80's that's only 15 or so yrs away, I couldn't
>>> afford a new EV even if I wanted one and if I did buy a low km ICE
>>> vehicle it would most likely last me till I give up driving, the way
>>> its going my almost 20yr old MB will last another 10yrs.
>>
>> **Sure. You're (possibly) making the assumption that ICE cars won't be
>> either taxed into oblivion, or the fuels that power them will still be
>> cheap and easily available.
>
> And you are. What do you base your theories on that apparently make them
> more correct than those of anyone else?

**The rather copious amounts of stuff I read on the topic. How much
research have you done?

>
>>> It will be many years before EV's are the common simply because we
>>> don't have the electrical infrastructure that could handle that much
>>> electricity consumption so I very much doubt that I will ever own one.
>>
>> **And you base that claim on what, exactly?
>>
>> Research suggests that a complete change to EVs would require
>> approximately a 20% increase in electricity generation for most
>> Western, developed nations:
>>
>> https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-will-overload-the-power-grid
>
>
> That's nice. But we here in the land of Oz don't live in "most western
> developed nations".

**We live in _a_ Western developed nation.

We down here have a very sub standard power
> generation network,

**Well, it ain't perfect, but it's not too bad either. It certainly
needs improvement. Selling infrastructure to private interests was a
huge mistake.

and you basing your ideas of what will happen
> according to some simplistic bullshit you read on the internet is a
> total nonsense :)

**Umm, no. I am basing my comments on what is highly likely to occur in
the next few years.

>
>> As for charging stations, there is this:
>>
>> https://electricvehiclecouncil.com.au/about-ev/charger-map/
>>
>> There are around 2,500 charging stations around Australia. Not many.
>> You're right, but, given the national fleet of EVs numbers around 1%
>> of the total number on the road, one can assume that the number of
>> charging stations will rise to meet the demand. After all: It is WAY
>> easier to plonk a couple of chargers in a spot, than it is to built a
>> petrol station.
>
> Is it?

**Fuck yeah. I watched Shell re-build the local servo. Took 'em almost 2
years. 5 huge tanks, an array of pumps, lots of concrete and all the
rest. BIG job.

Presumably you're factoring in the cost of the real estate
> necessary to accommodate those "chargers", as well as the power
> requirements they'll need in order to work.

**Power requirements, like petrol and Diesel, is an ongoing cost for the
operator. Real estate is similar for both.

Or do you think they'll just
> "pop up" on footpaths everywhere and work by magic?

**In city areas, they just tap into the electricity network. No buried
tanks. Simple and quick.

>
> What will you do when you're out of juice and the couple of chargers are
> busy charging cars while their owners are in the local cafe sipping
> their Latte's?

**Grab my own coffee. You're assuming that I won't plan my trips/s to
accommodate suitable changing sites. I already plan my trip/s with fuel
stops, where possible right now.

>
>>
>>> Despite what you might think I'm not against EV's, its just that by
>>> the time they become affordable I'll most likely be either dead or
>>> not driving anymore.
>>
>> **SIX years:
>>
>> https://bestpractice.biz/electric-vehicles-to-reach-price-parity-with-internal-combustion-by-2027/
>
>
> For fuck's sake :)

**OK. I take you cannot refute the data supplied, with your alternate data.

This is the problem. I READ and digest huge amounts of information about
the topic and you engage in wild guesses, based on what you like. The
real world doesn't work like that.

>
>> However, that fails to take one, very important factor into account:
>>
>> The potential tax implications on fossil fuels. At some point in the
>> near future, our moronic leader will have to bend to the will of the
>> international community and introduce a tax system on fossil fuels.
>> Doing so, will accelerate the demise of petrol and Diesel vehicles.
>> Including yours.
>
> Nope.

**Yes.

What they will do is introduce a tax on EV's to compensate for the
> loss of revenue they cause.

**More likely the gummint will introduce a tax on ALL vehicles,
dependent on kms travelled.

The Australian Government earns close to 12
> billion in fuel excises every year, and if you think they're going to
> happily wave goodbye to that as people move to EV's you're completely
> out of your bloody tree.
>
> EV uses will pay. Just like we all do now.

**I never said otherwise. It's just that fossil fueled vehicle owners
will pay more.

>
>
>> When California introduces automobile legislation, the rest of the US
>> follows close behind.
>
> ROTFL :) You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here
> Trevor, and keep making this ridiculous claim as if it's real :)

**That's because California is the largest automobile market in the US:

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/540795-more-states-follow-californias-lead-on-vehicle-emissions-standards

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2021-04-26/epa-california-emissions-waiver-reversing-trump

>
> Californian vehicle law relates to California, and *only* California.

**Which the rest of the US, inevitably, follows.

> They have had their own laws relating to vehicle emissions since the
> 1970's which have never applied in other states, and a great many
> after-market parts come with a label affixed which states "Not legal for
> highway use in California". Similarly, US manufacturers have made
> "California specific" variants of their models for years which they need
> to do to meet the requirements.
>
> The rest of the US does *not* follow close behind California at all, and
> you are simply making this shit up :)

**No. It's fact. The other states will follow California.

>
>
>> The latest IPCC report tells us that shutting down all fossil fuel
>> industries is absolutely imperative. We have very little time to act
>> to save your grandkids from suffering through 60 Degree C Summer
>> heatwaves.
>
> Weren't they telling us in the 1980's that if we didn't do something to
> solve the emissions crisis we'd all be dead by the year 2000?

**No. That was solely in your own imagination. If you feel the IPCC made
any such claim, present your evidence.

I won't hold my breath.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/09/2021 10:19 am, Daryl wrote:

**My mechanic charges me around $240.00 for a 6 monthly service. Around
$140.00 less than the dealer charges. I, like many (probably most) car
owners don't do my own service for several reasons:

* I don't have the facilities.
* I don't think that warranty will be covered if I do.
* I can make more money in my workshop than it costs to service my car.
IOW: I would LOSE money if I serviced my own cars.

I've discussed servicing an EV with my mechanic. He estimates that it
will cost less than an ICE vehicle, but regular service will still be
required.

>
>>
>>> EV's still have suspension, steering, brakes driveshafts, wheels and
>>> tyres, body parts etc etc that still need to be maintained so whist
>>> they may need less maintenance on their power plants there will still
>>> be servicing costs especially as they get older and I would expect
>>> that servicing costs will go up because business's that service EV's
>>> will be more specialised so they will charge accordingly.
>>
>> Suspension, steering, brakes driveshafts, wheels and tyres, body parts
>> etc etc will only need to be services as they always have been, there
>> is no reason to expect that would cost more.
>
> Greed is why it will cost more, I expect servicing companies to charge a
> higher rate because its "specialised work" even though there is nothing
> particularly difficult about EV's or fuel cell vehicles.

**Maybe. Maybe not.

> Neighbour was a mechanic at a local Mitsubishi dealer and he said that
> their retail labor rate was $130 ph which is already high but I'd expect
> that to go up considerably because they won't want to lose the profit
> they make servicing ICE vehicles.

**Which is why I stick with my local mechanic.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 3/09/2021 8:03 pm, Noddy wrote:

> On 3/09/2021 4:27 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 3/09/2021 4:23 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>

>>> Using hydrogen in an internal combustion engine is just silly. It's
>>> inefficient at every level, and hydrogen takes up a lot of space and
>>> is difficult to store. An internal combustion engine using hydrogen

>>> will also still release oxides of nitrogen (NOx).
>>>

>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>
>> **You won't win that argument. Nods likes noisy, grossly inefficient
>> vehicles. Quiet, fast, fuel efficient vehicles are no use to him.
>
> Jesus you can talk some utter shit at times Trevor.

**I'll try to be honest and straightforward like you always are.

>
> I like *lots* of different vehicles and for lots of different reasons. I
> don't go out of my way to like a vehicle just because it's horribly
> inefficient any more than I do to hate a vehicle that is as efficient as
> it can possibly be. Efficiency has never been a major concern of mine as
> far as vehicles go, but just to counter your bullshit with some reality
> I actually own vehicles that are good examples of *both* ends of the
> spectrum.
>
>> H2  makes some sense for a fuel cell vehicle, but no sense for an IC
>> engined one. As you say, it will be grossly inefficient on many levels.
>
> And yet here are companies like Deutz, Cummins and Toyota putting money
> into the idea. Maybe they should have just asked you to begin with and
> saved all that coin.

**They can draw their own conclusions. There is some logic in using H2
for prime movers, but almost no sense for passenger vehicles.

>
>> BTW: Don't get too hung up on the NOx thing. NOx emissions are MUCH
>> lower on an H2 engined vehicle, than they are on an ICE vehicle.
>
> Ridiculously so.
>
>

[Clocky]

That's la-la land stuff Trevor. Producing panels and windfarms require a
huge amount of resources. Getting them out of the ground, refining,
manufacturing etc all use an enormous amount of energy and guess what...
produce emissions.

I'm all for EV, but not pie in the sky about it like you seem to be.
It's not a free ride and nothing is emission free. EV's don't appear out
of nowhere.

Driving a 30 year old Commodore into the ground has had much less
environmental impact than the total environmental cost of producing just
one new EV.

<snip>

[Clocky]

No they weren't.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 3/09/2021 8:13 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 3/09/2021 5:17 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 3/09/2021 4:50 pm, Daryl wrote:
>
>>> You seems to be obsessed with efficiency yet how "efficient" is an EV
>>> that takes hours to fully charge?

>>
>> **You seem to be of the impression that you will have a choice in how
>> your new car will be powered in a few years.
>>
>> Hint: You won't.
>

> Here's Trev with his crystal ball again :)

**Umm, nope. Lots of industry publications.

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

> I'll be right then :)

**I'm sure you will.

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

> All lovey, and totally insignificant detail.

**Utterly and completely crucial detail.

>
> You seem to be completely ignorant of one tiny, but incredibly important
> fact, and that is that as far as "efficiency" is concerned in relation
> to vehicles, the average person couldn't give a kilogram of pigshit
> about the efficiency rating of the *fuel* they use.

**Bullshit. They do, inasmuch a they care about how much it costs to
drive XXXX kms. Some don't. Like one of my old tech teachers. His GTHO
(dunno if it was Phase II or III) returned around 3mpg. He didn't give a
shit. Then the early 1970s 'oil shock' hit. It changed everything.
Particularly in the US. My little Escort suddenly looked like a pretty
decent alternative transport. Not for nothing, BTW: The air in Sydney
was WAY cleaner at that time.


All they're
> interested in is how much it costs them to run their car per week, and
> the effiency of the fuel itself has little bearing on that.

**That is bullshit. My local Shell sells fuel at about $0.20 per Litre
higher than the Metro up the road. There are NEVER queues to buy fuel at
the Shell. At the Metro, queues can run to 10 ~ 15 minutes. People care
about fuel prices.

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

**Exactly. People care about fuel costs.

>
>> Why am I concerned about efficiency?
>

> Because you're a whackjob :)

>
>> A: Because EVERY SINGLE human on this planet will have to cut
>> emissions to reduce the impact of global warming. Now I realise that
>> you don't care, but that is irrelevant, as Australia, as a whole, will
>> be penalised by the international community for failing to cut CO2
>> emissions.
>

> Really? What are they going to do? Send us a strongly worded letter?

**Nope. Tax fossil fuels out of existence.

>
> Are you seriously suggesting that countries like the US, Russia, China
> and India who produce more climate destroying emissions in a week than
> we do in a *year* are going to get up in our face about the 1% of global
> output that *we're* responsible for?

**China presently emits around 1/3rd of the amount of CO2 per capita
that we do.

India emits around 1/10th the emissions of C2 per capita that we do.

Russia, abnout 2/3rds that we do.

Australia is amongst the worst on the planet. And with that coal-loving
clown, Scummo in charge, we will be dragged kicking and screaming into
the 21st century.

>
>>> Any vehicle that can be refueled in minutes rather than hours is more
>>> efficient, maybe not "fuel efficient" but still more efficient than
>>> an EV.
>>
>> **You have a weird, unscientific, way of measuring efficiency.
>

> From the bloke who talks about the efficiency of different fuels as if
> it actually *means* something to the average guy in the street.

**It's not that difficult.

Number of kms driven, compared to Dollars spent.

>
> He's here all week Folks, otherwise he's not.

[Xeno]

Darren can't even read something and get it right. He has *no hope* of
ever doing any research that involves *reading* up on any topic.

>>
>>>> It will be many years before EV's are the common simply because we
>>>> don't have the electrical infrastructure that could handle that much
>>>> electricity consumption so I very much doubt that I will ever own one.
>>>
>>> **And you base that claim on what, exactly?
>>>
>>> Research suggests that a complete change to EVs would require
>>> approximately a 20% increase in electricity generation for most
>>> Western, developed nations:
>>>
>>> https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-will-overload-the-power-grid
>>
>>
>>
>> That's nice. But we here in the land of Oz don't live in "most western
>> developed nations".
>
> **We live in _a_ Western developed nation.
>

One of the more developed ones in fact. You soon learn and reinforce
that when you go live and work in 2nd and 3rd world countries.

>
>  We down here have a very sub standard power
>> generation network,
>
> **Well, it ain't perfect, but it's not too bad either. It certainly
> needs improvement. Selling infrastructure to private interests was a
> huge mistake.
>

It certainly was. Costs went up and reliability went down.

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

Anything Darren doesn't understand is bullshit.

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

I lived near a 7/11 a few years back and just changing out one of the
underground tanks (leaking) was a huge undertaking. All the forecourt
had to be ripped up, heavy gear to remove the tank, lots of pollution
remediation, then more time and cost rebuilding all the forecourt area.
The business was out of action until the job was completed.

>
>  Presumably you're factoring in the cost of the real estate
>> necessary to accommodate those "chargers", as well as the power
>> requirements they'll need in order to work.
>
> **Power requirements, like petrol and Diesel, is an ongoing cost for the
> operator. Real estate is similar for both.
>
>
>  Or do you think they'll just
>> "pop up" on footpaths everywhere and work by magic?
>
> **In city areas, they just tap into the electricity network. No buried
> tanks. Simple and quick.
>

6 bay Tesla charging station here, installed in a couple of weeks in a
shopping centre carpark, no major works required. It involved the
charging station bases and associated wiring. They are the really fast
chargers too.

>>
>> What will you do when you're out of juice and the couple of chargers
>> are busy charging cars while their owners are in the local cafe
>> sipping their Latte's?
>
> **Grab my own coffee. You're assuming that I won't plan my trips/s to
> accommodate suitable changing sites. I already plan my trip/s with fuel
> stops, where possible right now.
>

If you own a Tesla, it is possible to do the Melbourne - Brisbane trip
with minimal disruption, fast chargers all the way.

>>
>>>
>>>> Despite what you might think I'm not against EV's, its just that by
>>>> the time they become affordable I'll most likely be either dead or
>>>> not driving anymore.
>>>
>>> **SIX years:
>>>
>>> https://bestpractice.biz/electric-vehicles-to-reach-price-parity-with-internal-combustion-by-2027/
>>
>>
>>
>> For fuck's sake :)
>
> **OK. I take you cannot refute the data supplied, with your alternate data.

Darren actually is saying he *didn't understand the data*.

That's true, some more closely than others. California is the driver of
US emission standards. The EU, and to a degree the US, is the driver
behind ours.

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

And they have in the past. No reason to assume that trend will change,
especially since the US federal government is getting in on the act.

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

Darren loves adding bullshit into the mix - like his bullshit claims
he's a qualified tradesman.

>
> I won't hold my breath.
>

[Xeno]

On 4/9/21 4:42 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 3/09/2021 8:03 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 3/09/2021 4:27 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 3/09/2021 4:23 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>>> Using hydrogen in an internal combustion engine is just silly. It's
>>>> inefficient at every level, and hydrogen takes up a lot of space and
>>>> is difficult to store. An internal combustion engine using hydrogen
>>>> will also still release oxides of nitrogen (NOx).
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>
>>>
>>> **You won't win that argument. Nods likes noisy, grossly inefficient
>>> vehicles. Quiet, fast, fuel efficient vehicles are no use to him.
>>
>> Jesus you can talk some utter shit at times Trevor.
>
> **I'll try to be honest and straightforward like you always are.

That's a long downhill run to even *match* Darren in the bullshit and
lies stakes. So far down you would likely achieve terminal velocity!

>
>>
>> I like *lots* of different vehicles and for lots of different reasons.
>> I don't go out of my way to like a vehicle just because it's horribly
>> inefficient any more than I do to hate a vehicle that is as efficient
>> as it can possibly be. Efficiency has never been a major concern of
>> mine as far as vehicles go, but just to counter your bullshit with
>> some reality I actually own vehicles that are good examples of *both*
>> ends of the spectrum.
>>
>>> H2  makes some sense for a fuel cell vehicle, but no sense for an IC
>>> engined one. As you say, it will be grossly inefficient on many levels.
>>
>> And yet here are companies like Deutz, Cummins and Toyota putting
>> money into the idea. Maybe they should have just asked you to begin
>> with and saved all that coin.
>
> **They can draw their own conclusions. There is some logic in using H2
> for prime movers, but almost no sense for passenger vehicles.
>

Fuel cells make sense in passenger cars and light commercials. Hydrogen
ICEs will only make sense in long haul heavy transport.

>>
>>> BTW: Don't get too hung up on the NOx thing. NOx emissions are MUCH
>>> lower on an H2 engined vehicle, than they are on an ICE vehicle.
>>
>> Ridiculously so.
>>
>>
>

[Clocky]

It's old fashioned mentality. I can see manufacturers selling cars
online and fucking off the traditional dealer networks entirely, and
instead using independent service agents that they simply provide with
the support necessary to do maintenance and repairs, as required.

Manufacturers don't give a shit about dealers, they have always just
been a necessary evil. If they're no longer needed manufacturers will
simply cut them off.

[Noddy]

On 4/09/2021 4:40 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 4/09/2021 10:19 am, Daryl wrote:

> I've discussed servicing an EV with my mechanic. He estimates that it
> will cost less than an ICE vehicle, but regular service will still be
> required.

until he starts doing them on a fairly regular basis, he won't really
know how much it will cost to service them.

>> Greed is why it will cost more, I expect servicing companies to charge
>> a higher rate because its "specialised work" even though there is
>> nothing particularly difficult about EV's or fuel cell vehicles.
>
> **Maybe. Maybe not.

I think it will be more "maybe" than "not" :)

>> Neighbour was a mechanic at a local Mitsubishi dealer and he said that
>> their retail labor rate was $130 ph which is already high but I'd
>> expect that to go up considerably because they won't want to lose the
>> profit they make servicing ICE vehicles.
>
> **Which is why I stick with my local mechanic.

As I've said before, if you have a good independent that you're happy
with then stick with them.

[Xeno]

Electric vehicles are between 85% and 90% efficient. ICEs cannot hope to
match it. 100% torque at stall makes acceleration impressive in an
electric vehicle. ICEs have *zero torque at stall*.

>>
>> You seem to be completely ignorant of one tiny, but incredibly
>> important fact, and that is that as far as "efficiency" is concerned
>> in relation to vehicles, the average person couldn't give a kilogram
>> of pigshit about the efficiency rating of the *fuel* they use.
>
> **Bullshit. They do, inasmuch a they care about how much it costs to
> drive XXXX kms. Some don't. Like one of my old tech teachers. His GTHO
> (dunno if it was Phase II or III) returned around 3mpg. He didn't give a
> shit. Then the early 1970s 'oil shock' hit. It changed everything.
> Particularly in the US. My little Escort suddenly looked like a pretty
> decent alternative transport. Not for nothing, BTW: The air in Sydney
> was WAY cleaner at that time.
>
>
>  All they're
>> interested in is how much it costs them to run their car per week, and
>> the effiency of the fuel itself has little bearing on that.
>
> **That is bullshit. My local Shell sells fuel at about $0.20 per Litre
> higher than the Metro up the road. There are NEVER queues to buy fuel at
> the Shell. At the Metro, queues can run to 10 ~ 15 minutes. People care
> about fuel prices.
>

You see that sort of thing everywhere.

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

Don't you love the way Darren confirms the point *you* are making?
He certainly has foot in mouth disease.

>>
>>> Why am I concerned about efficiency?
>>
>> Because you're a whackjob :)
>>
>>> A: Because EVERY SINGLE human on this planet will have to cut
>>> emissions to reduce the impact of global warming. Now I realise that
>>> you don't care, but that is irrelevant, as Australia, as a whole,
>>> will be penalised by the international community for failing to cut
>>> CO2 emissions.
>>
>> Really? What are they going to do? Send us a strongly worded letter?
>
> **Nope. Tax fossil fuels out of existence.
>
>>
>> Are you seriously suggesting that countries like the US, Russia, China
>> and India who produce more climate destroying emissions in a week than
>> we do in a *year* are going to get up in our face about the 1% of
>> global output that *we're* responsible for?
>
> **China presently emits around 1/3rd of the amount of CO2 per capita
> that we do.
>
> India emits around 1/10th the emissions of C2 per capita that we do.
>
> Russia, abnout 2/3rds that we do.

Those comparisons are using concepts that Darren simply cannot
understand. You will need to extrapolate further.

>
> Australia is amongst the worst on the planet. And with that coal-loving
> clown, Scummo in charge, we will be dragged kicking and screaming into
> the 21st century.
>
>>
>>>> Any vehicle that can be refueled in minutes rather than hours is
>>>> more efficient, maybe not "fuel efficient" but still more efficient
>>>> than an EV.
>>>
>>> **You have a weird, unscientific, way of measuring efficiency.
>>
>>  From the bloke who talks about the efficiency of different fuels as
>> if it actually *means* something to the average guy in the street.
>
> **It's not that difficult.
>
> Number of kms driven, compared to Dollars spent.
>
>>
>> He's here all week Folks, otherwise he's not.

[Xeno]

GM/H certainly did when they shut up shop here.

[Noddy]

On 4/09/2021 4:30 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 4/09/2021 12:41 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> It doesn't matter how often you bleat this shit, the reality is that
>> you have absolutely no idea if that will be the case.
>
> **I more than an idea about these things. I am quite widely read on the
> topic.

Be as widely read as you like Trev, but you are no better at predicting
the future than anyone else. You should also bear in mind that a *lot*
of the comments made today about what is intended in the future are made
for little reason *other* than to placate the people jumping up and down
demanding answers.

>> **Sure. You're (possibly) making the assumption that ICE cars won't
>>> be either taxed into oblivion, or the fuels that power them will
>>> still be cheap and easily available.
>>
>> And you are. What do you base your theories on that apparently make
>> them more correct than those of anyone else?
>
> **The rather copious amounts of stuff I read on the topic. How much
> research have you done?

I don't need to research. I get all my goss straight from you :)

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

We live in a very sparsely populated but geographically large Western
developed nation with a small population and antiquated facilities.

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

Yeah. Based on the simplistic bullshit you read on the internet.

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

2 years? What, did it have a hidden nuclear reactor that needed to be
decommissioned or something?

They built a new decent sized servo in Bacchus Marsh a couple of years
ago that took them around 4 months to complete from the time they
demolished the houses on the land to the time they were pumping fuel. I
think it actually took them longer to process all the paperwork than it
did to do the actual construction.

2 years? Fark..... :)

> This is the problem. I READ and digest huge amounts of information about
> the topic and you engage in wild guesses, based on what you like. The
> real world doesn't work like that.

Actually Trevor that's not accurate.

You may read lots, but you seem to assume that everything you read is
factual just because it exists somewhere. I would imagine a shit-tonne
of what you read is nothing other than opinion and editorial.

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

They may do. Only time will tell.

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

And here yet again is *another* example of you stating something as if
it's been set in stone :)

>>
>> Californian vehicle law relates to California, and *only* California.
>
> **Which the rest of the US, inevitably, follows.

No, it does not Trevor.

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

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

ROTFL :)

Something that is *yet* to happen is *not* a fact :)

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

Sorry Trevor, but by "they" I meant people making "climate predictions".
I'm not sure that the IPCC actually existed in the 1980's, did they?

You like to read. This will amuse you :)

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

[Noddy]

On 4/09/2021 4:42 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 3/09/2021 8:03 pm, Noddy wrote:

>>> **You won't win that argument. Nods likes noisy, grossly inefficient
>>> vehicles. Quiet, fast, fuel efficient vehicles are no use to him.
>>
>> Jesus you can talk some utter shit at times Trevor.
>
> **I'll try to be honest and straightforward like you always are.

Good choice. It would go some way to giving your arguments some credibility.

>> I like *lots* of different vehicles and for lots of different reasons.
>> I don't go out of my way to like a vehicle just because it's horribly
>> inefficient any more than I do to hate a vehicle that is as efficient
>> as it can possibly be. Efficiency has never been a major concern of
>> mine as far as vehicles go, but just to counter your bullshit with
>> some reality I actually own vehicles that are good examples of *both*
>> ends of the spectrum.
>>
>>> H2  makes some sense for a fuel cell vehicle, but no sense for an IC
>>> engined one. As you say, it will be grossly inefficient on many levels.
>>
>> And yet here are companies like Deutz, Cummins and Toyota putting
>> money into the idea. Maybe they should have just asked you to begin
>> with and saved all that coin.
>
> **They can draw their own conclusions. There is some logic in using H2
> for prime movers, but almost no sense for passenger vehicles.

It's being researched as we speak, and we will know soon enough.

[alvey]

On Sat, 4 Sep 2021 12:41:45 +1000, Noddy wrote:

> On 4/09/2021 12:01 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 3/09/2021 11:00 pm, Daryl wrote:
>
>>> You make the assumption that some time in the future I would buy an EV
>>> or even a new vehicle of any sort and you would be wrong.
>>
>> **I make no such assumption. IF you want a new car in a few years, your
>> choice of an ICE powered one will be extremely restricted. And, perhaps,
>> impossible.
>

> It doesn't matter how often you bleat this shit, the reality is...

lol!

"the reality is..." may be one of the Fraudsters stock phrases, but it
still makes me laugh every time the reality-avoiding buffoon plops it out.

"the reality is" Der Der that you're a lying, cowardly & hypocritical
fraud.



alvey
Still waiting for an explanation from the Fraudster as to how NA (of
Altona) was only ever registered from 1993-96 *and* why the nominated
business address was his parents house.

[alvey]

On Sat, 4 Sep 2021 13:26:53 +1000, Noddy wrote:

> Probably, but there will still be regular servicing, and I'd happily bet
> the farm that the push by the dealership world for it to generate
> comparable levels of income that it does now will be *very* strong indeed.
>
> You have to bear in mind that manufacturers need dealers, and dealers
> make very little money in selling cars. For the overwhelming majority of
> them the selling of the cars is a means to an end in that it's their way
> of getting customers onto their service books.
>
> *That's* where they make their money.

Ahhh Der Der at his creative 'best'.

I don't know if it's a good thing or not, but if all humanity had Der Der's
level of thinking then we'd all still be living in caves.


alvey
"The reality is Edgar, carriage makers and hay producers will never let
these petrol driven carriages replace the horse. Besides, there's no
fucking roads for them to run on and it'll cost too much to build them!
Anyone who thinks they're The Future are idiots". Thomas Horace Gibbens,
while wiping horse shit off boots, 1898.

[Daryl]

ROTFL, apparently we ran out of food and fuel 20yrs ago:-)


--
Daryl

[Yosemite Sam]

per capita as a measure is misleading. those countries have much higher
populations. the total emissions is what matters.

> And with that coal-loving clown, Scummo in charge, we will be dragged
> kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
>
>>
>>>> Any vehicle that can be refueled in minutes rather than hours is
>>>> more efficient, maybe not "fuel efficient" but still more efficient
>>>> than an EV.
>>>
>>> **You have a weird, unscientific, way of measuring efficiency.
>>
>>  From the bloke who talks about the efficiency of different fuels as
>> if it actually *means* something to the average guy in the street.
>
> **It's not that difficult.
>
> Number of kms driven, compared to Dollars spent.
>
>>
>> He's here all week Folks, otherwise he's not.

--
"A mans got to know his limitations"
- clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry

[Yosemite Sam]

On 4/09/2021 12:01 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 3/09/2021 11:00 pm, Daryl wrote:

>> On 3/9/21 5:17 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> **You seem to be of the impression that you will have a choice in
>>> how your new car will be powered in a few years.
>>>
>>> Hint: You won't.
>>

>> You make the assumption that some time in the future I would buy an
>> EV or even a new vehicle of any sort and you would be wrong.
>
> **I make no such assumption. IF you want a new car in a few years,
> your choice of an ICE powered one will be extremely restricted. And,
> perhaps, impossible.

In "a few years"? I don't think so

[Daryl]

You must drive a lot of kms if you get your car serviced every 6mths?
Subaru service intervals are mostly at 12500km.
You should buy a Mercedes, much cheaper to own, I wouldn't spend $240 on
servicing in 2yrs:-)

You can forget that if you buy an EV if you want to keep your warranty,
he won't be allowed to touch it unless he becomes a dealer, rules that
make it possible to service the cars we now drive without voiding
warranty don't apply to EV's and rules that apply to parts supply also
don't apply.
Try and buy Tesla parts, they won't sell them to you or anyone else.
Govts will have to rewrite all the rules which they may eventually get
around to but don't hold your breath waiting.


--
Daryl

[Xeno]

On 4/9/21 5:53 pm, Noddy wrote:

Ok, so it is a fact then.... From Wikipedia

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

You really *can't read*, can you Darren?

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

In 1970 there was little general understanding or even awareness of the
effects of increased CO2 concentrations. By 1980, this had changed
drastically.

>
> You like to read. This will amuse you :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You really need to address the veracity of your media sources, Darren,
especially on topics such as climate change. Here's a hint, anything to
do with the Murdoch Press just doesn't cut the mustard as a reliable
source of *honest and truthful* facts and data.

[Daryl]

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

--
Daryl

[Xeno]

On 4/9/21 12:01 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 3/09/2021 11:00 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 3/9/21 5:17 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> **You seem to be of the impression that you will have a choice in how
>>> your new car will be powered in a few years.
>>>
>>> Hint: You won't.
>>
>> You make the assumption that some time in the future I would buy an EV
>> or even a new vehicle of any sort and you would be wrong.
>
> **I make no such assumption. IF you want a new car in a few years, your
> choice of an ICE powered one will be extremely restricted. And, perhaps,
> impossible.
>

>> For a start I'm 69yrs old and even if I remain healthy and continue to
>> drive into my 80's that's only 15 or so yrs away, I couldn't afford a
>> new EV even if I wanted one and if I did buy a low km ICE vehicle it
>> would most likely last me till I give up driving, the way its going my
>> almost 20yr old MB will last another 10yrs.
>

> **Sure. You're (possibly) making the assumption that ICE cars won't be
> either taxed into oblivion, or the fuels that power them will still be
> cheap and easily available.
>

>> It will be many years before EV's are the common simply because we
>> don't have the electrical infrastructure that could handle that much
>> electricity consumption so I very much doubt that I will ever own one.
>
> **And you base that claim on what, exactly?
>

> Research suggests that a complete change to EVs would require
> approximately a 20% increase in electricity generation for most Western,
> developed nations:
>
> https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-will-overload-the-power-grid
>
>

> As for charging stations, there is this:
>
> https://electricvehiclecouncil.com.au/about-ev/charger-map/
>
> There are around 2,500 charging stations around Australia. Not many.
> You're right, but, given the national fleet of EVs numbers around 1% of
> the total number on the road, one can assume that the number of charging
> stations will rise to meet the demand. After all: It is WAY easier to
> plonk a couple of chargers in a spot, than it is to built a petrol station.
>
>

>> Despite what you might think I'm not against EV's, its just that by
>> the time they become affordable I'll most likely be either dead or not
>> driving anymore.
>
> **SIX years:
>
> https://bestpractice.biz/electric-vehicles-to-reach-price-parity-with-internal-combustion-by-2027/
>
>

> However, that fails to take one, very important factor into account:
>
> The potential tax implications on fossil fuels. At some point in the
> near future, our moronic leader will have to bend to the will of the
> international community and introduce a tax system on fossil fuels.
> Doing so, will accelerate the demise of petrol and Diesel vehicles.
> Including yours.
>
>>
>>>

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

>> Is hydrogen a fossil fuel?
>
> **It can be derived from fossil fuels, but it can also be derived from
> 'splitting' water using electricity from Solar or wind energy, thus
> providing a zero emission solution.
>
>> Why would one zero emission power source be taxed more than another
>> and we were talking about hydrogen powered vehicles?
>
> **Huh?
>
>>
>>>

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

>>> Why am I concerned about efficiency?
>>>

>>> A: Because EVERY SINGLE human on this planet will have to cut
>>> emissions to reduce the impact of global warming. Now I realise that
>>> you don't care, but that is irrelevant, as Australia, as a whole,
>>> will be penalised by the international community for failing to cut
>>> CO2 emissions.
>>

>> Think about the entire process of powering an EV, not all that
>> efficient at all.
>
> **It sure as Hell can be. This country has abundant renewable energy
> sources. Just 3% of Australia's land area, dedicated to Solar PV power
> generation, could, in theory, supply the entire planet's electricity
> needs forever. Well, the next couple of billion years anyway. After than
> time, we have bigger problems to face.

https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/evs-are-they-really-more-efficient/

>
>> The objective is zero emissions, does how that is achieved matter?
>
> **It doesn't. What are you trying to say?
>
>>>
>>>

>>>> Any vehicle that can be refueled in minutes rather than hours is
>>>> more efficient, maybe not "fuel efficient" but still more efficient
>>>> than an EV.
>>>
>>> **You have a weird, unscientific, way of measuring efficiency.
>>>

>> You don't even seem to understand the word.
>
> **I understand the word perfectly:
>
> "the ratio of the work done or energy developed by a machine, engine,
> etc., to the energy supplied to it, usually expressed as a percentage."
>

> EVs are FAR more efficient at converting 'fuel' into motive energy. By a
> very considerable margin.

They are, more so if the electricity has *green* sources.

>
> Re-fuelling is a different matter entirely. Either way, for the vast
> majority of Australians, it is irrelevant.
>
> How many kms do you drive every day?
>

His daily driving, like most people, would be well within the range of
an EV.

>
>> Try thinking about a return journey of say 500km each way, with a
>> hydrogen powered vehicle you could drive to your destination, refuel
>> your vehicle, turn around and drive back but with an EV you would have
>> to spend many hours waiting for your vehicle to be recharged.
>
> **Are you suggesting 1,000km without a single break? That would be
> really dumb for any driver to attempt. An overnight break, while the car
> is re-charged makes perfect sense for someone who likes to remain alive.
>

>> Imagine you owned a business and you had sent an employee on the
>> journey mentioned above,
>

> **ANY employer who did so, should be locked up. I would NEVER do such a
> thing. 1,000kms is way too long to force an employee on the road without

> a break. Without several breaks, in fact.
>
> Try using a real world example, rather than something that is patently
> dangerous.
>

>  if they were driving an EV you would be paying their
>> wages for sitting around doing nothing waiting for the EV to recharge,
>> if that's not inefficient then what is.
>> For some reason you seem to be obsessed with EV's when there is more
>> than one way to achieve zero emissions.
>
> **Sure. There's walking, riding a bicycle, etc.
>

>> I don't think car makers aren't as dumb as you seem to think they are,
>
> **When I see Ford doubling production of the BEV variant of their most
> popular vehicle, I don't think that car makers are dumb at all. When I
> see this:
>
> https://www.racv.com.au/royalauto/transport/electric-vehicles/car-brands-going-electric.html
>
>
> I don't think that car manufacturers are dumb at all. What I think is
> dumb, are people who imagine that there are not HUGE changes coming very
> quickly to the car business. Anyone not prepared for a wholesale change
> to EVs is both stupid and likely to be out of business very soon.
>
>
>
>> if there is a market for a product that they can make a profit from
>> then they will make it, if they just make EV's they will be
>> eliminating a lot of potential customers.
>
> **You seem to imagine that they have a choice. They don't:
>
> https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/09/23/governor-newsom-announces-california-will-phase-out-gasoline-powered-cars-drastically-reduce-demand-for-fossil-fuel-in-californias-fight-against-climate-change/
>
>

> When California introduces automobile legislation, the rest of the US
> follows close behind.
>

> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/uk-plans-to-bring-forward-ban-on-fossil-fuel-vehicles-to-2030
>
>
> https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/details/europe-to-ban-new-petrol-diesel-and-hybrid-cars-from-2035-130997/

>
>
> The latest IPCC report tells us that shutting down all fossil fuel
> industries is absolutely imperative. We have very little time to act to
> save your grandkids from suffering through 60 Degree C Summer heatwaves.
>

I think his grandkids will have more serious issues to face long before
we see 60 degree Summer temperatures. BTW, did you know that we humans
cannot survive being outside in temperatures much above 50 degrees C? At
40 C and above for prolonged periods, we fall victim to *hyperthermia, a
condition where the mechanisms of the body are no longer able to deal
effectively with heat and loses control of body temperature resulting in
an uncontrolled temperature rise. Hyperthermia requires immediate
treatment. Having worked in extreme environments where temperatures
regularly exceed 45 C and the humidity is very low, I have experience
with such conditions and, I might add, was trained to recognise and deal
with it. You wouldn't believe how much water you can drink in an
overtemperature dry environment! Sweating, however, is a lifesaver (as
long as body fluid levels are maintained) but in an extremely hot and
humid environment, sweating doesn't provide the body with any
evaporative cooling effect so hyperthermia risk factors rise incredibly.
If the body temperature exceeds 42.3 C, proteins are denatured and brain
damage occurs because of cerebral edema. Darren wouldn't notice that but
the rest of us would.

[Xeno]

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

You're a fine one to talk about *giving arguments credibility* by being
honest and straightforward! You don't even know the meaning of the word
*honest*. How about *you* giving *your claims* some credibility by
stumping up proof? Oh, hang on, you can't do that, can you? That's
because your claims are bullshit, mere figments of your delusional
imagination.

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


--

[Xeno]

He must have been *living at home* at the age of *30*!
That's truly sad! Still attached to mum's apron strings, no doubt!
It does, however, explain a lot! ;-)

[Xeno]

If that's the case then, we should also be tagging all those millions of
tons of coal that we *export* right onto *our tab* then. Fair's fair.

>
>> And with that coal-loving clown, Scummo in charge, we will be dragged
>> kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
>>
>>>
>>>>> Any vehicle that can be refueled in minutes rather than hours is
>>>>> more efficient, maybe not "fuel efficient" but still more efficient
>>>>> than an EV.
>>>>
>>>> **You have a weird, unscientific, way of measuring efficiency.
>>>
>>>  From the bloke who talks about the efficiency of different fuels as
>>> if it actually *means* something to the average guy in the street.
>>
>> **It's not that difficult.
>>
>> Number of kms driven, compared to Dollars spent.
>>
>>>
>>> He's here all week Folks, otherwise he's not.
>
>


--

[Trevor Wilson]

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

> Subaru service intervals are mostly at 12500km.

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

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

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

**I doubt that.

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

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

[Trevor Wilson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hint: They won't.

[Noddy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Completely and utterly irrelevant in fact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are they?

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

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

ROTFL :)

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

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

[Noddy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, you base this on what?

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

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

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

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

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

[Noddy]

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

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

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

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

Clearly you didn't factor in maintenance costs.

[Noddy]

On 4/09/2021 3:09 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

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

>>>> Despite what you might think I'm not against EV's, its just that by
>>>> the time they become affordable I'll most likely be either dead or
>>>> not driving anymore.
>>>
>>> **SIX years:
>>>
>>> https://bestpractice.biz/electric-vehicles-to-reach-price-parity-with-internal-combustion-by-2027/
>>
>>
>>

>> Pure speculation and fantasy.
>
> **OK. Cite your evidence to prove it wrong. I've submitted my evidence.
> It's up to you to submit yours.

ROFTL :)

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

That is *not* evidence :)


[..]

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

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

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

[Daryl]

LOL, what's the turbo got to do with anything?

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

Yours may say 6mths but ours didn't, we often went well over 6mths
between services, it was mostly dealer serviced (wife's car and the
dealer was in the city so she could spend the day shopping while the car
was being serviced, have you ever tried telling a woman she can't go
shopping:-)) and not once did they comment about it being over due for a
service.

They (Tesla) are well known for it.

>
>> Try and buy Tesla parts, they won't sell them to you or anyone else.
>> Govts will have to rewrite all the rules which they may eventually get
>> around to but don't hold your breath waiting.
>
> **There are other EVs as well as Teslas. Porsche presently build the
> only EV wagon. That has me all hot and bothered. AWD too.
>

Sure is more than one make but the rules with regard to non dealer
servicing are out the window with EV's, they simply don't apply, no
requirement for OBD2 or for makers to supply service info, as I said
that may change but it will take some time.
If they do have diagnostic ports which they most likely will you will
need diagnostic tools that only dealers can get, it took a lot of years
for Govts to force car makers to supply servicing data so don't expect
them to just hand over tools and data unless they are compelled to.

--
Daryl

[Daryl]

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

Ours was 12500km or 12mths.

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

Subaru's aren't cheap to service.


--
Daryl

[Daryl]

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

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

So just run 40psi boost, that is not a big deal.

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

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

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

Pure fantasy.

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

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

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

Which is no big deal, if they do cost more teh tanks might be the reason.

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

You seem to be stating that Govts will legislate that EV's are the only
type of vehicle that anyone can buy?
If so that makes no sense, it would be political suicide.
Why would they support one technology over another when the objective is
to achieve zero emissions which both can do.
Why would Govts piss off people like farmers or others who live in
remote areas just to support one technology over another?
Also if they did mandate EV's a lot of people would have no choice but
to keep old vehicles.

--
Daryl

[Clocky]

Very good :-)

[Trevor Wilson]

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

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

I stand corrected.

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

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

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

Merc appear to be a bit of a laggard in Australia, but they're on their way.

>>
>>> Try and buy Tesla parts, they won't sell them to you or anyone else.
>>> Govts will have to rewrite all the rules which they may eventually
>>> get around to but don't hold your breath waiting.
>>
>> **There are other EVs as well as Teslas. Porsche presently build the
>> only EV wagon. That has me all hot and bothered. AWD too.
>>
> Sure is more than one make but the rules with regard to non dealer
> servicing are out the window with EV's, they simply don't apply, no
> requirement for OBD2 or for makers to supply service info, as I said
> that may change but it will take some time.

**The Australian gummint is certainly slow at protecting consumer
rights, but it will happen.

> If they do have diagnostic ports which they most likely will you will
> need diagnostic tools that only dealers can get, it took a lot of years
> for Govts to force car makers to supply servicing data so don't expect
> them to just hand over tools and data unless they are compelled to.

**Which they will.

[alvey]

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

[Trevor Wilson]

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

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

https://daily.jstor.org/how-19th-century-scientists-predicted-global-warming/

>>
>> You like to read. This will amuse you :)
>
> You *can't read* so this will be a real struggle for you.
>
> In 1983 this climate report was published; http://nap.edu/18714
>
> You should however make the attempt even though pretty pictures are few
> and far between, text is dense and the writers use a plethora of
> multi-syllable words. It's even written with a concept that is alien to
> you - truth!  If you still struggle with the complexity, get your wife
> to explain the key points - as a (former) teacher, she must be literate
> - even if you aren't!
>
> The above document had a precursor, this one from 1977;
>
> https://www.nap.edu/download/12024
>
> Energy and Climate, Studies in Geophysics
>>
>>> https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/
>
>
> In 1970, they had no real modelling of the effects of CO2. Any
> predictions made then were speculative at best. Since then, and by 1983,
> a lot more research was undertaken and a lot more learnt. As a direct
> consequence, the relevant bodies were able to make predictions that hold
> true today. Some were a little optimistic - at first - but as time
> progressed and little was done to address atmospheric buildup of CO2, it
> became evident that a somewhat more pessimistic outlook should have been
> the focus.

**Well, Arrhenius calculated that a doubling in CO2 levels would lead to
a 5 ~ 6 degree C rise in temperatures. We know, now, that his numbers
were out be quite a bit, but his general principles hold true. Given the
fact that fast computers were very rare in the late 19th century, his
work stands up as mightily impressive.

>
> You really need to address the veracity of your media sources, Darren,
> especially on topics such as climate change. Here's a hint, anything to
> do with the Murdoch Press just doesn't cut the mustard as a reliable
> source of *honest and truthful* facts and data.

**Emphatically agreed.

[Trevor Wilson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Follow the logic:

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

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

**Sure it does.

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

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

New cars, of course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

>
> You like to read. This will amuse you :)
>

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

**And, most interestingly, the two major advancements that demolished
most of those predictions have been modern fertilisers and herbicides
and California's pollution laws (which have been adopted in every corner
of the planet).

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

[keithr0]

On 4/09/2021 3:23 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 4/9/21 1:16 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 4/09/2021 12:06 pm, Noddy wrote:

>>> On 4/09/2021 9:32 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 3/09/2021 11:20 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> EV's still have suspension, steering, brakes driveshafts, wheels
>>>>> and tyres, body parts etc etc that still need to be maintained so
>>>>> whist they may need less maintenance on their power plants there
>>>>> will still be servicing costs especially as they get older and I
>>>>> would expect that servicing costs will go up because business's
>>>>> that service EV's will be more specialised so they will charge
>>>>> accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> Suspension, steering, brakes driveshafts, wheels and tyres, body
>>>> parts etc etc will only need to be services as they always have

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

[Trevor Wilson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe the Model Y is worth a look.

[Noddy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually Trevor, no we don't.

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

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

--

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing.

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

You do this *all* the time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amazing.

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

ROTFL :)

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

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

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

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

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

You're strange.

[Noddy]

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

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

[keithr0]

On 4/09/2021 5:55 pm, Noddy wrote:

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

> Good choice. It would go some way to giving your arguments some
> credibility.
>

>>> I like *lots* of different vehicles and for lots of different
>>> reasons. I don't go out of my way to like a vehicle just because it's
>>> horribly inefficient any more than I do to hate a vehicle that is as
>>> efficient as it can possibly be. Efficiency has never been a major
>>> concern of mine as far as vehicles go, but just to counter your
>>> bullshit with some reality I actually own vehicles that are good
>>> examples of *both* ends of the spectrum.
>>>
>>>> H2  makes some sense for a fuel cell vehicle, but no sense for an IC
>>>> engined one. As you say, it will be grossly inefficient on many levels.
>>>
>>> And yet here are companies like Deutz, Cummins and Toyota putting
>>> money into the idea. Maybe they should have just asked you to begin
>>> with and saved all that coin.
>>
>> **They can draw their own conclusions. There is some logic in using H2
>> for prime movers, but almost no sense for passenger vehicles.
>

> It's being researched as we speak, and we will know soon enough.

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

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

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