AGL electric cars $1.00 per day

[Trevor Wilson]

On 15/09/2017 8:47 AM, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 15/09/17 00:44, FMurtz wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
According to the specs on Wikipedia, the Tesla will give you about
5km/kWh. A domestic solar array should have no difficulty providing it
with a useful range (say 50km per day), except that people would likely
want to be using it during the day, not charging it.

If you only drove such a small distance maybe but if you drive it 300
and with air con and a bit leadfooted it would be different.

Not sure that the lead foot is much of a problem because you
get the energy back when braking.

**Correct, though more energy is lost in an EV under heavy acceleration
than if accelerating gently. That said, the losses are vastly lower than
an IC engine vehicle under heavy acceleration. The computer in my car
tells me just how bad fuel economy gets when giving it some stick. We're
talking figures like 100L/100km and higher. Something else hardly anyone
mentions when comparing EVs to IC cars is this: When cold, the motor in
an EV car operates close to 80% ~ 90% efficient. When cold, an IC engine
is somewhere around 5% efficient. When warm, it approaches 30%
efficient. More for Diesels. Given the fact that many vehicle journeys
in our cities are over short distances, the car barely reaches optimum
operating temperature and efficiency is quite low. For such trips, EVs
make a great deal of good sense.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Computer Nerd Kev]

keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:

On 9/13/2017 9:03 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Trevor Wilson <trevor@spamblockrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

The existing fuel supply system won't collapse overnight.

Yep, for as long as our civilisation keeps itself together I doubt that
it will ever become impossible for people like us to buy fuel, but at
some point soon it probably won't make sense to keep using it for
personal everyday transport.

Mazda have a different view of things

http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/mazda-s-inconvenient-truth-65066.html?trackLink=articleResults10

Interesting. Of course it depends what the key motivator is to go electric.
This thread was started about the idea of lower running costs, while that
article disputes the environmental benefits.

The running costs side isn't so clear in the long run either. Besides the
cost of electricity, the batteries will only last a decade or so before
needing to be replaced, so in the long run they're an important consideration
for resale values and for long term owners. On the other hand there are
fewer mechanical parts to require servicing and potentially replacement,
so maybe it balances itself out.

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

 

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Trevor Wilson <trevor@spamblockrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 13/09/2017 9:03 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Trevor Wilson <trevor@spamblockrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**You're thinking vertically. Every car will have a system that
communicates with the relevant authority and will be charged by distance
travelled on most roads.

I hope not, I don't want my car spying on me (though I'm probably one of
the very few who usually don't have another device spying on them at the
same time anyway).

**Then you would be one of the very few motorists that doesn't use a
toll tag. That would make driving around any of Australia's major cities
extremely inconvenient.

He he, that's rather suburban thinking. Here in the country I don't feel at
all unusual in not having one of those toll things (which I frankly know
absolutely nothing about), I haven't traveled on a toll road for over two
years (and even then it was by mistake!). I was thinking more about the
fact that I don't have a mobile phone turned on with me wherever I drive.
I do keep one in the car, but it's almost always turned off.

It seems to me that AGL have solved the government's problem for them in
this regard. Their new $1/day rate is charged on a specific electric car
outlet of a special power meter which has to be installed in order to
access the deal. The government just has to bill AGL, and all those who
copy them, for a percentage of what their meters charge and the system
is back to normal again.

The existing fuel supply system won't collapse overnight.

Yep, for as long as our civilisation keeps itself together I doubt that
it will ever become impossible for people like us to buy fuel, but at
some point soon it probably won't make sense to keep using it for
personal everyday transport.

**Keep imagining that. The fact is that oil is going to become a lot
more expensive and H2 and electricity will be cheaper. The oil companies
will be caught in their own death spiral in a few years. Eventually,
petrol/oil will be so expensive that buying an electric or H2 powered
car will be the preferred way for the vast majority.

You must have misread, I agree with you.

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

 

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Trevor Wilson <trevor@spamblockrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 15/09/2017 9:47 PM, keithr0 wrote:

Otto Hahn (German) launched 1964 Reactor replaced by diesel 1974
scrapped 2004.
Mutsu (Japan) sailed 1974 reactor removed and converted to a museum 1994
never carried a commercial cargo
Savanah (USA) launched 1959 deactivated 1974, now a museum.
Sevmorput (Russia) launched 1988 laid up 1988 reactivated as a military
transport 2016.

None of these were a commercial success. AFAIK all other nuclear ships
were military.

**None may have been a commercial success, based on the costs of running
Diesel engines, without regard to CO2 emissions and the costs of fuel.
Things are likely to change in the medium term on both issues. Nukes may
be far more economical in that sense. Additionally, the US has made some
significant strides in building reliable, efficient and compact nukes
for ships in the past 20 years.

It's a bit like crying wolf, but Lockheed Martin have been claiming great
things about their jet engine sized Fusion reactor design that's been in
development for the last few years:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/lockheed-martin-compact-fusion-reactor.html
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html

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

 

[Tony]

On 14-Sep-17 8:40 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:

Once upon a time on usenet Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/09/2017 9:03 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Trevor Wilson <trevor@spamblockrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
On 12/09/2017 7:02 PM, FMurtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 12/09/2017 3:09 PM, FMurtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 12/09/2017 1:38 PM, FMurtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 12/09/2017 1:05 AM, FMurtz wrote:
What would they do with a thousand Teslas in one city?

**They're already here. Tesla is tight-lipped on sales data,
but sell approximately 1,000 cars per year. Let's say Tesla
have sold 1,000 cars
into Sydney, as Sydney is a significant portion of EV sales.

Then there's the others:

Nissan Leaf - 635 cars sold. Let's say, 200 are in Sydney.
Audi A3 e-tron - 128 cars sold. Let's say, 40 in Sydney.
Mitsubishi PHEV - 1,665 cars sold. Let's say, 550 in Sydney.
There are others, but figures are tiny.

So, there are at least 1,200 pure EVs in Sydney and probably a
similar
number in Melbourne. There are more PHEVs as well. Many are
most likely
operated solely on electricity.

Your point is?

Up to 40 amps for maybe 10 hours a day

**Yes. And your point is? I just showed that there are more
than 1,200 pure EVs (and quite a few PHEVs) in Sydney and
probably Melbourne right now. Every time I drive around Sydney,
I see at least one Tesla and frequently 2 or 3. There are more
coming.
we could handle a few

most EVs take a lot less than teslas and if there was a thousand
teslas in sydney itself and similar amounts in other suburbs it
would cost AGL a fortune

**I'll say it again: THERE ALREADY ARE MORE THAN 1,200 EVs IN
SYDNEY, RIGHT NOW!


**I'll say it again: TESLAs

**And I will say again: There are AT LEAST 1,000 Teslas in Sydney
right now. When the Model 3 arrives, you can expect that figure to
increase significantly.

Which will make AGL very happy when they decide to raise their prices
again.

**Perhaps. Perhaps not. Either way, more electricity will need to be
supplied, which may allow power companies to climb out of their death
spiral.


On another tack if every car was electric and huge advances were
not made in electric supply would that work, there are already
parts of the UK that recon they will mandate all electric in the
not too distant future, that will be fun.

**Can you suggest another alternative? Unless people in
Australia's large cities switch to public transport in droves,
then we are all in for a great deal of trouble. EVs can mitigate
some of the problem.
If all cars were electric they would probably have to figure out
how to tax highly the electricity used to charge them while not
the existing system ( maybe distance based rego?)and what to do
with the collapse of the existing fuel supply system

**You're thinking vertically. Every car will have a system that
communicates with the relevant authority and will be charged by
distance travelled on most roads.

I hope not, I don't want my car spying on me (though I'm probably
one of the very few who usually don't have another device spying on
them at the same time anyway).

**Then you would be one of the very few motorists that doesn't use a
toll tag. That would make driving around any of Australia's major
cities extremely inconvenient.


It seems to me that AGL have solved the government's problem for
them in this regard. Their new $1/day rate is charged on a specific
electric car outlet of a special power meter which has to be
installed in order to access the deal. The government just has to
bill AGL, and all those who copy them, for a percentage of what
their meters charge and the system is back to normal again.

The existing fuel supply system won't collapse overnight.

Yep, for as long as our civilisation keeps itself together I doubt
that it will ever become impossible for people like us to buy fuel,
but at some point soon it probably won't make sense to keep using it
for personal everyday transport.

**Keep imagining that. The fact is that oil is going to become a lot
more expensive and H2 and electricity will be cheaper. The oil
companies will be caught in their own death spiral in a few years.
Eventually, petrol/oil will be so expensive that buying an electric
or H2 powered car will be the preferred way for the vast majority.

What about agricultural and earthmoving machinery? Ocean-going ships and
airliners? Will they all go electric too? If not what will happen to the
petrol fraction of the oil that is left over when oil is refined for thier
use? (After all Carl Benz chose petrol to power his original ICE because it
was so very cheap as there was little use for it back then.)

https://youtu.be/jntsT0BdxDw?t=8m08s

The whole video is well worth a watch - and the channel a subscribe.

Do you really believe this?
What a dumb simplification.

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 16/09/17 07:38, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 15/09/2017 9:47 PM, keithr0 wrote:
None of these were a commercial success. AFAIK all other nuclear ships
were military.

**None may have been a commercial success, based on the costs of running
Diesel engines, without regard to CO2 emissions and the costs of fuel.
Things are likely to change in the medium term on both issues.

Even for cargo chips, crewing costs are close to par with fuel costs.
That's why many of them are fully auto-piloted now (and for the
reduced piracy risk).

What do you think the crew of a cruise ship costs? It's certainly
a huge amount more than the fuel.

Clifford Heath.

 

[keithr0]

On 9/16/2017 8:14 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 16/09/17 07:38, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/09/2017 9:47 PM, keithr0 wrote:
None of these were a commercial success. AFAIK all other nuclear
ships were military.

**None may have been a commercial success, based on the costs of
running Diesel engines, without regard to CO2 emissions and the costs
of fuel. Things are likely to change in the medium term on both issues.
Even for cargo chips, crewing costs are close to par with fuel costs.
That's why many of them are fully auto-piloted now (and for the
reduced piracy risk).

What do you think the crew of a cruise ship costs? It's certainly
a huge amount more than the fuel.

Clifford Heath.

Most of the crews are Indonesian being paid a pittance to work 12+ hours
a day for 8 months at a time. On one ship that I was on there was a
display on the bridge that seemed to show fuel cost, it was showing
$11.11 per minute which is about $16000US per day.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 16/09/2017 1:55 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
On 9/13/2017 9:03 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Trevor Wilson <trevor@spamblockrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

The existing fuel supply system won't collapse overnight.

Yep, for as long as our civilisation keeps itself together I doubt that
it will ever become impossible for people like us to buy fuel, but at
some point soon it probably won't make sense to keep using it for
personal everyday transport.

Mazda have a different view of things

http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/mazda-s-inconvenient-truth-65066.html?trackLink=articleResults10

Interesting. Of course it depends what the key motivator is to go electric.
This thread was started about the idea of lower running costs, while that
article disputes the environmental benefits.

The running costs side isn't so clear in the long run either. Besides the
cost of electricity, the batteries will only last a decade or so before
needing to be replaced, so in the long run they're an important consideration
for resale values and for long term owners. On the other hand there are
fewer mechanical parts to require servicing and potentially replacement,
so maybe it balances itself out.

**
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2011/02/the-200-000-mile-question-how-does-the-toyota-prius-hold-up/index.htm

Just sayin'.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 16/09/2017 8:14 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 16/09/17 07:38, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/09/2017 9:47 PM, keithr0 wrote:
None of these were a commercial success. AFAIK all other nuclear
ships were military.

**None may have been a commercial success, based on the costs of
running Diesel engines, without regard to CO2 emissions and the costs
of fuel. Things are likely to change in the medium term on both issues.
Even for cargo chips, crewing costs are close to par with fuel costs.

**I doubt that. Here is a 1982 report:

https://bitre.gov.au/publications/1982/files/ip_004.pdf

And here are some fuel consumption figures:

https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/conc8en/fuel_consumption_containerships.html

I freely admit that I don't know what the crew requirements are for a
cargo ship (I've only been on one), but I suspect it is less than 30.

Based on that, I suspect fuel costs would far outweigh crew costs.

That's why many of them are fully auto-piloted now (and for the
reduced piracy risk).

What do you think the crew of a cruise ship costs? It's certainly
a huge amount more than the fuel.

**Dunno. I've seen figures where crewassenger ratios exceed 1:1, so
you could be right. For now. As fuel costs rise (as they surely will),
then things will likely change.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Trevor Wilson <trevor@spamblockrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 16/09/2017 1:55 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
On 9/13/2017 9:03 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Trevor Wilson <trevor@spamblockrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

The existing fuel supply system won't collapse overnight.

Yep, for as long as our civilisation keeps itself together I doubt that
it will ever become impossible for people like us to buy fuel, but at
some point soon it probably won't make sense to keep using it for
personal everyday transport.

Mazda have a different view of things

http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/mazda-s-inconvenient-truth-65066.html?trackLink=articleResults10

Interesting. Of course it depends what the key motivator is to go electric.
This thread was started about the idea of lower running costs, while that
article disputes the environmental benefits.

The running costs side isn't so clear in the long run either. Besides the
cost of electricity, the batteries will only last a decade or so before
needing to be replaced, so in the long run they're an important consideration
for resale values and for long term owners. On the other hand there are
fewer mechanical parts to require servicing and potentially replacement,
so maybe it balances itself out.


**
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2011/02/the-200-000-mile-question-how-does-the-toyota-prius-hold-up/index.htm

Just sayin'.

Curious, I actually looked into this a few years ago for old hybrid vehicles
and got the impression that the batteries were lucky to last until the 10yr
mark. There's also an active industry making/rebuilding after-market battery
units.

I also knew one bloke who bought one of the original Prius' second-hand (it
had been imported from Japan) and had trouble with the aging batteries,
though I can't remember the details.

I'd say a larger sample size is required, but it is an interesting article.

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