Let’s just face the facts

Rob Driver · Guru

Let’s just face the facts

Buzz Lightbulb · Guru

People keep quoting E=mC2. This does not have anything to do with the discussion other than the nuclear fusion bit. EVs do NOT convert mass into energy. This is another indication that people are easily misled.

-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Saturday 19th of March 2022 11:31:39 AM

Are We Lost · Guru

I think the point was that it takes the same amount of energy to move the same amount of weight .... whether that energy is produced by combustion, or from electricity generated at a power plant (green or otherwise) and stored in a battery.

By the way, they are actually not quite equal because an EV weighs more.

dorian · Guru

Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
People keep quoting E=mC2. This does not have anything to do with the discussion other than the nuclear fusion bit. EVs do NOT convert mass into energy. This is another indication that people are easily misled.

When you appeal to a higher intellect, it makes your argument sound so much more convincing. However, when you get it wrong, it only makes the reader wonder what other "facts" have been misrepresented. By the way, when will the Americans (and Myanmar) get with the program and switch to the metric system?

Peter_n_Margaret · Guru

dorian wrote:
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
People keep quoting E=mC2. This does not have anything to do with the discussion other than the nuclear fusion bit. EVs do NOT convert mass into energy. This is another indication that people are easily misled.
When you appeal to a higher intellect, it makes your argument sound so much more convincing. However, when you get it wrong, it only makes the reader wonder what other "facts" have been misrepresented. By the way, when will the Americans (and Myanmar) get with the program and switch to the metric system?

Yep.

Nothing at all to do specifically withnuclear fusion.

Just so you know :) E = Energy, m = mass and C is speed.

So it about the energy needed to accellerate or slow down a moving object. Very much related to motor vehicles in general and specifically relevent to EVs because they collect the energy required to slow them down and put it back into the batteries, unlike ICE vehickes which turn all of that energy into heat in the brakes, tyres and engine.

Cheers,

Peter

watsea · Guru

Einstein's theory of relatively has the equation E = mC2 or m*C*C where m is mass in kgs and C is the speed of light in m/sec.
This is on nuclear scale.

Kinetic Energy, potential energy, thermal energy, and electrical energy are what applies to our ICE and electric transportation.
The formula for kinetic energy is E = 0.5mv2 or 1/2*m*v*v where m is mass in kgs and v is velocity in m/sec.

Sorry, but I couldn't stand reading all of the incorrect formulae.

dorian · Guru

Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
dorian wrote:
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
People keep quoting E=mC2. This does not have anything to do with the discussion other than the nuclear fusion bit. EVs do NOT convert mass into energy. This is another indication that people are easily misled.
When you appeal to a higher intellect, it makes your argument sound so much more convincing. However, when you get it wrong, it only makes the reader wonder what other "facts" have been misrepresented. By the way, when will the Americans (and Myanmar) get with the program and switch to the metric system?
Yep.
Nothing at all to do specifically withnuclear fusion.
Just so you know :) E = Energy, m = mass and C is speed.
So it about the energy needed to accellerate or slow down a moving object. Very much related to motor vehicles in general and specifically relevent to EVs because they collect the energy required to slow them down and put it back into the batteries, unlike ICE vehickes which turn all of that energy into heat in the brakes, tyres and engine.
Cheers,
Peter

E = energy

m = mass

c = speed of light

The amount of energy, E, generated when a mass, m, is converted into energy is ...

E = m x c^2

The kinetic energy, E, of a mass, m, travelling at a velocity, v, is ...

E = 1/2 x m x v^2

When a vehicle is stationary, its velocity is zero and therefore its kinetic energy is zero.

So when one is talking about the energy required to move a vehicle from rest, we calculate the kinetic energy (in the ideal case).

On the other hand, if we want to convert the entire mass of vehicle into a ball of energy, then we apply Einstein's equation.

To put things in perspective, 1 gram of matter when converted into energy would produce 1 gigawatt day.

https://ipv4.google.com/search?q=1+gram+x+c+squared+in+gigawatt+days

Peter_n_Margaret · Guru

Thanks Dorian.
Cheers,
Peter

landy · Guru

Peter_n_Margaret wrote:

dorian wrote:
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
People keep quoting E=mC2. This does not have anything to do with the discussion other than the nuclear fusion bit. EVs do NOT convert mass into energy. This is another indication that people are easily misled.
When you appeal to a higher intellect, it makes your argument sound so much more convincing. However, when you get it wrong, it only makes the reader wonder what other "facts" have been misrepresented. By the way, when will the Americans (and Myanmar) get with the program and switch to the metric system?
Yep.
Nothing at all to do specifically withnuclear fusion.
Just so you know :) E = Energy, m = mass and C is speed.
So it about the energy needed to accellerate or slow down a moving object. Very much related to motor vehicles in general and specifically relevent to EVs because they collect the energy required to slow them down and put it back into the batteries, unlike ICE vehickes which turn all of that energy into heat in the brakes, tyres and engine.
Cheers,
Peter

My thoughts exactly Peter.

dorian · Guru

landy wrote:
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:

dorian wrote:
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
People keep quoting E=mC2. This does not have anything to do with the discussion other than the nuclear fusion bit. EVs do NOT convert mass into energy. This is another indication that people are easily misled.
When you appeal to a higher intellect, it makes your argument sound so much more convincing. However, when you get it wrong, it only makes the reader wonder what other "facts" have been misrepresented. By the way, when will the Americans (and Myanmar) get with the program and switch to the metric system?
Yep.
Nothing at all to do specifically withnuclear fusion.
Just so you know :) E = Energy, m = mass and C is speed.
So it about the energy needed to accellerate or slow down a moving object. Very much related to motor vehicles in general and specifically relevent to EVs because they collect the energy required to slow them down and put it back into the batteries, unlike ICE vehickes which turn all of that energy into heat in the brakes, tyres and engine.
Cheers,
Peter

My thoughts exactly Peter.

Then you would be wrong.

E = m x c^2 is an equation that describes mass-energy equivalence. It represents the "rest energy" of matter.

If a one tonne vehicle were parked in your garage, its rest energy would be 25 million gigawatt-hours. The capacity of the largest power station (Three Gorges Dam) is 22.5 gigawatts. Therefore the rest energy of your vehicle is equivalent to 1 million of these power stations operating for 1 hour.

https://ipv4.google.com/search?q=1+tonne+x+c+squared+in+gigawatt+hours

The energy of a moving vehicle is its kinetic energy, not rest energy.

The kinetic energy of a 1 tonne vehicle travelling at 60 kph would be 139 kilowatt-seconds.

https://ipv4.google.com/search?q=1%2F2+x+1+tonne+x+(60+kilometres+per+hour)+squared+in+kilowatt+seconds

Rest energy is a concept of Einsteinian physics, whereas kinetic energy is a concept of Newtonian mechanics.

dogbox · Guru

dorian wrote:

Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
dorian wrote:
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
People keep quoting E=mC2. This does not have anything to do with the discussion other than the nuclear fusion bit. EVs do NOT convert mass into energy. This is another indication that people are easily misled.
When you appeal to a higher intellect, it makes your argument sound so much more convincing. However, when you get it wrong, it only makes the reader wonder what other "facts" have been misrepresented. By the way, when will the Americans (and Myanmar) get with the program and switch to the metric system?
Yep.
Nothing at all to do specifically withnuclear fusion.
Just so you know :) E = Energy, m = mass and C is speed.
So it about the energy needed to accellerate or slow down a moving object. Very much related to motor vehicles in general and specifically relevent to EVs because they collect the energy required to slow them down and put it back into the batteries, unlike ICE vehickes which turn all of that energy into heat in the brakes, tyres and engine.
Cheers,
Peter
E = energy
m = mass
c = speed of light
The amount of energy, E, generated when a mass, m, is converted into energy is ...
E = m x c^2
The kinetic energy, E, of a mass, m, travelling at a velocity, v, is ...
E = 1/2 x m x v^2
When a vehicle is stationary, its velocity is zero and therefore its kinetic energy is zero.
So when one is talking about the energy required to move a vehicle from rest, we calculate the kinetic energy (in the ideal case).
On the other hand, if we want to convert the entire mass of vehicle into a ball of energy, then we apply Einstein's equation.
To put things in perspective, 1 gram of matter when converted into energy would produce 1 gigawatt day.
https://ipv4.google.com/search?q=1+gram+x+c+squared+in+gigawatt+days

now that the waters have been muddied, an us poor simple souls are astounded at the brilliance of some more enlightened contributors

remember how we use to get our shopping in paper bags an cardboard boxes then those use to get burnt in the back yard incinerator or buried in the compost, then we had to save the trees . we started to use plastic bags ,sounded good at the time ( we were going to save to planet) , but time would tell us that was a disaster in the making . reusable plastic bags a good solution if you use the same one about a hundred times , even MacDonald's has gone back to paper straws and wooden utensils .

with a bit of thought we might find a better way of getting the energy we need ,most of the sources we have now seem to have a few short comings just because EV's /solar/wind are the flavor of the day, does not mean we are not going to find problems with them in the future

KevinJ · Senior Member

I remember dilly bags before paper bags.

dorian · Guru

It seems that these "facts" are an edited version of a presentation attended by Bruce Haedrich and written up by him:

https://generalaviationnews.com/2021/12/07/power-to-the-people/

The presenter was identified only as "Elkay", and all the talking was done by an animated battery. The short of it is that nobody was willing to take credit for this material.

Buzz Lightbulb · Guru

Are We Lost wrote:
I think the point was that it takes the same amount of energy to move the same amount of weight .... whether that energy is produced by combustion, or from electricity generated at a power plant (green or otherwise) and stored in a battery.

By the way, they are actually not quite equal because an EV weighs more.

No. Einstein's equation is to convert mass into energy. It's what's used to work out what would happen if an atom is converted into pure energy. It's got nothing to do with momentum as in Newton's laws.

Buzz Lightbulb · Guru

Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
dorian wrote:
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
People keep quoting E=mC2. This does not have anything to do with the discussion other than the nuclear fusion bit. EVs do NOT convert mass into energy. This is another indication that people are easily misled.
When you appeal to a higher intellect, it makes your argument sound so much more convincing. However, when you get it wrong, it only makes the reader wonder what other "facts" have been misrepresented. By the way, when will the Americans (and Myanmar) get with the program and switch to the metric system?
Yep.
Nothing at all to do specifically withnuclear fusion.
Just so you know :) E = Energy, m = mass and C is speed.
So it about the energy needed to accellerate or slow down a moving object. Very much related to motor vehicles in general and specifically relevent to EVs because they collect the energy required to slow them down and put it back into the batteries, unlike ICE vehickes which turn all of that energy into heat in the brakes, tyres and engine.
Cheers,
Peter

No. It's not about momentum. It's about converting mass into energy. That why the speed of light, squared is massive and it shows that turning mass into energy creates massive amounts of energy for very little mass. It has noting to do with momentum.

-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Sunday 20th of March 2022 02:58:56 PM

Hitting the road · Senior Member

Back to the original discussion re electric vehicles. I agree with all Rob Driver's comments too.

There is a place for them, along with electric buses and trucks in some areas...but I do not believe they will never replace the internal combustion engine on a large basis.

I think I'd be a little nervous right now if I lived in Germany or even the UK with electricity prices soaring due to the shortage of gas and coal after they shut down a number Nuclear power stations to rely on solar and wind, when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.

Now with the Russian gas pipeline under a cloud and the potential for that gas pipeline to be closed completely leaving some European countries in all sorts of bother.

In this country we have the push for Green power generation becoming a Political football. Electricity costs will just keep going up and up and up under the falsehood that solar or wind is cheaper.

The fact that this alternative energy source of wind and solar attracts millions of dollars in tax payer's subsidies has distorted and derailed the argument completely. Coal and gas has always been substantially cheaper than any of the alternatives, still is, only the fact that the cost of coal and gas sourced electricity have been distorted massively to subsidise expensive wind and solar production.

As far as being able to stick solar panels on the roof of your house to charge your electric car, all well and good if the family can actually afford an EV, and live in a location where there is plenty of sunlight every single day of the year. Tough though for those living in Townhouse blocks or units where they have no capacity to mount roof top solar panels.

If and when there is a real oil shortage, that will impact just as hard on EV owners as they still need rubber tyres for their EV's too, which use a huge amount of oil to manufacture.

I can't see us going back to sail boats to replace oil guzzling container ships either, or electric aircraft with roof mounted solar panels moving people across the nations.

I am watching with interest as this whole EV thing and "green" power thing unfolds...it is not imo going to end where many actually believe it will...

dorian · Guru

Why not conserve fossil fuels for those applications where there are no reasonable alternatives, and switch to EVs in the expectation that nuclear fusion will provide a cheap, inexhaustible charging source?

Clarky 1 · Senior Member

dorian wrote:
Why not conserve fossil fuels for those applications where there are no reasonable alternatives, and switch to EVs in the expectation that nuclear fusion will provide a cheap, inexhaustible charging source?

This comment is an example of what Rob Driver and Hitting the Road are trying to emphasise.

Almost an entire page devoted to the meaning of a formula by so many *physics experts* all while skirting the subject.

With Dorians comment it is obvious that he and so many others of the members on here have no idea of economics and commerce be it personal, business or at a government level.

With any business it is not so much what you earn but more along the lines of what it costs you to earn it.

This simple formula applies to any government the difference mainly being that the government at the end of the day only needs to break even to achieve what may be acceptable to some people, as a good result.

We can all read Dorians comment and think, now there is the answer, we can do that. Why shouldnt it work, as he said nuclear is cheap and is inexhaustible.

Lets now go back to balancing the government budget.

The government has been, is and will always be reliant on taxes to balance the ledger.

As predicted by Rob D and by HTR we as a nation we will be taxed to achieve the balance so it wont matter to them wether they apply this *tax to fossil fuels or solar / wind power or nuclear.*

What Rob D and HTR are trying to get across is the fact that the very moment that the ability to tax the people moves from the *fuel bowser* to the *home power point* then it will introduce an entire new group who will be contributing to what was a tax on using a vehicle even when they may not even own one.

My observation is that if we all just continue blindly into this new way of personal travel without ensuring that future government policy will continue to separate electrical power for home and other use then we are financially doomed. These new policies will become a political football for generations to come if we let it.

Unfortunately the brainwashing of our young is already well under way with the propaganda that currently exists.

While most of us on this forum all drive a vehicle at the moment, there will be a time if adopting power for transport from a power point that you and me and all of us will be paying while we sit at home in the twilight years of our retirement.

Rob D is correct in his comment on tax related to Retail Price.

Is there anyone on here that really believes that future governments wont use this GST to top up their depleting coffers.

As other have said the technology of the EV is great but the following repercussions with using and paying for it will cripple us all for generations to come. Those who blindly accept this change without ensuring strict guidelines are set deserve the financial outcome.

Dorian and many others.realise that Australia has a resource that could be used to fix all of this but we have any development blocked by a minority who seem to always have the time to stand on the steps of our (yes our meaning all of us) parliament.

My thoughts are that with the location and quantity of uranium as a resource for future power generation in Australia we could easily be supplying parts of Asia and other countries to our north with electrical power and if it was managed like a business and not a *neighbourly give away* policy then us Aussies could have very cheap power for ourselves.

What is wrong with getting our nuclear power generation up and running first, then we could head blindly into EVs without the financial burden being placed on all of us because a select few want to own this ne technology.

The world is not going to grind to an end in the next 13 years due to a handful of suburban based Aussies not being able to drive EVs

peter67 · Guru

Well said Clarky 1, some much needed straight shooting to cut through the clutter.

Ivan 01 · Guru

RD said this earlier.

There must be someone within this group of *save the planet with a fleet of EVs in Australia* that can see my point as being a problem that is one that no one has considered.

Apart from the rubbish posted by those arguing about Einsteins Law as a distraction I wonder that within those experts is there anyone who can at the least vaguely see what these other guys are trying to get across With regard to the cost.

HTR mentioned that even the ability to install solar to many dwellings is impossible. Doesnt this simple observation generate some doubt as to how we are charging the vehicle and then paying the tax for that power.

What frightens me is that our govt in its wisdom will introduce some honour system where the user of the EV will have an hour meter or an odometer reading to calculate tax. We can all imagine how that will go. We might as well have a log book entry for each trip. While we are relying on gauges for an honest reading we are still relying on what is at present is an unreliable battery. Once the tax is in place it will NEVER BE REPEALED.

Rob raised some very good points. His thoughts deserve reasonable comments on topic.

I think there would be many members with similar doubts that would welcome a reasonable discussion rather than an unnecessary pissing contest on who actually understands Einsteins Formula.

To the intelligent folk on here, dont let this go the way of a WDH topic.

Peter_n_Margaret · Guru

The road taxation method for EVs has already been established, perhaps you have not heard?
It 2.5c/km. Payable with registration. This is how NZ tax diesel and have done for decades. So if you don't have an RV, you don't pay. And if you leave the car in the garage, you don't pay.
Simple and fair and still vastly cheaper than ICE fuel, irrespective of where you get the power from.
Cheers,
Peter

Ivan 01 · Guru

peter67 wrote:
Well said Clarky 1, some much needed straight shooting to cut through the clutter.

Totally agree peter67, +1

dogbox · Guru

Peter_n_Margaret wrote:

The road taxation method for EVs has already been established, perhaps you have not heard?

It 2.5c/km. Payable with registration. This is how NZ tax diesel and have done for decades. So if you don't have an RV, you don't pay. And if you leave the car in the garage, you don't pay.

Simple and fair and still vastly cheaper than ICE fuel, irrespective of where you get the power from.

Cheers,

Peter

In this day of gps tracking and /or toll roads, there will be a way to extract some sort of tax/levy to replace any revenue that may be missed as a result of reduction in fuel tax by the use of EV's .

look at Europe at the moment they have to rethink what they use to power their economies an the sun don't shine all the time

Rob Driver · Guru

Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
The road taxation method for EVs has already been established, perhaps you have not heard?
It 2.5c/km. Payable with registration. This is how NZ tax diesel and have done for decades. So if you don't have an RV, you don't pay. And if you leave the car in the garage, you don't pay.
Simple and fair and still vastly cheaper than ICE fuel, irrespective of where you get the power from.
Cheers,
Peter

I was going to suggest that you provide a link but after a little thought and a one hit google I really dont need much more explanation.

Once again to compound my comments and some comments from others, no one has thought this out.

Although states get some monies from the Feds with GST contributions it is the our Federal Govt that taxes fuel.

How on this earth can we come up with a cost per kilometre payable at registration each year.

Adopting this automatically removes a huge slice of the GST. As I had said earlier the Feds arent worried about a retail price as the higher these prices go the more money they collect.

So how many kilometres are each of us going to do and for the stated figure how honest is it and when push comes to shove how many actually register their vehicles each year.. Number plate recognition finds a few of them and when they are caught they cant afford to register the car anyway so your fuel tax is for a big percentage, non existent.

Once again, even if your pie in the sky idea is adopted by our government the scale of individual payment will be calculated and adjusted to compensate for these losses.

Do I need to tell you who will be paying?. No, I didnt think so! Even blind Freddie with a broken pencil will work that one out.

Here is a little reading that might interest some.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2020-11-26/ev-tax-slow-electric-vehicle-report/12891524

Buzz Lightbulb · Guru

Hitting the road wrote:
Back to the original discussion re electric vehicles. I agree with all Rob Driver's comments too.

There is a place for them, along with electric buses and trucks in some areas...but I do not believe they will never replace the internal combustion engine on a large basis.

I think I'd be a little nervous right now if I lived in Germany or even the UK with electricity prices soaring due to the shortage of gas and coal after they shut down a number Nuclear power stations to rely on solar and wind, when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.

Now with the Russian gas pipeline under a cloud and the potential for that gas pipeline to be closed completely leaving some European countries in all sorts of bother.

In this country we have the push for Green power generation becoming a Political football. Electricity costs will just keep going up and up and up under the falsehood that solar or wind is cheaper.

The fact that this alternative energy source of wind and solar attracts millions of dollars in tax payer's subsidies has distorted and derailed the argument completely. Coal and gas has always been substantially cheaper than any of the alternatives, still is, only the fact that the cost of coal and gas sourced electricity have been distorted massively to subsidise expensive wind and solar production.

As far as being able to stick solar panels on the roof of your house to charge your electric car, all well and good if the family can actually afford an EV, and live in a location where there is plenty of sunlight every single day of the year. Tough though for those living in Townhouse blocks or units where they have no capacity to mount roof top solar panels.

If and when there is a real oil shortage, that will impact just as hard on EV owners as they still need rubber tyres for their EV's too, which use a huge amount of oil to manufacture.

I can't see us going back to sail boats to replace oil guzzling container ships either, or electric aircraft with roof mounted solar panels moving people across the nations.

I am watching with interest as this whole EV thing and "green" power thing unfolds...it is not imo going to end where many actually believe it will...

I'm sorry but I think that you may have been misinformed:

Solar is cheaper than coal. That's why most coal power stations are closing earlier than expected.

The fossil industries are heavily subsidised. If that money was used for renewable energy initiatives, such as pumped hydro, then there would be no issues with electricity when 'the Sun don't shine and the wind don't blow'.

There are many instances of body corporates, or whatever they are called in your State out Territory, that install solar panels for the benifit of all the residents. Maybe you could visit them if you do live in a town house or a block of units.

Plastic can be converted into oil. There's probably enough plastic in landfill and floating in the oceans to meet the tyre needs of many vehicles. We should save the oil for these products once the plastic is all used up target than burning it in ICE vehicles.

I expect heavy industry and transport to probably switch to hydrogen but of course there're those on this forum who are dead against that.

-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Monday 21st of March 2022 01:27:14 PM

Buzz Lightbulb · Guru

dorian wrote:
Why not conserve fossil fuels for those applications where there are no reasonable alternatives, and switch to EVs in the expectation that nuclear fusion will provide a cheap, inexhaustible charging source?

Meanwhile, were can use the inexhaustible supply of the sun. If the sun runs out of energy we are really in trouble.

Craig1 · Guru

Clarky, you have my vote as well.

Buzz Lightbulb · Guru

Clarky 1 wrote:
dorian wrote:
Why not conserve fossil fuels for those applications where there are no reasonable alternatives, and switch to EVs in the expectation that nuclear fusion will provide a cheap, inexhaustible charging source?
This comment is an example of what Rob Driver and Hitting the Road are trying to emphasise.
Almost an entire page devoted to the meaning of a formula by so many *physics experts* all while skirting the subject.
With Dorians comment it is obvious that he and so many others of the members on here have no idea of economics and commerce be it personal, business or at a government level.
With any business it is not so much what you earn but more along the lines of what it costs you to earn it.
This simple formula applies to any government the difference mainly being that the government at the end of the day only needs to break even to achieve what may be acceptable to some people, as a good result.
We can all read Dorians comment and think, now there is the answer, we can do that. Why shouldnt it work, as he said nuclear is cheap and is inexhaustible.
Lets now go back to balancing the government budget.
The government has been, is and will always be reliant on taxes to balance the ledger.
As predicted by Rob D and by HTR we as a nation we will be taxed to achieve the balance so it wont matter to them wether they apply this *tax to fossil fuels or solar / wind power or nuclear.*
What Rob D and HTR are trying to get across is the fact that the very moment that the ability to tax the people moves from the *fuel bowser* to the *home power point* then it will introduce an entire new group who will be contributing to what was a tax on using a vehicle even when they may not even own one.
My observation is that if we all just continue blindly into this new way of personal travel without ensuring that future government policy will continue to separate electrical power for home and other use then we are financially doomed. These new policies will become a political football for generations to come if we let it.
Unfortunately the brainwashing of our young is already well under way with the propaganda that currently exists.
While most of us on this forum all drive a vehicle at the moment, there will be a time if adopting power for transport from a power point that you and me and all of us will be paying while we sit at home in the twilight years of our retirement.
Rob D is correct in his comment on tax related to Retail Price.
Is there anyone on here that really believes that future governments wont use this GST to top up their depleting coffers.
As other have said the technology of the EV is great but the following repercussions with using and paying for it will cripple us all for generations to come. Those who blindly accept this change without ensuring strict guidelines are set deserve the financial outcome.
Dorian and many others.realise that Australia has a resource that could be used to fix all of this but we have any development blocked by a minority who seem to always have the time to stand on the steps of our (yes our meaning all of us) parliament.
My thoughts are that with the location and quantity of uranium as a resource for future power generation in Australia we could easily be supplying parts of Asia and other countries to our north with electrical power and if it was managed like a business and not a *neighbourly give away* policy then us Aussies could have very cheap power for ourselves.
What is wrong with getting our nuclear power generation up and running first, then we could head blindly into EVs without the financial burden being placed on all of us because a select few want to own this ne technology.
The world is not going to grind to an end in the next 13 years due to a handful of suburban based Aussies not being able to drive EVs

The discussion of Einstein's formula was necessary to stop misinformation being spread. Otherwise, we may as well have Trump rule is. What other misinformation is being spread on this forum?

I imagine that many people understand the economics but are are probably more inclined to believe in Kenesian and/or Modern Monetary Theory to help PEOPLE target than the companies. If the government keeps subsidising businesses hoping that the free market will help us flourish the people will suffer. One people can only afford the very basics, or even worse rely on charity, then those computers will have no-one to buy those products. Then the super rich will join the poverty ranks. The trickle down and open market theories haven't worked since the 80's so why will they work now?

The government does have to tax something or someone but at the moment those taxes are benefiting the rock at the expense of the poor. If the government stats taxing the solar power providers than some people, and people are already doing this, wool go off the grid and the government will have to use some other way of getting revenue. The people will vote out a government that legislates taxes that are too unfair.

As has been said many times. Not doing something about climate change will pass the the burden onto the next generation. That's why EV's may not be the final answer but they are a good step to get away from reliance on fossil fuel for transport and energy.

Unfortunately the new paper giants of the 80's brainwashed many people into believing that climate change was not an issue so now we are all suffering because of that misinformation. Thankfully the brainwashed are dying off with is she and the well educated and informed are making their voices heard and will be voting out the naysayers in the future.

The younger generations resent the baby boomers and the next generation because they prospered during the Kenesian years of Menzies and Whitlam governments. But the younger generations are now suffering because of the more recent governments that sold off the people's assets just to balance the budget.

There is no need to go to nuclear. It takes almost a decade to build a nuclear power station and more to take them out of service. Australia has the potential to produce all the energetic it needs and more visa renewables. The is already a plan to build a solar power plant and export that energy via HVDC undersea cable to Singapore. We can do more with green hydrogen but there are the old generation that are unwilling to accept that we need to do something and so there are these perpetual, useless uninformed discussions holding us back.

Tony Bev · Guru

Just to throw it into the ring

Snip from an ABC news article this morning,

Defence analysts have called for Australia to speed up its transition to electric vehicles and other forms of green transport, saying the country's heavy reliance on imported oil is a "massive" security weakness.

Link to the article below

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-21/calls-for-evs-to-wean-australia-off-foreign-oil-imports/100911930

Buzz Lightbulb · Guru

Ivan 01 wrote:
RD said this earlier.
There must be someone within this group of *save the planet with a fleet of EVs in Australia* that can see my point as being a problem that is one that no one has considered.
Apart from the rubbish posted by those arguing about Einsteins Law as a distraction I wonder that within those experts is there anyone who can at the least vaguely see what these other guys are trying to get across With regard to the cost.
HTR mentioned that even the ability to install solar to many dwellings is impossible. Doesnt this simple observation generate some doubt as to how we are charging the vehicle and then paying the tax for that power.
What frightens me is that our govt in its wisdom will introduce some honour system where the user of the EV will have an hour meter or an odometer reading to calculate tax. We can all imagine how that will go. We might as well have a log book entry for each trip. While we are relying on gauges for an honest reading we are still relying on what is at present is an unreliable battery. Once the tax is in place it will NEVER BE REPEALED.
Rob raised some very good points. His thoughts deserve reasonable comments on topic.
I think there would be many members with similar doubts that would welcome a reasonable discussion rather than an unnecessary pissing contest on who actually understands Einsteins Formula.
To the intelligent folk on here, dont let this go the way of a WDH topic.

As already mentioned the discussion about the misinformation of Einstein's formula was necessary to point out that the OP is using misinformation and some people on this forum actual believe it.

Going back to the original topic. Yes EVs are not zero emissions but they are the next step to reduce our need of fossil fuels and reduce the destruction of the planet. The test of the OP argument is misleading and just another rave that has been debunked on other posts.

I'm not doubting that there are intelligent people on this forum but there are some people who are easily mislead and that should not be tolerated.