EUROPE OFFICIALY BANS ICE CARS FOR SALE AFTER 2035.

mixo · Senior Member

EUROPE OFFICIALY BANS ICE CARS FOR SALE AFTER 2035.

vince56 · Senior Member

deverall11 wrote:
vince56 wrote:
....k.

And Bex powders, yes I recall them, you took one to help get over the people in this world who don't listen to reason.
Problem is your reasoning is seriously flawed. If the world listen and acted on intellectually challenged people,
we would still be driving steam car. BTW First electric car made was in 1832. They were shelved with the discovery
of crude oil.

Really don't want to drag this along further but I must ask, where is my reasoning seriously flawed dev?

BTW yes they did have an electric car in the early years, it went about 15 kms before needing charge as I recall, now it is obvious why fossil fuels took over.....

deverall11 · Guru

If the world listen and acted on intellectually challenged people,

we would still be driving steam car.

This is where your thinking/reasoning is flawed. Always looking for negativity as opposed
to welcoming new technology.
What gets me is you lot enjoy all the comforts of modern living yet always find a way
to knock progress when it is being made.
Yes EVs are not perfect yet.
Yes EVs are still a way off to fully match ICE.
Yes the infrastructure is still in its infancy, but
if there was more support, we would get there faster.
Compare the first releases of ICE and its vehicles to what you drive now.
Do you really think if the inventors had acted upon the negativity that is rampant
on the forum we would have the sort of cars you and I and others enjoy.
In my first employment in IT, I worked for a Bank. Their computer was houses in a
dedicated A/C room. The A/C was just as big. The whole show was about the size of half
a basketball court. The computing power of this dinosaur was 64K of processor. It was IBMs
finest at the time. This is even before we talk about the disk packs and all the associated paraphernalia.
Most if not all smart phones have many times that. When I left the industry, IBM equipment,
we were able to replace a disk pack without powering down the machine. Went from a stack 33 LPs
look alike - about 8 or 10 per pack in 1980, to what is in most desktop PCs today.
If you watch a movie called 'Hidden Figures', you'll get an idea of what computer were like.
It's called progress Vince and it doesn't happen when you concentrate on the negative.

Are We Lost · Guru

deverall, I'm sure you are right, given time. But that is the difference. Back in the day when horseless carriages were introduced I will bet the chat rooms (around the Furphy) were full of comments like there have been on here. But then, there were no enforcements that you you will not be able to buy your "old technology" transport in 10 years' time. It was a matter of supply and demand.

Back early last century, it was the enterpreneurs who made it work by transporting drums of fuel to remote locations. In fact, 100 years later that same system is still in place even in the cities. The cost to set that up was small. So it was cheap and easy and still is. Neither of those apply to what will be needed for electric vehicles. We can't carry drums of electricity that can be dropped off ready for instant (self serve) use. If you think exchange batteries are the solution, the EV industry would need a total rethink, because manuafcturers are not heading towards standardisation.

Then, how would you feel with your shiny new vehicle and doing a swap with a tired old battery at some remote station? Or vice versa ... do you pay a premium of a few thousand dollars to exchange? Not to mention the fact that the remote station with a stack of exchange batteries would be an extreme theft risk. How many do you think they would need to stock for a day's trade?

So with all that, what does the farmer in a remote location do? Any entrepeneur will look at the business case and decide it is not worth it. Unless there are huge increases in charges. Expensive motoring here we come ... whichever type.

Yes, it has to come because the supply of oil is limited and can't be replaced this millenium or probably for the life of humanity. So we need to stop using it. In 100 years ..... "What? They used it ALL?". My guess is that petrol and diesel will taxed huge amounts to force the change.

But 10 years no ICE sales? No way.

deverall11 · Guru

Are We Lost wrote:
...
But 10 years no ICE sales? No way.

Thanks for a logical and to the point. As I stated before, this is only the sale of new vehicles and in Europe. Nothing here as yet.

Perhaps if no workable solution is forthcoming, hydrogen as a replacement fuel. According to Google there are 5600 hydrogen

power buses in China.

vince56 · Senior Member

I stand by my original post, NOTHING in there is deliberately negative, my points are:
Not enough electricity in Australia is TRUE, unreliable wind and solar will not fit the bill yet we continue to blow up existing power stations.
Europe does not have enough power generation, TRUE.
Nuclear is a very attractive alternative to fossil fuels, TRUE (Greens have delayed this technology through false fears)
EV charging WILL be a headache in Australia, I ask you, how do we EVER charge EV's 400kms West of Alice?

Hydrogen may be a solution, we just need to be able to split it off without using enormous amounts of electricity as it is at present.

I WELCOME new technology but I disagree with governments pushing us into what should be a market driven decision. Governments have been abysmal at getting tangled in issues they should stay out of, this is one of them.

Are We Lost · Guru

vince56 wrote:

Hydrogen may be a solution, we just need to be able to split it off without using enormous amounts of electricity as it is at present.

So if in 5 years it does appear that hydrogen is going to be a solution, what is going to happen to all the electric vehicles that are now last decade technology. Who would invest in the infrastructure to make charging EVs in large numbers and in remote locations viable, when the payback period may only be a few short years?

As I said before, it has to come, but motoring is going to get very expensive.

Mamil · Senior Member

Are We Lost wrote:

As I said before, it has to come, but motoring is going to get very expensive.

Motoring has always been very expensive, not at the fuel bowser as that was kept artificially low so we would continue to consume, but the true cost was in the wars we fought to keep our supplies of cheap oil flowing, and now in the climate disasters that are costing us billions.

What you are really saying is that in the future the cost we are charged at point of consumption for our mobility may finally reflect it's true cost to society, and that may be a very good thing, as we may re-consider driving two tonnes of metal and plastic down to the shops and walk instead, or forego jetting off to Bali for a week and instead go camping down the local beach.

-- Edited by Mamil on Tuesday 21st of February 2023 12:07:11 AM

86GTS · Senior Member

Many of us "wrinklies" won't even be driving by 2035 & if we're still alive we'll probably be in a nursing home being spoon fed vitamised slop.

Cuppa · Guru

Mamil wrote:
Motoring has always been very expensive, not at the fuel bowser as that was kept artificially low so we would continue to consume, but the true cost was in the wars we fought to keep our supplies of cheap oil flowing, and now in the climate disasters that are costing us billions.
What you are really saying is that in the future the cost we are charged at point of consumption for our mobility may finally reflect it's true cost to society, and that may be a very good thing, as we may re-consider driving two tonnes of metal and plastic down to the shops and walk instead, or forego jetting off to Bali for a week and instead go camping down the local beach.

-- Edited by Mamil on Tuesday 21st of February 2023 12:07:11 AM

Sad but true. An excellently succinct post Mamil.

Jaahn · Guru

Mamil wrote:
Are We Lost wrote:
As I said before, it has to come, but motoring is going to get very expensive.
=======================================================================
Motoring has always been very expensive, not at the fuel bowser as that was kept artificially low so we would continue to consume, but the true cost was in the wars we fought to keep our supplies of cheap oil flowing, and now in the climate disasters that are costing us billions.
What you are really saying is that in the future the cost we are charged at point of consumption for our mobility may finally reflect it's true cost to society, and that may be a very good thing, as we may re-consider driving two tonnes of metal and plastic down to the shops and walk instead, or forego jetting off to Bali for a week and instead go camping down the local beach.

============================================================================================

Yes a sensible rational answer. It is the damage to the world in general that I feel is the best reason to go electric. To contemplate leaving the degraded environment behind for future generations is just not sustainable for me. We should consider what to do and work towards it. For sure leaving capitalism to solve problems will not be the answer as that is the main reason we got to here now !!

But people do not want to face any problem that impinges on their right to do whatever they like. Classic thinking shown by answers here. Just bloody selfish mostly IMHO. AS I see it the only solutions will be bought by government regulation or nobody will do it by themselves. And the time to start is never better than today.

Jaahn

-- Edited by Jaahn on Tuesday 21st of February 2023 08:16:19 AM

Xyz · Veteran Member

Jaahn, your last paragraph well and truly nailed it, spot on.

From my experience and from what I have seen on this forum, be prepared to be insulted by the same few who think like you have desribed above.
Cheers
Ian

-- Edited by Xyz on Tuesday 21st of February 2023 08:25:13 AM

peter67 · Guru

Yes, lets all mine our way to less pollution. No rare metals in ev's are there?

Dick0 · Guru

Damn! Ran out of popcorn. cry cry cry

Cuppa · Guru

peter67 wrote:
Yes, lets all mine our way to less pollution. No rare metals in ev's are there?

IF there is no perfect solution & if it comes down to choosing the better of two evils, which to choose?

The obvious answer I guess is the least damaging to our planet, whilst continuing to seek less polluting & less damaging alternatives as a matter of priority.

We don't have a map, we are in unchartered territory.

EV's may well just be one small step toward the changes required. But if we wait for a final answer on where those steps are taking us we'll never take any steps.

"Better to try & not succeed than to not try at all".

Are We Lost · Guru

Cuppa wrote:
"Better to try & not succeed than to not try at all".

Maybe having a plan before mandating change would be a good idea.

We have governments mandating change but not making any comments on the details of how we are going to get there. Have you seen a plan on how remote areas will be serviced and who will pay for the infrastructure?

Cuppa · Guru

Are We Lost wrote:
Cuppa wrote:
"Better to try & not succeed than to not try at all".

Maybe having a plan before mandating change would be a good idea.
We have governments mandating change but not making any comments on the details of how we are going to get there. Have you seen a plan on how remote areas will be serviced and who will pay for the infrastructure?

From the post the above was quoted from:

We don't have a map, we are in unchartered territory.
EV's may well just be one small step toward the changes required. But if we wait for a final answer on where those steps are taking us we'll never take any steps.

I'll add to that that I believe cost becomes irrelevant given the risk of doing nothing.

I don't know whether mandating the change is the best way to go, especially as it gets the inevitable pushback from folk who consider being told what to do is worse than anything else.

I don't like being told what to do myself, but like most I accept the 'imposed' rules & laws of our society for the greater good, even though there are times I think them unreasonable, because I accept that our democracy is on the whole a good 'glue' to hold us all together. I don't think the 'market' can be relied upon for that, after all it is the 'Market' which has been behind all that has brought us to our current planet threatening situation, & it is the 'Market' which is the biggest impediment to acting as we need to do. If I were the rule maker & understood the need to change & saw only resistance & procrastination I would likely mandate change.

In the absence of experience of the issues which confront us, now that we have frittered away the time since we became aware that our planet was in trouble, what do you think is the best way forward? It's a rhetorical question.... if any of us had that answer I guess we'd be doing it.

As it is there are some things which are clear (to me).

1. We cannot afford to do nothing until such time as the perfect solution somehow appears

2. We need to act meaningfully & stop 'playing around at the edges to make it look like we are doing something'

3. Doing 'something' inevitably means change & change is inevitably met with resistance.

4. Resistance cannot be afforded - we need to come together to positively embrace change, but people being people will continue to resist.

5. Due to '4' above, there are circumstances where the authorities we have invested in need to be bold & directive even though not everyone likes it.

6. The mandate falls under '5', & is likely only the beginning unless '2' comes into play.

I do think that there have been some good points made about practicalities, but I am confident that in the face of mandated change, solutions will be found, whether or not they are what are expected or wanted by those doing the mandating. Right now the biggest change required is to people's thinking, & the relatively 'small stuff' like EV cars is as much about achieving that as it is about direct Co2 reduction. More 'plans' will come as people's thinking changes.

Change can often be viewed in terms of loss or gain.

It may be that the best we can hope for is to minimise loss. However as long as we view change through 'loss glasses' I think we will be lost. If instead we view change through 'Gain glasses' we are more likely to get somewhere.

Craig1 · Guru

Have a look at the dark side of cobalt mining, grim stuff to support ev

Magnarc · Guru

Outback stations need electricity which require generators which need diesel. Their tanks need filling from tankers which run on diesel in order to run the heavy farm machinery. Correct me if Im wrong but I have yet to see a prime mover at the head of a road train that is an Ev.

I have no doubt that eventually Evs will become the norm but 2025 or 2035 are imho, way out of the ball park. Charging facilities on the Nullarbor?

I have no problem with the sobriquet Dinosaur but those on here who are of the same opinion as I should more accurately be described as practical thinkers.

PS. To use Europe as an example is chalk and cheese.

Cuppa · Guru

Magnarc wrote:
Outback stations need electricity which require generators which need diesel. Their tanks need filling from tankers which run on diesel in order to run the heavy farm machinery. Correct me if Im wrong but I have yet to see a prime mover at the head of a road train that is an Ev.
I have no doubt that eventually Evs will become the norm but 2025 or 2035 are imho, way out of the ball park. Charging facilities on the Nullarbor?
I have no problem with the sobriquet Dinosaur but those on here who are of the same opinion as I should more accurately be described as practical thinkers.
PS. To use Europe as an example is chalk and cheese.

Ta, I learned a new word! :)

rgren2 · Guru

Magnarc wrote:
Outback stations need electricity which require generators which need diesel. Their tanks need filling from tankers which run on diesel in order to run the heavy farm machinery. Correct me if Im wrong but I have yet to see a prime mover at the head of a road train that is an Ev.
I have no doubt that eventually Evs will become the norm but 2025 or 2035 are imho, way out of the ball park. Charging facilities on the Nullarbor?
I have no problem with the sobriquet Dinosaur but those on here who are of the same opinion as I should more accurately be described as practical thinkers.
PS. To use Europe as an example is chalk and cheese.

Charging facilities on the Nullarbor, Pat Callinan posted this.

Gary and Barb · Senior Member

Craig1 wrote:
Have a look at the dark side of cobalt mining, grim stuff to support ev

EV doesn't have to mean just cobalt, lithium or anything else. There are many options out there and some will seriously come into play in the near future. There needs to be some sort of assessment of the relative negatives between conventional vehicles and EV's. On balance, EV's are far better than ICE vehicles.

As far as transferring power to an ev in remote areas, the sun does shine, wind does blow and storage batteries do exist. They had to build petrol stations before conventional cars could go out there, so it is just a matter of adapting what already exists to service EV'S.

Personally, I'd love the technology to be ready now. Imagine the torquey motors, reduced maintenance and fewer fluids needed; the weight saving; simpler mechanicals with no conventional gearbox, ICE motor, differentials, etc. Basically, four motors in the corners for each wheel.

Mamil · Senior Member

Magnarc wrote:
Outback stations need electricity which require generators which need diesel. Their tanks need filling from tankers which run on diesel in order to run the heavy farm machinery. Correct me if Im wrong but I have yet to see a prime mover at the head of a road train that is an Ev.
I have no doubt that eventually Evs will become the norm but 2025 or 2035 are imho, way out of the ball park. Charging facilities on the Nullarbor?
I have no problem with the sobriquet Dinosaur but those on here who are of the same opinion as I should more accurately be described as practical thinkers.

You have unwittingly provided an excellent example of how the way a problem is framed can limit the solutions you come up with.

The problem is not that isolated farmsteads need diesel generators to provide electricity, and therefore large tankers to deliver that diesel, which could not be hauled long distances by EVs.

The problem is that isolated farmsteads need economic and reliable power, and that can also be provided by 'Stand-alone Power Systems'. These SPSs comprise a solar array, a lithium battery bank, solar controllers and inverters, and a small backup generator for emergencies. They are, if you will, just a larger version of what many of us already have in our caravans and campers.

We're not talking future technology or 2035 here, SPSs have quietly and steadily been replacing fossil fuel alternatives on farms and stations in the remote areas of Western Australia since 2016, and there are now more than 200 of them already installed and running.

Neither are they the domain of greenies and dreamers - both WA's electricity utility companies see them as the future of providing remote power to farms, Indigenous communities, and bore water fields. They say they are more reliable, cheaper, and of course greener than the traditional alternatives, and they plan to roll out another 4000 of them across WA over the next ten years.

https://westernpower-website.azurewebsites.net/our-energy-evolution/grid-technology/stand-alone-power-system/

https://renewtheregions.com.au/projects/standalone-power-systems/

Now that's "practical thinking" smile

-- Edited by Mamil on Wednesday 22nd of February 2023 09:41:13 PM

TimTim · Guru

That is one on a main route of Australia that will power a limited number of cars and probably fuelled by used cooking oil. It will be interesting so see what develops off the main routes as Im sure the local stores will not have enough cooking oil. smile

Last year we did a trip across the UK and eastern part of France, four of us in a Tesla. Europe is way ahead of us regarding EV but you have no idea of the problems we had getting charged in some major places. I have no doubt that the EVs will be the thing of the future until they replaced by some other form of fuel but like everything they will have their limitations. I probably wont be around to fly on an electric plane or to go on an electric cruise ship .

Lets not go into the dark side of lithium mining as Im sure you have all taken a good deal of time to read about it. As for hydrogen being the green energy of the future it also takes energy to extract it and is not as green as one might think.

As for the name calling on here. Yes, to some people who have no idea of anything about me I may be a dinosaur. To people that really know me I am not. I am also a realist and a practical thinker biggrin .

By the way dinosaurs survived on the planet for approximately 165 million years but like all species they became extinct. My money would be on the human race not surviving that long.

TimTim · Guru

Nice projects if you can afford them. They will run the property and I suppose you could build them even bigger to run EV machinery but cost figures at an average of $298,000 and $355,555 per project without that will make it out of reach for many.

For the average person it is simply not cost effective to install batteries but for those in remote areas they may simply have no choice.

deverall11 · Guru

Mamil wrote:
Magnarc wrote:
Outback stations need electricity which require generators which need diesel. Their tanks need filling from tankers which run on diesel in order to run the heavy farm machinery. Correct me if Im wrong but I have yet to see a prime mover at the head of a road train that is an Ev.
I have no doubt that eventually Evs will become the norm but 2025 or 2035 are imho, way out of the ball park. Charging facilities on the Nullarbor?
I have no problem with the sobriquet Dinosaur but those on here who are of the same opinion as I should more accurately be described as practical thinkers.

You have unwittingly provided an excellent example of how the way a problem is framed can limit the solutions you come up with.
The problem is not that isolated farmsteads need diesel generators to provide electricity, and therefore large tankers to deliver that diesel, which could not be hauled long distances by EVs.
The problem is that isolated farmsteads need economic and reliable power, and that can also be provided by 'Stand-alone Power Systems'. These SPSs comprise a solar array, a lithium battery bank, solar controllers and inverters, and a small backup generator for emergencies. They are, if you will, just a larger version of what many of us already have in our caravans and campers.
We're not talking future technology or 2035 here, SPSs have quietly and steadily been replacing fossil fuel alternatives on farms and stations in the remote areas of Western Australia since 2016, and there are now more than 200 of them already installed and running.
Neither are they the domain of greenies and dreamers - both WA's electricity utility companies see them as the future of providing remote power to farms, Indigenous communities, and bore water fields. They say they are more reliable, cheaper, and of course greener than the traditional alternatives, and they plan to roll out another 4000 of them across WA over the next ten years.
https://westernpower-website.azurewebsites.net/our-energy-evolution/grid-technology/stand-alone-power-system/
https://renewtheregions.com.au/projects/standalone-power-systems/
Now that's "practical thinking"

-- Edited by Mamil on Wednesday 22nd of February 2023 09:41:13 PM

Good post Andy. You highlighted a point I made in an earlier post whereby the dinosaurs on here are quick to criticise

and point out all the negatives without doing simple research like you have.

Are We Lost · Guru

Tim Tim mentioned some dollars for installations, I just tried to do a rudimentary back of envelope sizing and practicality of a remote service centre. Let's say they currently serve about 50 ICE vehicles per day, taking about 10 minutes each. 10 minutes x 50 = 500 minutes, or 8-9 hours actual refilling time. They might get away with 2 pumps if drivers would accept some delays in peak periods.

The following link estimates the kilowatt hours and times required to recharge a selection of vehicles.

EV recharge requirements

I picked the Tesla S as an example. To recharge from 10% to 80% would take 1.5 hours with a 50kw charger. That is 9 times as long as the previously estimated fill time for ICE vehicles. So if 2 pumps could fill 50 ICE vehicles in a day, then 18 charging stations would be needed for the same number of EVs. But it does not work that way. While at peak times ICE drivers may wait a few minutes, if those delays turned into hours instead for EV drivers there would be a lot of irate drivers.

But let's work on that impractical 18 charging stations. To cater for all those vehicles takes a lot of real estate. And facilities would be needed while they waited.

Next, in those peak periods with all those charging stations working simultaneously, that is 18 x 50kw. Close enough to 1000kw. That is a serious sized power requirement with a serious sized investment. You can imagine all the red tape and regulations around safety they would have to comply with, increasing the cost further.

But it does not end there. Those chargers have to keep working whether it's been raining for days or full sunshine. How is all that energy going to be stored?

There are many very significant obstacles to overcome, and the governments of the world are keeping us all in the dark as to how they see them being solved.

-- Edited by Are We Lost on Wednesday 22nd of February 2023 11:17:16 PM

Mamil · Senior Member

TimTim wrote:
Nice projects if you can afford them. They will run the property and I suppose you could build them even bigger to run EV machinery but cost figures at an average of $298,000 and $355,555 per project without that will make it out of reach for many.
For the average person it is simply not cost effective to install batteries but for those in remote areas they may simply have no choice.

The way it works is that if you are currently a customer of one of the utilities (Horizon Power or Western Power) then they own the SPS and it costs you nothing, you are simply charged the same amount for the electricity it provides as you were before.

If you are not currently buying your electricity from a utility, then yes you would have to buy the SPS for yourself. Don't know where you got your figures from, but this ABC article has it pretty accurate at a cost of $150,000 per SPS, and with a large farm having an energy cost of about $2000 per month, the payback period is a little over six years, and after that their electricity is essentially free.

That doesn't compare too badly with the average payback period of five years for putting solar on your rooftop in the city burbs, but you'd have to ask a farmer how it stacks up against other major capital investments they make for their business like farm machinery.

Last but not least, they are all to be built in Western Australia, McGowan saw to that, so it puts money and jobs back into the local economy, not going to buy an oil sheik another Ferrari!

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-02/thousands-of-renewable-standalone-power-systems-to-be-rolled-out/101479136

-- Edited by Mamil on Thursday 23rd of February 2023 01:21:21 AM

TimTim · Guru

Hi Are We Lost.

The figures I quoted are the cost of the projects for the two links that Mamil posted. They both quote the cost of the overall project and the number of installations.

These sort of projects are not new and people in the US and Canada have been building their projects on a smaller scale for many years now simply because of their remote location or because of the expense to get electricity to where they live.

NSW are about to lose 10% of it electricity production with the closure of a major power station in the next few months and then another 10% with a closure of another in 2025. We cant even supply enough power when people turn their AC units on during a hot spell let alone anything else. It wasnt that long ago that Tomago Aluminium management had to frantically phone politicians to prevent the power being cut to the aluminium smelter otherwise it would be shut down for good. The problem is not that we are changing the way we produce power but there is no planning for the changes.

Remember we are supposed to be the clever country. :brainless:

Cuppa · Guru

Are We Lost wrote:

There are many very significant obstacles to overcome, and the governments of the world are keeping us all in the dark as to how they see them being solved.

We are in unchartered territory. I don't think it is so much that we are being 'kept in the dark as to how very real obstacles will be resolved, it's that the solutions are yet to be developed. We will find a way if we (as a species) have the will to do so, step by step ..... I hope, as there is no other way forward now we have left things so late. I remain hopeful & positive that as actions are taken that there will be an increasing snowball effect in regard to support for the need for us to change how we live. After all it has been denial & self interest which has brought us to this point, & which still holds us back.

The biggest obstacle we have to overcome is a planet which is fast becoming unpredictable & potentially unliveable within a short space of time.

That Doomsday scenario won't come all at once but I believe without urgent action it will rapidly become unstoppable. My biggest hope is that we are not now too late - but if we are then nothing we try will make the outcome worse.

We need to move forward even if uncertain where it will lead us, with a confidence that we will find solutions to get us over the obstacles as they arise along the way. The alternative is to talk about perfect solutions & do nothing until it's too late.

So arguing to continue with fossil fuel power generation, which will hasten the 'doomsday' scenario, because the alternative is yet to be fully formed doesn't make any sense to me.

The only way it could make sense would be to deny we are on a 'doomsday' path, and/or that using fossil fuel is harmless, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

In a nutshell 'Not knowing is not a good reason for doing nothing when faced with calamity'. We must act, & we can only do the best we can do. If it's not good enough we will have lost nothing.

Another major obstacle is getting our heads around future lifestyles. Currently most solutions seem to focus upon saving the planet whilst allowing us to maintain similar ways of living. I don't think that will be possible.

-- Edited by Cuppa on Thursday 23rd of February 2023 10:29:18 AM