Car boom looks like last hurrah for petrol power: Electric vehicles look set to take over?

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Car boom looks like last hurrah for petrol power: Electric vehicles look set to take over?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

987 posts

Ultimate Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1833063 28-Jul-2017 19:17

Ge0rge:
Linuxluver:

I'm told the drive train / axil is a sealed unit and you don't need to lubricate it as it doesn't leak.

I certainly hope that I would be able to do my own preventitive maintenace on an EV that I own - sealed units always raise my suspicions.

There's definitely drain & fill plugs there. I'd imagine there's a lube schedule for it.

Lenovo

Affiliate link

Affiliate link: Find your next Lenovo laptop, desktop, workstation or tablet now.

shk292

2391 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1833094 28-Jul-2017 20:45

Linuxluver:

You've done well.

Can you say that was with zero servicing?

This looks like the old cigarettes cause cancer argument: "My Nana lived to be 90 and smoked a pack a day!". That's fine. She was lucky. Cigs still cause cancer.

No, of course there was servicing - I'm an engineer and I look after my stuff.

This wasn't a single vehicle that I've owned since the eighties and has never broken down - my point was that I've owned a range of cars and unreliability is not a significant problem - nor is anxiety about reliability. YMMV if you drive Fords, or in my case in the 80s, a Maestro (don't ask why).

Linuxluver

5794 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1833112 28-Jul-2017 21:40

shk292:

Linuxluver:

You've done well.

Can you say that was with zero servicing?

This looks like the old cigarettes cause cancer argument: "My Nana lived to be 90 and smoked a pack a day!". That's fine. She was lucky. Cigs still cause cancer.

No, of course there was servicing - I'm an engineer and I look after my stuff.

This wasn't a single vehicle that I've owned since the eighties and has never broken down - my point was that I've owned a range of cars and unreliability is not a significant problem - nor is anxiety about reliability. YMMV if you drive Fords, or in my case in the 80s, a Maestro (don't ask why).

Fair enough.

As in my previous comment, I agree anxiety around reliability isn't an issue. Maybe it (someone?) was conflating the idea of range anxiety with reliability. I don't know.

What I do know is the servicing costs are lower for an EV tend to be much lower because much of the stuff that wears out or breaks in an ICE doesn't exist in an EV.....with the obvious exceptions you noted around wheels and things that have nothing to do with power or drive train or exhaust.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 15 years..... Time flies....

frednz

1431 posts

Uber Geek

#1833918 30-Jul-2017 20:32

Linuxluver:

The other issue is public awareness of climate change. This government whispers about it occasionally but gives no sign of comprehending how grave the situation now actually is. They do pretty much nothing. In that regard they are no different to most conservative parties around the world that have abandoned any pretense of making policy based on evidence.

You talk about conservative parties, but what policies does, for example, the NZ Green Party have that will really help the uptake of electric vehicles in NZ? Do they propose subsidies for new EVs? And are they going to take the lead of several other countries and ban the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles in a few years’ time?

Also, bear in mind that more than half of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture. For example, we have 6.5 million dairy cattle. In this article, it says that:

“New Zealand is in an unusual position, because 43 per cent of its greenhouse gases are caused by methane and 11 per cent by nitrous oxide, the first generated by all livestock, the latter mainly by cows urinating.”

And globally, aren’t NZ’s greenhouse gas emissions not even one-fifth of 1%? We are such a drop in the global bucket that even if we reduced our harmful emissions altogether, the world wouldn’t notice any difference in the overall situation. Sure, we have no reason to be complacent, but don’t you think the real focus has to be on a country like China which has CO2 emissions of about 30% of the world’s total? I don't think other countries are screaming at NZ to do more!

It's worth noting that the burning of coal, natural gas, and oil for electricity and heat is the largest single source of global greenhouse gas emissions, so be careful of the way you heat your home this Winter!

Lastman

297 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1833925 30-Jul-2017 20:49

frednz:
Linuxluver:

The other issue is public awareness of climate change. This government whispers about it occasionally but gives no sign of comprehending how grave the situation now actually is. They do pretty much nothing. In that regard they are no different to most conservative parties around the world that have abandoned any pretense of making policy based on evidence.

You talk about conservative parties, but what policies does, for example, the NZ Green Party have that will really help the uptake of electric vehicles in NZ? Do they propose subsidies for new EVs? And are they going to take the lead of several other countries and ban the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles in a few years’ time?

Also, bear in mind that more than half of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture. For example, we have 6.5 million dairy cattle. In this article, it says that:

“New Zealand is in an unusual position, because 43 per cent of its greenhouse gases are caused by methane and 11 per cent by nitrous oxide, the first generated by all livestock, the latter mainly by cows urinating.”

And globally, aren’t NZ’s greenhouse gas emissions not even one-fifth of 1%? We are such a drop in the global bucket that even if we reduced our harmful emissions altogether, the world wouldn’t notice any difference in the overall situation. Sure, we have no reason to be complacent, but don’t you think the real focus has to be on a country like China which has CO2 emissions of about 30% of the world’s total? I don't think other countries are screaming at NZ to do more!

There is a lot of research going into the area of animal emissions to try to reduce the issue.

To rebutt the last part of your argument, any small subset of a large population can say "we are just a small subset so our contribution is insignificant". To say that should exclude it from measures is disengenuous.

frednz

1431 posts

Uber Geek

#1833930 30-Jul-2017 21:08

Lastman:
frednz:

Linuxluver:

The other issue is public awareness of climate change. This government whispers about it occasionally but gives no sign of comprehending how grave the situation now actually is. They do pretty much nothing. In that regard they are no different to most conservative parties around the world that have abandoned any pretense of making policy based on evidence.

You talk about conservative parties, but what policies does, for example, the NZ Green Party have that will really help the uptake of electric vehicles in NZ? Do they propose subsidies for new EVs? And are they going to take the lead of several other countries and ban the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles in a few years’ time?

Also, bear in mind that more than half of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture. For example, we have 6.5 million dairy cattle. In this article, it says that:

“New Zealand is in an unusual position, because 43 per cent of its greenhouse gases are caused by methane and 11 per cent by nitrous oxide, the first generated by all livestock, the latter mainly by cows urinating.”

And globally, aren’t NZ’s greenhouse gas emissions not even one-fifth of 1%? We are such a drop in the global bucket that even if we reduced our harmful emissions altogether, the world wouldn’t notice any difference in the overall situation. Sure, we have no reason to be complacent, but don’t you think the real focus has to be on a country like China which has CO2 emissions of about 30% of the world’s total? I don't think other countries are screaming at NZ to do more!

There is a lot of research going into the area of animal emissions to try to reduce the issue.

To rebutt the last part of your argument, any small subset of a large population can say "we are just a small subset so our contribution is insignificant". To say that should exclude it from measures is disengenuous.

I didn't say that NZ should stop its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but we do need to keep our situation in perspective. For example, transportation represents only about 14% of global greenhouse emissions, and this covers fossil fuels burned for road, rail, air, and marine transportation. So, it's great to have a global programme to switch to electric vehicles, but overall, your nice little Nissan Leaf isn't really the huge contribution to the global greenhouse gas situation that you might think! Huge trucks, planes, boats, etc etc are probably a much greater problem than our humble little petrol vehicles!

Lastman

297 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1833977 31-Jul-2017 07:02

Electric trucks and utes are already in the pipeline. Cars are just a developmental start point.

Batman

Mad Scientist
27999 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1833978 31-Jul-2017 07:05

Anyone knows the policies in China re pollution?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I had the impression than China and USA are the world's top polluters

Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.

Lastman

297 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1834096 31-Jul-2017 09:50

Batman: Anyone knows the policies in China re pollution?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I had the impression than China and USA are the world's top polluters

We are about the same as China and the UK per head of population (for CO2 emissions). The US and Australia are more than double again. Some of which is due to there high GDP.

We have high methane emissions though and perhaps a "fart" tax (or belch tax) is going to be needed to incentivize reduction.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1834620 1-Aug-2017 00:26

@Lastman:
Batman: Anyone knows the policies in China re pollution?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I had the impression than China and USA are the world's top polluters

We are about the same as China and the UK per head of population (for CO2 emissions). The US and Australia are more than double again. Some of which is due to there high GDP.

We have high methane emissions though and perhaps a "fart" tax (or belch tax) is going to be needed to incentivize reduction.

How will a fart tax actually reduce emissions? As there is no practical way to stop farm animals from farting. It will just mean that the cost of dairy, meat, wool etc will go up. And since these things are also exported, overseas buyers will just buy now cheaper products from countries with no fart tax. Meaning the same total worldwide emissions still occur. But NZ farmers and the NZ economy misses out on the income from those exports.

Also NZ farming actually has a low emissions intensity compared to alot of other countries. Other countries grow, harvest, process grains and corn. Then feed it to cows. And those cows are often housed in large barns that are heated with fossil fuels. While in NZ, the cows live outdoors and eat grass. NZ beef for sale in the UK has a lower carbon footprint than UK grown beef. That is including the emissions from shipping NZ to the UK. So in alot of cases, more farming in NZ will result in lower total worldwide emissions. Even if local NZ emissions are higher as a result.

The planet shares the same air, oceans ect. So it is very important to make sure that any local emissions reductions won't cause more emissions or other forms of pollution to happen somewhere else.

The easiest way for NZ to reduce total emissions is through more EVs and more renewable power generation. But first the electricity regulations need to be reformed. To put everyone onto time of use or capacity based billing plans. And the green party & other enviroment groups need to get out of the way of major hydroelectric projects. Environmental groups have opposed: Raising the level of lake Manapouri, project Aqua on the Waitaki river, Waitaha river scheme. There is at least 600MW of hydro capacity that has been blocked from construction by environmental groups. Plus other generation that has had extra environmental costs loaded on. Meaning they are now uneconomic to build. The Arnold scheme expansion is an example of this. And I haven't even started to opposition to wind generation construction.

In comparison there is currently 500MW of coal generation and 155MW of diesel generation. This all could have been closed down ages ago. Meaning that NZ would have had both more renewable generation + bragging rights of having no coal or diesel generation. But because of some silly environmental parties and groups, those coal and diesel power stations continue to live to pollute another day, And probably for many more years to come.

Anyone care to try calculating how many electric cars are needed? Or how many cows have to be killed? Or how many trees have to be planted? To offset the carbon emissions of these remaining coal and diesel power stations?

Now add in labour and the greens giving Government subsidies to install air conditioning systems (heatpumps) last time they were in power. Big problem as mid to Late summer is when air conditioning load is highest. But late summer is when water for hydro generation is lowest. So most of that demand has to be met by fossil fuelled generation. There is currently 55.1MW of installed grid connected solar capacity. Yet in 2007 alone, 160MW worth of heatpumps were installed. Even if only 1/2 of that capacity is used for cooling, then just 1 years worth of heatpump installations has wiped out the emissions savings of all grid connect solar installed to date.

And we still haven't allowed for the extra demand created by electric car charging yet. As without electricity regulation reforms, electric car charging will add to existing peak loads.

Yet today the most important policy of the green party is increasing benefit payments.

***Groan***

Maybe one day there will be a true pro enviroment party. One which will be happy to take the easy routes to reducing carbon emissions. So we can have a healthy enviroment without killing the economy.

Lastman

297 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1834629 1-Aug-2017 06:56

@Aredwood:
@Lastman:
Batman: Anyone knows the policies in China re pollution?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I had the impression than China and USA are the world's top polluters

We are about the same as China and the UK per head of population (for CO2 emissions). The US and Australia are more than double again. Some of which is due to there high GDP.

We have high methane emissions though and perhaps a "fart" tax (or belch tax) is going to be needed to incentivize reduction.

How will a fart tax actually reduce emissions? As there is no practical way to stop farm animals from farting. It will just mean that the cost of dairy, meat, wool etc will go up. And since these things are also exported, overseas buyers will just buy now cheaper products from countries with no fart tax. Meaning the same total worldwide emissions still occur. But NZ farmers and the NZ economy misses out on the income from those exports.

Also NZ farming actually has a low emissions intensity compared to alot of other countries. Other countries grow, harvest, process grains and corn. Then feed it to cows. And those cows are often housed in large barns that are heated with fossil fuels. While in NZ, the cows live outdoors and eat grass. NZ beef for sale in the UK has a lower carbon footprint than UK grown beef. That is including the emissions from shipping NZ to the UK. So in alot of cases, more farming in NZ will result in lower total worldwide emissions. Even if local NZ emissions are higher as a result.

The planet shares the same air, oceans ect. So it is very important to make sure that any local emissions reductions won't cause more emissions or other forms of pollution to happen somewhere else.

The easiest way for NZ to reduce total emissions is through more EVs and more renewable power generation. But first the electricity regulations need to be reformed. To put everyone onto time of use or capacity based billing plans. And the green party & other enviroment groups need to get out of the way of major hydroelectric projects. Environmental groups have opposed: Raising the level of lake Manapouri, project Aqua on the Waitaki river, Waitaha river scheme. There is at least 600MW of hydro capacity that has been blocked from construction by environmental groups. Plus other generation that has had extra environmental costs loaded on. Meaning they are now uneconomic to build. The Arnold scheme expansion is an example of this. And I haven't even started to opposition to wind generation construction.

In comparison there is currently 500MW of coal generation and 155MW of diesel generation. This all could have been closed down ages ago. Meaning that NZ would have had both more renewable generation + bragging rights of having no coal or diesel generation. But because of some silly environmental parties and groups, those coal and diesel power stations continue to live to pollute another day, And probably for many more years to come.

Anyone care to try calculating how many electric cars are needed? Or how many cows have to be killed? Or how many trees have to be planted? To offset the carbon emissions of these remaining coal and diesel power stations?

Now add in labour and the greens giving Government subsidies to install air conditioning systems (heatpumps) last time they were in power. Big problem as mid to Late summer is when air conditioning load is highest. But late summer is when water for hydro generation is lowest. So most of that demand has to be met by fossil fuelled generation. There is currently 55.1MW of installed grid connected solar capacity. Yet in 2007 alone, 160MW worth of heatpumps were installed. Even if only 1/2 of that capacity is used for cooling, then just 1 years worth of heatpump installations has wiped out the emissions savings of all grid connect solar installed to date.

And we still haven't allowed for the extra demand created by electric car charging yet. As without electricity regulation reforms, electric car charging will add to existing peak loads.

Yet today the most important policy of the green party is increasing benefit payments.

***Groan***

Maybe one day there will be a true pro enviroment party. One which will be happy to take the easy routes to reducing carbon emissions. So we can have a healthy enviroment without killing the economy.

The reason I suggested a tax may be necessary is that it often takes real financial incentives before change happens.

Given NZ farmers abilities at innovation it is likely they could quickly adopt farming systems and technologies (and not just moving away from meat) that would reduce emissions. They are already making big improvements in the environment field as a result of regional plan changes regarding water quality.

Dratsab

3810 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1834638 1-Aug-2017 07:33

@Lastman: The Tesla Model 3 doesn't even have a dashboard, just a computer screen. That introduces a whole new set of fears I guess, an update has killed my car!

It's not running Windows...

Dratsab

3810 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1834640 1-Aug-2017 07:36

@Aredwood: How will a fart tax actually reduce emissions?

It won't. In just the same way that carbon taxes don't reduce the amount of carbon being outputted. But it gives a select few a great cash windfall, and a bunch companies can puff themselves up with [false] pride and say "we're doing our bit".

MikeAqua

6889 posts

Uber Geek

#1834644 1-Aug-2017 07:48

@frednz:

Also, bear in mind that more than half of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture. For example, we have 6.5 million dairy cattle. In this article, it says that:

“New Zealand is in an unusual position, because 43 per cent of its greenhouse gases are caused by methane and 11 per cent by nitrous oxide, the first generated by all livestock, the latter mainly by cows urinating.”

I think we jumped the shark when we started planning farming around bringing additional feed onto the farm, so that many diary farms now have more cows than their pasture can support.

There is some research looking into reducing methane output and in intensive farming situations and treating urine patches to control nitrous oxide.

I still wonder if in locations with quality artesian water, we would make more money exporting water than irrigating pasture, grazing cattle, milking them and finally drying the milk into powder for export.

Mike

Lastman

297 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1834645 1-Aug-2017 07:48

@Dratsab:
@Aredwood: How will a fart tax actually reduce emissions?

It won't. In just the same way that carbon taxes don't reduce the amount of carbon being outputted. But it gives a select few a great cash windfall, and a bunch companies can puff themselves up with [false] pride and say "we're doing our bit".

If a tax doesn't work you may just have to legislate for methane reductions, staged reduction by quotas etc. One way or another this needs to be controlled, even if we may be indifferent as a country, markets and politics will demand it eventually.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8