user 22230
Gavin of Garfield
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2021
- Messages
- 998
- Reaction score
- 2,683
New Electric cars to come with free insulated foot wear.
- Thread starter user 22230
- Start date
Help Support Prospecting Australia:
user 22230
Gavin of Garfield
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2021
- Messages
- 998
- Reaction score
- 2,683
Mike678 said:
Bugger and here I was thinking I had the scoop on it. :lol: :lol:
Well, it is the first time I have seen it.
I ain't gonna pull up there and step out of my car !
NOPE NO WAY
I ain't gonna pull up there and step out of my car !
NOPE NO WAY
Shouldn't hurt- it's only DC Voltage.
Honestly who would be so stupid. ??
My son who lives in California has got one of these on order...
https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2022-tesla-model-s-plaid-first-test-review/
I said to him Im coming over for a joy ride asap.layful:
https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2022-tesla-model-s-plaid-first-test-review/
I said to him Im coming over for a joy ride asap.
layful:Goldfreak said:
There are a few issues. Few power grids that provide electricity to charge ones car are green in terms of incorporating mostly a mix of renewable energies - unless the grids are creating electricity from green sources, you are simply changing the form in which you store energy, not reducing carbon dioxide emissions at all. The metals used in batteries are quite toxic and some (eg cobalt) are from unstable authoritarian regimes (60% of cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo). And at the moment we do not recycle lithium batteries (it can be done, but at the moment Australia recycles 98% of lead-acid batteries and 2% of lithium batteries (and we will have 100,000 tonnes of used lithium batteries in Australia in only 14 years....
It is not an argument against ultimately having a high proportion of electric vehicles, but what is the rush when the electricity generation is still coal etc?
Goldierocks.
I agree atm, but we gotta start somewhere.
More EVs, the more green charging stations.
The more recycling plants.
If you build it - they will come.
I agree atm, but we gotta start somewhere.
More EVs, the more green charging stations.
The more recycling plants.
If you build it - they will come.
BigWave said:
But you cant have green charging stations unless your grid is producing green electricity - they don't have a separate power source, they just feed off the grid. They dont have a separate power source
My comments were not that it could not be done, but the priorities in terms of sequence that it is done must be considered, For example I have seen some groups pushing government subsidies of electric cars, yet both parties just agreed to a new gas power station in NSW. Norway is supposedly going entirely to EV but their petroleum industry is State-owned and they have taken out new leases in the Arctic to explore because climate change has made it easier (longer periods each year without sea ice).
I think cars are about 9% of our emissions, so everyone said wow! - we can rapidly cut our emissions by that amount by suddenly going electric. Not so - Poland has 90% coal-generated electricity (and not much sun), so if they went 100% EV tomorrow they would have a saving of 0.9% but only by generating 9% more power than prior to EVs (so they might be better to get more nuclear first which is completely co2 free and has a big impact on the remaining 91% of power requirements). There are also the other issues that I mentioned, and things like people mostly recharging when the sun doesn't shine....And in Victoria we built wind farms that had to sit idle once completed because the grid system could not take their input if they came on stream. We have had an experimental programme in the Latrobe Valley to try and produce non-green hydrogen from brown coal (which saves no emissions) - fortunately Forrest is now investing billions in NSW to produce green hydrogen - which may reduce our emissions 1-2%.
I think we are being fed a lot of simplistic solutions mixed with b.s. about new technologies saving all problems. We are much worse than many countries except in having sun - half of Europe has major hydro and they have hundreds of niclear power stations, most of which generate at far below their normal capacity, and are building many more (making it easier to make promises).
It is not just a case of "doing it" - it requires proper long-term planning.
Renewables are good but a country still needs reliable base load power. Germany is a great example. They pride themselves on being 80 percent renewable but infact are burning more coal gas and lignin than ever before and sometimes import power from nuclear powered france to meet the constant shortfalls. Infact the average German citizen has twice the carbon foot print than France. Modern reliable long lasting and safe nuclear plants for base load power are the answer supplimented by renewables where possible. Australia has a large amount of uranium. Maybe we should use some of it instead of just exporting it. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...wqsBegQIBhAE&usg=AOvVaw2IczYHU4zP8izpVv8Z5x6u
China and India are experimenting with thorium reactors, which cannot go critical, produce less waste and are less desirable for weapons production. The largest thorium resources in the world are in India, Australia and Madagascar.Goldfreak said:
The reason that a thorium reactor cannot do a Chernobyl is that thorium itself cannot go critical (unlike uranium 235 reactors). Energy must be added to the thorium in the reactor to convert it to uranium 233 (done as a a continuous process). Stop adding energy for the conversion and the thorium stops converting (so no meltdown).
Still experimental.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w
goldierocks said:
Coal power stations have killed hundreds of times as many people as uranium reactors anyway (just to put it in perspective). And pebble bed uranium reactors are designed to shut themselves off if they overheat - but they are expensive.
Unfortunately nuclear reactors are very expensive, large and centralized, and their power is not as cheap as coal or renewable sources such as wind. South Africa used Fukishima as an excuse to abandon building their pebble-bed reactor and go back to burning dirty Botswanan coal (because they did not want the investment cost on the reactor). They now programme rolling power outages - your suburb only gets power at certain times of the day - the gold mining industry has at times come close to closing because of no power to run the mines. This is the other side to indecision.
Despite cost, reactors can supply the base load power requirement, using dominantly renwables for the rest..
The EU can make promises to cut emissions because they are not using the full output capacity of their nuclear reactors (so can further ramp up production of power), and they are building many more of them. As mentioned above, Germany is hypocritcal - they said no more nuclear power - because they are buying nuclear power from adjoining France! Everyone praised Britain when it stopped using coal, but few mentioned that it is because they are ramping up to produce one third of their power from nuclear reactors.
But how about a plan?
I wonder if anybody has thought about the effects of the powerful LF electromagnetic fields that they will be subjected to while driving an electric vehicle.
Even the current petrol engine cars have stronger magnetic fields in the driver side of the cabin than what is considered safe for humans.
Maybe that is why there is so much road rage today . Our brains are being messed up by the LF EMI.
Even the current petrol engine cars have stronger magnetic fields in the driver side of the cabin than what is considered safe for humans.
Maybe that is why there is so much road rage today . Our brains are being messed up by the LF EMI.
Nuclear is the only thing that can really threaten coal and gas for critical base load power unless a much better, long lasting and cheaper battery can be developed. China has an interesting vanadium redox flow battery but are still planning to build 150 nuclear reactors anyway so to me that speaks for itself. Pumped hydro is anouther option for renewables but there are many inefficiency losses. Coal and gas has the advantage over nuclear that they can be switched on and off more easily. Small modular reactor designs are working to solve this though. They have already been proven in various military applications and are now coming into the civilian sphere. As a country we have to pull our finger out, think long term out and stop doing tokanistic window dressing. A few solar panels (often made in China) here and wind farms there make us feel good but wont cut it in a competitive world. In a world of increasing automation and electrical demand reliable cheap power is what will seperate the winners from the loosers.
Similar threads
