Just heard this on news radio. Here is a government willing to make the tough decisions in ortder to save the planet unlike turncoat and co which is business as usual polluting the f..k out of the planet in order to keep their fake services and resources economy going at any cost :(

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 7:21pm:

Just heard this on news radio. Here is a government willing to make the tough decisions in ortder to save the planet

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

And then there is the inconvenient truth on emissions from China. World Leader.

And with an escape clause to continue to emit more and more CO2 until 2030. ;)

edit: http://www.climatechangenews.com/files/2017/03/238eb46742db30303bcd33fe9ce65f3d-1.png

good work Lee

great way to avoid the point and reality at the same time

John Smith wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 8:10pm:

good work Lee great way to avoid the point and reality at the same time

So emissions are not the point? Moving to electric vehicles will be like peeing on a bushfire. Might make you feel good and noble. Won't achieve a thing.

And guess what? China's emissions are reality.

One of the curve balls people are not seeing is silver.

Electric cars require silver
Solar panels require silver
etc etc

We reached peak silver around 2015.
Second largest silver mine just closed down, possibly for years.
Mexico and Peru, 1st and 3rd, production has dropped.

Unlike gold, where it just sits, silver is throw away ~ TVs, mobile phones, missiles launched into Syria ... never to be recovered.

Gold to silver mined is around 1 to 9, price is 1 to 80.

While the big banks manipulate it's price to rock bottom, so to con people into thinking paper money has any value, is why I stack physical silver.
I stack silver, not gold.
I'm betting on silver surpassing gold due to manufacturing demand.

Not financial advice.

lee wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 8:31pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 8:10pm: good work Lee great way to avoid the point and reality at the same time So emissions are not the point? Moving to electric vehicles will be like peeing on a bushfire. Might make you feel good and noble. Won't achieve a thing. And guess what? China's emissions are reality.

What's the population of China verses US ~ apx 4.3 Chinese per American ... so Chinese per capita are not the biggest polluters ... and yet they seem to being most of the lifting.

____ wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 8:47pm:

What's the population of China verses US ~ apx 4.3 Chinese per American ... so Chinese per capita are not the biggest polluters ... and yet they seem to being most of the lifting.

The old per capita argument.

According to the mantra it is total CO2 causing the problem. The atmosphere, from what I have heard, doesn't care who emits it. ;)

And although there is an hiatus, China has a manufacturing downturn, it will turn around again. 

lee wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 8:53pm:

____ wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 8:47pm: What's the population of China verses US ~ apx 4.3 Chinese per American ... so Chinese per capita are not the biggest polluters ... and yet they seem to being most of the lifting. The old per capita argument. According to the mantra it is total CO2 causing the problem. The atmosphere, from what I have heard, doesn't care who emits it. ;) And although there is an hiatus, China has a manufacturing downturn, it will turn around again.

That's because the per capita method is the most logical method to compare between countries ... which you did.

Because you wanted to create a red herring rather than discuss the topic. i.e Electric cars, and the certainty that fossil fuelled cars are dying out.

lee wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 8:31pm:

Moving to electric vehicles will be like peeing on a bushfire

gee, I don't know. 200 million less cars spewing pollution out is a lot more than you're doing

John Smith wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 9:09pm:

gee, I don't know. 200 million less cars spewing pollution out is a lot more than you're doing

I gathered that. ;)

lee wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 9:15pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 9:09pm: gee, I don't know. 200 million less cars spewing pollution out is a lot more than you're doing I gathered that. ;)

unlike you, I never professed to being any sort of expert.

I typically let common sense guide me in  these matters. Common sense tells you that removing 200+ million cars from the road has got to be good for the environment. But you keep pretending otherwise

____ wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 8:59pm:

Because you wanted to create a red herring rather than discuss the topic

Are reduced emissions due to EV's the topic?


____ wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 8:59pm:

That's because the per capita method is the most logical method to compare between countries ... which you did.

Actually, all I was doing was showing China's emissions. The others came as a free super-sized bonus. I just love a bargain. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 9:17pm:

unlike you, I never professed to being any sort of expert.

And of course, apart from electronics and tax knowledge, note NOT expertise, you have multitudes of examples of my "professed" expertise? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Edit:
John Smith wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 9:17pm:

I typically let common sense guide me in  these matters. Common sense tells you that removing 200+ million cars from the road has got to be good for the environment. But you keep pretending otherwise

That's only until increasing emissions overcome any changes.

lee wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 9:21pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 9:17pm: unlike you, I never professed to being any sort of expert. And of course, apart from electronics and tax knowledge, note NOT expertise, you have multitudes of examples of my "professed" expertise? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

you're the one going on about expertise sunshine.

I certainly haven't seen any from you so don't ask me for proof of it.

John Smith wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 9:23pm:

you're the one going on about expertise sunshine.

Really? I don't recall that. Can you post it?

Edit: Nope just checked. First reference to expertise is yours.

lee wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 9:21pm:

That's only until increasing emissions overcome any changes.

Your not thinking it through properly. To busy trying to show how clever you are

Increasing emissions while the rice farmers catch up to the rest of the world are going to happen anyway. Increasing emission alone is much better than increasing emissions plus 200 million cars.

lee wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 9:24pm:

Really? I don't recall that. Can you post it?

lee wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 9:15pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 9:09pm: gee, I don't know. 200 million less cars spewing pollution out is a lot more than you're doing I gathered that. ;)

lee wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 9:19pm:

____ wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 8:59pm: Because you wanted to create a red herring rather than discuss the topic Are reduced emissions due to EV's the topic? ____ wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 8:59pm: That's because the per capita method is the most logical method to compare between countries ... which you did. Actually, all I was doing was showing China's emissions. The others came as a free super-sized bonus. I just love a bargain. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I thought the topic could be broader, the collapse in middle east oil power. But relax, you being your usual egotistical self, and so destroy another potential thread.
You pumping your ego is way more important.

John Smith wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 9:33pm:

Increasing emission alone is much better than increasing emissions plus 200 million cars.

Increasing emissions will happen whether the EV's make it or not. Increasing emissions will be on top of electric vehicles, unless you believe EV's will happen overnight. It will mean a slower rise in China, that is all.

John Smith wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 9:34pm:

lee wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 9:24pm: Really? I don't recall that. Can you post it? lee wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 9:15pm: John Smith wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 9:09pm: gee, I don't know. 200 million less cars spewing pollution out is a lot more than you're doing I gathered that. ;)

????

Was that about my "professed" expertise?

____ wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 9:39pm:

But relax, you being your usual egotistical self, and so destroy another potential thread. You pumping your ego is way more important.

Oh, dear. Now I can't express an opinion? It must be sad to be you.

Of course if you want to make the subject broader you could always consider this -

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/is-there-enough-lithium-to-maintain-the-growth-of-the-lithium-ion-battery-m

"Even though 365 years of reserve supply sounds very comforting, the point of the EV and stationary storage revolutions is that current demand will shoot up, way up, if these revolutions do happen. The 100 Gigafactories scenario could come true. And if that happens, the 365-year supply would be less than a 17-year supply (13.5 million tons of reserves divided by 800,000 = 16.9 years). "

So everyone believes the situation is hopeless, just for different reasons.

lee wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 9:51pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 9:33pm: Increasing emission alone is much better than increasing emissions plus 200 million cars. Increasing emissions will happen whether the EV's make it or not. Increasing emissions will be on top of electric vehicles, unless you believe EV's will happen overnight. It will mean a slower rise in China, that is all.

I'll repeat,
Increasing emission alone is much better than increasing emissions plus 200 million cars.

John Smith wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 10:12pm:

Increasing emission alone is much better than increasing emissions plus 200 million cars.

How much increasing emissions? Is that factoring in increasing emissions from manufacturing batteries? Increasing emissions from charging stations? I am assuming a stable supply to charge the batteries.

issuevoter wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 10:01pm:

So everyone believes the situation is hopeless, just for different reasons.

Nope. I haven't found a formula for extracting natural emissions from total emissions to get anthropological emissions.

I don't believe CO2 is "the control knob".

lee wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 10:19pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 10:12pm: Increasing emission alone is much better than increasing emissions plus 200 million cars. How much increasing emissions? Is that factoring in increasing emissions from manufacturing batteries? Increasing emissions from charging stations? I am assuming a stable supply to charge the batteries.

does it matter?  moving goal posts won't help you

Not much use when they're building masses of new coal fired power stations, as someone posted last week.

lee wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 8:31pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 8:10pm: good work Lee great way to avoid the point and reality at the same time So emissions are not the point? Moving to electric vehicles will be like peeing on a bushfire. Might make you feel good and noble. Won't achieve a thing. And guess what? China's emissions are reality.

Of course it's about emissions and fossil fool vehicles have it in spades :( You don't honestly think the petrol or deisel magically appears at the fool bowser do you ??

First you have to expend energy locating the oil well. Then once you have found it you have to expend energy extracting crude from the ground. Then you have to transport or pipe it to the refinery which requires energy. Then you have to refine it which also consumes energy ! Then once you have refined it you have to expend energy transporting it to the shipping dock. Then you have to ship it over the ocean using the most inefficient and carbon intensive means of transport ie shipping ! Then you have to transport it to the refinery for further refining to petrol or deisel etc and then you have to transport it to all of the fool bowsers over the country. Again each step producing carbon emissions in spades :(

Now compare with electric vehicles charged up from coal fired power where the coal source is right next to the power station !! Once the energy is created virtually none is wasted transporting it over the grid to its destination whether that is a home or charging station.

And then there is the inefficiencies of the fossil fool piston engine vs the highly efficient design of a synchronous AC motor ! Come back to us when you have done all of the calculations and then tell us how the transition to electrification of the transport network is not going to make any difference in greenhouse gas emissions ;)

And of course once you clean up the grid and replace the polluting sources with renewables then of course the net emissons from the use of electric cars will decrease proportionately. Can't say the same about polluting fossil fool cars which will make no difference whether or not you clean up the grid :(

lee wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 10:22pm:

issuevoter wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 10:01pm: So everyone believes the situation is hopeless, just for different reasons. Nope. I haven't found a formula for extracting natural emissions from total emissions to get anthropological emissions. I don't believe CO2 is "the control knob".

you dont have to because youre irrelevant

More attention seeking by trying to sensationalize fake news from the LotSnail.

juliar wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 8:33am:

More attention seeking by trying to sensationalize fake news from the LotSnail.

Listen socko why don't you go and play in the traffic and make yourself useful.

John Smith wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 10:40pm:

does it matter?

Well, before you can ramp up EV production you have to ramp up emissions to build the EV's.

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 11:25pm:

First you have to expend energy locating the oil well. Then once you have found it you have to expend energy extracting crude from the ground. Then you have to transport or pipe it to the refinery which requires energy. Then you have to refine it which also consumes energy ! Then once you have refined it you have to expend energy transporting it to the shipping dock. Then you have to ship it over the ocean using the most inefficient and carbon intensive means of transport ie shipping ! Then you have to transport it to the refinery for further refining to petrol or deisel etc and then you have to transport it to all of the fool bowsers over the country. Again each step producing carbon emissions in spades

Yep. Now all you have to do is show you can provide the world with emission free electricity, reliably, 24/7 with renewables.

That you can build solar panels with intermittent electricity.


Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 11:25pm:

Once the energy is created virtually none is wasted transporting it over the grid to its destination whether that is a home or charging station.

You have never heard of grid losses? :-/


Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 11:25pm:

Come back to us when you have done all of the calculations and then tell us how the transition to electrification of the transport network is not going to make any difference in greenhouse gas emissions

What? You haven't done the calculations that prove your theory? Your the one pushing for renewables.  ;)

lee wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 11:29am:

John Smith wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 10:40pm: does it matter? Well, before you can ramp up EV production you have to ramp up emissions to build the EV's.

And a lot less to produce than your typical fossil fool vehicle and a lot less emissions, replacement of parts after delivery to the customer ;)

TheFunPolice wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 2:32am:

you dont have to because youre irrelevant

Oh dear. trying to appear relevant again?

lee wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 11:36am:

TheFunPolice wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 2:32am: you dont have to because youre irrelevant Oh dear. trying to appear relevant again?

Oh dear  ::)

lee wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 11:35am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 11:25pm: First you have to expend energy locating the oil well. Then once you have found it you have to expend energy extracting crude from the ground. Then you have to transport or pipe it to the refinery which requires energy. Then you have to refine it which also consumes energy ! Then once you have refined it you have to expend energy transporting it to the shipping dock. Then you have to ship it over the ocean using the most inefficient and carbon intensive means of transport ie shipping ! Then you have to transport it to the refinery for further refining to petrol or deisel etc and then you have to transport it to all of the fool bowsers over the country. Again each step producing carbon emissions in spades Yep. Now all you have to do is show you can provide the world with emission free electricity, reliably, 24/7 with renewables. That you can build solar panels with intermittent electricity.

In case you hadn't noticed EV's come with batteries to store the energy and rooftop solar PV charging stations are possible ;)


lee wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 11:35am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 11:25pm: Once the energy is created virtually none is wasted transporting it over the grid to its destination whether that is a home or charging station. You have never heard of grid losses? :-/

You could expect a 5% grid loss as worst case - the beauty of reducing IR losses by high voltage transmission ;) Now compare with the total well to wheels efficiency of a fossil fool powered vehicle you can expect a 99.9% loss so it's a no brainer and why the chinese are moving away from its reliance on foreign oil and all of the emissions that come with it !!

Note how Australia is still lagging way behind other countries when it comes to cleaning up vehicle emissions. Not one mention from either side of politics when it is clearly obvious this was the future a decade ago :(

lee wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 11:29am:

John Smith wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 10:40pm: does it matter? Well, before you can ramp up EV production you have to ramp up emissions to build the EV's.

are you pretending that building EV's produces more emissions than building petrol driven cars?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 11:50am:

lee wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 11:29am: John Smith wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 10:40pm: does it matter? Well, before you can ramp up EV production you have to ramp up emissions to build the EV's. are you pretending that building EV's produces more emissions than building petrol driven cars? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Tesla's Gigafactory will produce as much renewable energy as it uses (net zero energy)

https://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/teslas-gigafactory-will-produce-much-renewable-energy-it-uses-net-zero-energy.html

https://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2015/11/tesla-gigafactory-solar-roof-01.jpg.662x0_q70_crop-scale.jpg


Quote:

The battery 'Gigafactory' that Tesla is building in Nevada is the centerpiece of its whole mass-market electric car strategy. Without it, the company will have trouble securing enough battery supply to make hundreds of thousands of EVs (which they plan to do for the upcoming, more affordable Model 3, to be unveiled in March 2016), and it will have trouble reducing its prices enough to attract Mr. and Mrs. Everybody (the Gigafactory is expected to slash costs by at least 30% through economies of scale and high-tech manufacturing). A lot has been written about how big the Gigafactory will be: It's going to be one of the largest building on Earth (how it ranks will depend how much the original plan is expanded), and it will produce more batteries when it is fully operational than the whole world was producing in 2013, as you can see in the graph below. But relatively little has been written about another very cool aspect of the project: It will be a 'net zero' energy consumer and have carbon neutral operations. Tesla's Chief Technical Officer, JB Straubel, gave some details on how that will work at a recent talk at the University of Nevada: The Gigafactory is maybe the best example we can talk about with this. You know, from the get-go, from the first concept of this factory, we wanted to make it a net-zero facility. So, you know, the most visible thing we are doing is covering the entire site with solar power. The whole roof of the Gigafactory was designed from the beginning with solar in mind. We kept all of the mechanical equipment off the roof. We didn’t put extra, sorta, penetrations through the roof that we didn’t need to and it’s a very, very clean surface that we can completely cover in solar. But that’s not enough solar, though. So we have also gone to the surrounding hillsides that we can’t use for other functions and we’re adding solar to those. Most factories could do this, if not tot he extent of the Gigafactory, at least to some extent. And new factories that are being planned today should definitely be conceived with renewable energy in mind. It's a waste to have these vast rooftops be unused. This is the right approach: The other interesting thing is we wanted to manage the emissions from the Gigafactory. Solar power can do some of that, but we took kind of a radical move in the beginning and said we are not going to burn any fossil fuels in the factory. You know, zero emissions. We are going to build a zero-emissions factory — just like the car. So, instead of kind of fighting this battle in hindsight, we just said we are not even going to have a natural gas pipeline coming to the factory, so we didn’t even build it. And it kind of forced the issue. When you don’t have natural gas, you know, none of the engineers can say, “Oh, but it will be more efficient, let me use just a little bit.” Sorry, we don’t even have it. Don't do what everybody else does and then try to fix it. Design from the start with a cleaner approach in mind, so you won't even be tempted to take the traditional (polluting) approach. So it’s kind of been a fun activity and just, a lot of challenges that come up. But in every single step of the process, we have been able to reinvent and come up with solutions. There’s a heat pump technology that actually ends up way more efficient than just burning natural gas for steam. And then, we have a facility that has basically no emissions. The only emissions are related to the vehicles that might go there that aren’t electric or things like that. But we’ll try to attack that one piece at a time. Why don't more factories use this heat pump technology that turns out to be more efficient than natural gas? Probably because they all have a natural gas pipe coming in by default, so they don't even investigate alternatives. Sometimes constraints (ie. carbon neutral, net zero energy) are the best catalyst for fresh thinking!

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 11:56am:

John Smith wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 11:50am: lee wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 11:29am: John Smith wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 10:40pm: does it matter? Well, before you can ramp up EV production you have to ramp up emissions to build the EV's. are you pretending that building EV's produces more emissions than building petrol driven cars? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Yes I would have though much less ;) However this is their tactics to focus on the production whilst ignoring the elephant in the room of emissions from usage ;)

The world has turned a corner with this announcement!

I predict that to save Americas prestige trump will regulate for carbon emissions to win his second term!

John Smith wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 9:33pm:

Your You're not thinking it through properly. To busy trying to show how clever you are

And you certainly can't be accused of "not think it through properly"......can you Jack?  ;D


John Smith wrote on Sep 10^th, 2017 at 9:17pm:

I never professed to being any sort of expert.

Every time you open your pie-hole you profess being something Jack, and you're right, you're certainly NOT an expert, more of a dolt...... ;D

Fuzzball wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 1:02pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 9:33pm: Your You're not thinking it through properly. To busy trying to show how clever you are And you certainly can't be accused of "not think it through properly"......can you Jack?  ;D John Smith wrote on Sep 10th, 2017 at 9:17pm: I never professed to being any sort of expert. Every time you open your pie-hole you profess being something Jack, and you're right, you're certainly NOT an expert, more of a dolt...... ;D

you love following me around , vying for my attention, don't you? Are you feeling a little neglected at home?
:D :D

:D :D :D :D :D :D

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 11:35am:

And a lot less to produce than your typical fossil fool vehicle and a lot less emissions, replacement of parts after delivery to the customer

Have you got figures for that? Estimated GHG's for making the battery -

"In this
study, by establishing a life cycle assessment framework, GHG emissions from the production of lithium-ion batteries in China are estimated. The results show that for the three types of most
commonly used lithium-ion batteries, the (LFP) battery, the (NMC) battery and the (LMO) battery, the GHG emissions from the production of a 28 kWh battery are 3061 kgCO 2 -eq, 2912 kgCO 2 -eq and 2705 kgCO 2 -eq, respectively. This implies around a 30% increase in GHG emissions from vehicle production compared with conventional vehicles. The productions of cathode materials and wrought aluminum are the dominating contributors of GHG emissions, together accounting for around three quarters of total emissions."

www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/4/504/pdf

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 11:44am:

In case you hadn't noticed EV's come with batteries to store the energy and rooftop solar PV charging stations are possible

Very good. What is the despatchable power of the PV battery charging technology. And you only want to recharge your car during the day?


Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 11:44am:

the beauty of reducing IR losses by high voltage transmission

Do you mean Infrared Radiation or Current  (I) Resistance (R)?

So the Resistance of the line is a fixed ratio, dependant on its structure. It will increase linearly. The Voltage  (E or V) which is generally controlled to be constant and Resistance from a fixed line length, where do you see savings in I?

Now if you were talking DC there will be a saving in Capacitance (C) losses and Inductance (H) losses.


Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 11:44am:

Note how Australia is still lagging way behind other countries when it comes to cleaning up vehicle emissions.

You do realise that Australia is a carbon sink? Therefore there are no NET emissions.

John Smith wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 11:50am:

are you pretending that building EV's produces more emissions than building petrol driven cars?

Try reading the literature. ;)

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 11:56am:

Tesla's Gigafactory will produce as much renewable energy as it uses (net zero energy)

While the sun shines or the storage device lasts. I see no figures
for how long that will be.

Did you read the post how long the lithium would last?

lee wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 2:59pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 11:50am: are you pretending that building EV's produces more emissions than building petrol driven cars? Try reading the literature. ;)

Are you pretending you've read 'the literature'?

TheFunPolice wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 3:15pm:

Are you pretending you've read 'the literature'?

I have even posted some of it. Do try to keep up. ;)

lee wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 3:29pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 3:15pm: Are you pretending you've read 'the literature'? I have even posted some of it. Do try to keep up. ;)

So you say!

If they are going to ban all internal combustion motors it'll be to make room in the atmosphere for the scores more coal-fuelled power plants to come online.

bogarde73 wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 3:43pm:

If they are going to ban all internal combustion motors it'll be to make room in the atmosphere for the scores more coal-fuelled power plants to come online.

And still the emissions from the use of EV's will be much lower even with coal fired power. Just look at all of the energy expended and GHG generated getting the crude oil out of the ground to the fossil fool bowser. So much  processing, refining and transportation involved. Hardly call that an efficient means of energy transference :(

lee wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 2:59pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 11:50am: are you pretending that building EV's produces more emissions than building petrol driven cars? Try reading the literature. ;)

white flag accepted

bogarde73 wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 3:43pm:

If they are going to ban all internal combustion motors.

rubbish. I've still gotta get my 69 Mustang

Coal powerful electric cars. Lawl.

John Smith wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 8:20pm:

white flag accepted

You believe I have offered a white flag, when in reality I offered you the opportunity to read. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 2:43pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 11:35am: And a lot less to produce than your typical fossil fool vehicle and a lot less emissions, replacement of parts after delivery to the customer Have you got figures for that? Estimated GHG's for making the battery - "In this study, by establishing a life cycle assessment framework, GHG emissions from the production of lithium-ion batteries in China are estimated. The results show that for the three types of most commonly used lithium-ion batteries, the (LFP) battery, the (NMC) battery and the (LMO) battery, the GHG emissions from the production of a 28 kWh battery are 3061 kgCO 2 -eq, 2912 kgCO 2 -eq and 2705 kgCO 2 -eq, respectively. This implies around a 30% increase in GHG emissions from vehicle production compared with conventional vehicles. The productions of cathode materials and wrought aluminum are the dominating contributors of GHG emissions, together accounting for around three quarters of total emissions." www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/4/504/pdf

Look above. Net emissions from Tesla factory will be zero and no gas lines are used at all. Can you say the same for any fossil fool car manufacturer ?

lee wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 2:58pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 11:44am: In case you hadn't noticed EV's come with batteries to store the energy and rooftop solar PV charging stations are possible Very good. What is the despatchable power of the PV battery charging technology. And you only want to recharge your car during the day? Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 11:44am: the beauty of reducing IR losses by high voltage transmission Do you mean Infrared Radiation or Current  (I) Resistance (R)? So the Resistance of the line is a fixed ratio, dependant on its structure. It will increase linearly. The Voltage  (E or V) which is generally controlled to be constant and Resistance from a fixed line length, where do you see savings in I? Now if you were talking DC there will be a saving in Capacitance (C) losses and Inductance (H) losses. Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 11:44am: Note how Australia is still lagging way behind other countries when it comes to cleaning up vehicle emissions. You do realise that Australia is a carbon sink? Therefore there are no NET emissions.

You come right out of a comic book mate. Show me where you get emissions free petrol supply for free at any time ? Those pricks wouldn't give you the vapours for free :D LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 9:42pm:

Show me where you get emissions free petrol supply for free at any time ?

What are you on? Can I have some?

Where have I said anything abut emissions free petrol?

You do understand Australia is a NET carbon sink?  Do you understand what NET means? That means that our pitifully small emissions, by world standards, are swallowed by our plant life.

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 9:40pm:

Look above. Net emissions from Tesla factory will be zero and no gas lines are used at all. Can you say the same for any fossil fool car manufacturer ?

That's the PLAN. Whether they achieve the PLAN is a different matter.

Old saying - "there is many a slip between cup and lip".

I'll give him this - Elon Musk is a fantastic salesman. ;)

lee wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 10:08pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 9:40pm: Look above. Net emissions from Tesla factory will be zero and no gas lines are used at all. Can you say the same for any fossil fool car manufacturer ? That's the PLAN. Whether they achieve the PLAN is a different matter. Old saying - "there is many a slip between cup and lip". I'll give him this - Elon Musk is a fantastic salesman. ;)

Who also comes up with the goodies to match the rhetoric ;)

lee wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 10:08pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 9:40pm: Look above. Net emissions from Tesla factory will be zero and no gas lines are used at all. Can you say the same for any fossil fool car manufacturer ? That's the PLAN. Whether they achieve the PLAN is a different matter. Old saying - "there is many a slip between cup and lip". I'll give him this - Elon Musk is a fantastic salesman. ;)

He could sell snake oil to the gullible, that's for sure

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 11:43am:

Who also comes up with the goodies to match the rhetoric

The "goodies" being the subsidies that keep Tesla afloat?

lee wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 10:08pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 9:40pm: Look above. Net emissions from Tesla factory will be zero and no gas lines are used at all. Can you say the same for any fossil fool car manufacturer ? That's the PLAN. Whether they achieve the PLAN is a different matter. Old saying - "there is many a slip between cup and lip". I'll give him this - Elon Musk is a fantastic salesman. ;)

oooh no, salesman are illegal now!

lee wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 12:33pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 12th, 2017 at 11:43am: Who also comes up with the goodies to match the rhetoric The "goodies" being the subsidies that keep Tesla afloat?

Like no one else ever got a subsidy  ::) ::)

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 11:56am:

lee wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 10:08pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 9:40pm: Look above. Net emissions from Tesla factory will be zero and no gas lines are used at all. Can you say the same for any fossil fool car manufacturer ? That's the PLAN. Whether they achieve the PLAN is a different matter. Old saying - "there is many a slip between cup and lip". I'll give him this - Elon Musk is a fantastic salesman. ;) He could sell snake oil to the gullible, that's for sure

Like a recruitment agent signing kids up for war  :-[

lee wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 10:04pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 9:42pm: Show me where you get emissions free petrol supply for free at any time ? What are you on? Can I have some? Where have I said anything abut emissions free petrol? You do understand Australia is a NET carbon sink?  Do you understand what NET means? That means that our pitifully small emissions, by world standards, are swallowed by our plant life.

Doesn't Australia do trade with other people?

Gordon wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 8:32pm:

Coal powerful electric cars. Lawl.

Blood for oil wars ..... llllllllll                a                 wwwwwwwwwwwwww       l  ::)

John Smith wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 8:21pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 3:43pm: If they are going to ban all internal combustion motors. rubbish. I've still gotta get my 69 Mustang

I want to convert an LJ Torana to electric  :D