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

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:


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.

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



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. 

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

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

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

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


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

That's only until increasing emissions overcome any changes.

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



Are reduced emissions due to EV's the topic?

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


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

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



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

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


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.

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

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


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".

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

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

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.

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

you dont have to because youre irrelevant

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



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:


You have never heard of grid losses?

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


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

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!

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

I never professed to being any sort of expert.

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

the beauty of reducing IR losses by high voltage transmission

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

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

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

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



Try reading the literature.

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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



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.

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


rubbish. I've still gotta get my 69 Mustang