EV policy by federal government and the states

[deesun]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

What did that have to do with what I posted?

Ever heard of it

I looked over the xr6 Turbo LPI prototype, and must have driven dozens of LPI powered company vehicles.

Behind the 8 ball? Please name another company that actually made an LPI vehicle. It was a world first.

I thought it a bit weird considering your knowledge, but my brain must have stopped after reading the first sentence. 100% apologies. That aside I still think the LPi was too late to market to take full advantage of LPG.
LPG would have been vastly more dependable if other manufacturers made LPG vehicles. Beyond Holden, no one else offered them here, but interestingly enough Ford used to do propane powered vehicles in the US, and Hyundai used to do factory LPG vehicles as well. They never offered them here though.

Once Ford and Holden stopped making LPG powered vehicles the writing was on the wall. There was no one else to pick it up and run with it.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by deesun

I thought it a bit weird considering your knowledge, but my brain must have stopped after reading the first sentence. 100% apologies. That aside I still think the LPi was too late to market to take full advantage of LPG.
LPG would have been vastly more dependable if other manufacturers made LPG vehicles. Beyond Holden, no one else offered them here, but interestingly enough Ford used to do propane powered vehicles in the US, and Hyundai used to do factory LPG vehicles as well. They never offered them here though.

Once Ford and Holden stopped making LPG powered vehicles the writing was on the wall. There was no one else to pick it up and run with it.

The LPi would have been here a few years earlier if there wasn't some sort of legal hold up. As far as I can remember anyway. Not exactly sure what it was about. IP rights or something? It's why there was a 2 year gap between the phase out of E-Gas and the start of LPi production.

I did do a google search but couldn't find anything about it, but interestingly came across this.

From 2009, when Ford Australia began developing the EcoLPI system for the Falcon, the company looked at two key markets for pointers: South Korea and the US. Ford's engineers even acquired an LPG-fuelled Hyundai Grandeur for benchmarking. It was clear early on, according to Ford, that the local blokes could improve on Hyundai's efforts.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by deesun

Once Ford and Holden stopped making LPG powered vehicles the writing was on the wall. There was no one else to pick it up and run with it.

Even if there had been, what would have been the motivation? The only people buying LPG vehicles in meaningful quantities were the taxis, and taxis were predominantly Ford/Holden because of generous fleet discounts AFAIK. LPG was a non-event in the private market, nobody wanted them.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by b0son

Even if there had been, what would have been the motivation? The only people buying LPG vehicles in meaningful quantities were the taxis, and taxis were predominantly Ford/Holden because of generous fleet discounts AFAIK. LPG was a non-event in the private market, nobody wanted them.

And the taxi industry started dumping Falcon and Holden as soon as the Hybrid Camry made it to market. Was far more economical than LPG.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[b0son]

Originally Posted by kypez

And the taxi industry started dumping Falcon and Holden as soon as the Hybrid Camry made it to market. Was far more economical than LPG.

Yep. Gotta face facts. Going forward, burning stuff for energy is going to be considered a relic. Like trying to sell a fireplace in the age of r/c aircon, you buy it for character not because it's efficient.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by b0son

Yep. Gotta face facts. Going forward, burning stuff for energy is going to be considered a relic. Like trying to sell a fireplace in the age of r/c aircon, you buy it for character not because it's efficient.

you don't get something for nothing, energy is entropy!
you must make more energy to receive less. (Thermo Dynamics)

[kypez]

Originally Posted by burnz

you don't get something for nothing, energy is entropy!

you must make more energy to receive less. (Thermo Dynamics)

The sun does enough burning for most of our needs. Not all... But most.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[burnz]

Originally Posted by kypez

The sun does enough burning for most of our needs. Not all... But most.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

so how much energy do we consume to get a net negative using the sun?

we are still primitive, we haven't even scratched the surface yet.. cant beat the law.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by burnz

so how much energy do we consume to get a net negative using the sun?



we are still primitive, we haven't even scratched the surface yet.. cant beat the law.

And the comment was in the future by b0son. Won't be much longer I'd imagine.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by b0son

Yep. Gotta face facts. Going forward, burning stuff for energy is going to be considered a relic. Like trying to sell a fireplace in the age of r/c aircon, you buy it for character not because it's efficient.

What a load of Rubbish your sprout. some people have a free source of firewood

[hayseed]

Originally Posted by Vesper Martini

What a load of Rubbish your sprout. some people have a free source of firewood

That, We Do...

[kypez]

Originally Posted by Vesper Martini

What a load of Rubbish your sprout. some people have a free source of firewood

Why do you always want to think about the 10% and skip the 90%? Just to make a point for the sake of it?

One minute it's people in apartments won't have access to chargers and solar yet next minute, they all have free firewood and fireplaces.

There are people who still use horses and camels to commute...

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[rare ss]

Originally Posted by kypez

Why do you always want to think about the 10% and skip the 90%? Just to make a point for the sake of it?

One minute it's people in apartments won't have access to chargers and solar yet next minute, they all have free firewood and fireplaces.

There are people who still use horses and camels to commute...

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

My boss was chatting to the building supervisor for a high-rise apartment next door to our city office block, turns out the building was originally build to be used as a hotel so had fairly high spec electrical so they fitted solar and were able to have 16 EV chargers setup in their carpark with the ability to increase to 32, pretty cool.. just saying

[kypez]

Originally Posted by rare ss

My boss was chatting to the building supervisor for a high-rise apartment next door to our city office block, turns out the building was originally build to be used as a hotel so had fairly high spec electrical so they fitted solar and were able to have 16 EV chargers setup in their carpark with the ability to increase to 32, pretty cool.. just saying

Oh no doubt. Lot of new units have solar on their roof as well. I was sharing arguments put forward in the past.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by b0son

Yep. Gotta face facts. Going forward, burning stuff for energy is going to be considered a relic. Like trying to sell a fireplace in the age of r/c aircon, you buy it for character not because it's efficient.

Yet more than 50% of the houses where I live have fire places as their primary source of heating, we only got natural gas infrastructure in 2005/2006 or there abouts - hell our house is still primarily heated by a fireplace.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Yet more than 50% of the houses where I live have fire places as their primary source of heating, we only got natural gas infrastructure in 2005/2006 or there abouts - hell our house is still primarily heated by a fireplace.

Sample size or it doesn't mean much. Like me saying there are 3 Teslas in our cul de sac but I own all of them.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by kypez

Sample size or it doesn't mean much. Like me saying there are 3 Teslas in our cul de sac but I own all of them.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

Circa 5000 people live here, its enough that you can smell when you're getting close to the town when its foggy in winter, you can smell the joint before you see it

Its the dominant form of man made air pollution in Melbourne in winter and around 10% of homes nationally use it still to heat their houses.

So how many million people have wood heaters? They sell 40,000 of them a year so people are obviously still using them.

The EPA doesn't monitor much outside of Melbourne metropolitan area but they had this to say about Wangaratta:

EPA monitors at Wangaratta using a light scattering technique which is of the same type used to measure pollution during incident response monitoring. A significant difference in PM2.5 concentrations in Wangaratta
between 2016 and 2017 was observed, with a much higher number of days reaching the ‘poor’ to ‘very poor’ air quality categories in 2017.

As a result, only 57 per cent of days in 2017 were consistently in the ‘good’ to ‘very good’ air quality categories. Most of these days of poor air quality have been attributed to planned burns and domestic wood heaters in winter (Appendix 1 Table 10 and Table 11).

https://www.epa.vic.gov.au/-/media/e...tions/1709.pdf

[kypez]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Circa 5000 people live here, its enough that you can smell when you're getting close to the town when its foggy in winter, you can smell the joint before you see it



Its the dominant form of man made air pollution in Melbourne in winter and around 10% of homes nationally use it still to heat their houses.



So how many million people have wood heaters? They sell 40,000 of them a year so people are obviously still using them.

So 10% use them. Like I said, you guys call out the 10% forgetting about the 90%.

Again, thank you for making my point.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by kypez

So 10% use them. Like I said, you guys call out the 10% forgetting about the 90%.

Again, thank you for making my point.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

Yeah except 10% is 900,000 homes, that cause a significant air quality issue, getting rid of wood heaters to improve air quality is a hell of a lot easier and cheaper to make good improvements to the environment then throwing money at the middle class in the form of a tax payer subsidised $100,000 toy to virtue signal how much they care for the environment

Or doing things like changing our fuel standards to get rid of 91 and our crap high sulfur fuel, all low hanging fruit, easy to implement for good first moves towards making improvements.

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by kypez

Why do you always want to think about the 10% and skip the 90%? Just to make a point for the sake of it?

One minute it's people in apartments won't have access to chargers and solar yet next minute, they all have free firewood and fireplaces.

There are people who still use horses and camels to commute...

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

doesn't matter if its only 10% the statement is wrong.

wondering if you have 2 accounts on here

[jpd80]

Getting back on point, many people will be open to buying an EV and will have provision for home charging. Let’s not get drawn away from that by people that can’t or won’t do that.

The bulk of Australia’s population lies within 300 km of the East coast, even South Australia and Western Australia’s population is mostly costal. All of that spells opportunity for electric vehicles but that doesn’t mean that ICEs don’t have a future for people in country or more remote areas……it is possible that the bulk of city commuters will eventually own or lease an EV while being able to hire a hybrid or ICE for longer distance travel when recharging may be difficult or impractical.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Yet more than 50% of the houses where I live have fire places as their primary source of heating, we only got natural gas infrastructure in 2005/2006 or there abouts - hell our house is still primarily heated by a fireplace.

New houses get built with a/c, gas heating is being phased out and rebates are being offered in some states to decommission their fireplaces. The AMA wants it to happen nationwide.

How old is the average house in your area? Looking at what older homes have is somewhat irrelevant when it comes to assessing future policy direction. Newer suburbs have few fireplaces. If you surveyed most houses in the 90s, you'd have concluded there was no future for flat-screen TVs.... times change.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by b0son

New houses get built with a/c, gas heating is being phased out and rebates are being offered in some states to decommission their fireplaces. The AMA wants it to happen nationwide.

How old is the average house in your area? Looking at what older homes have is somewhat irrelevant when it comes to assessing future policy direction. Newer suburbs have few fireplaces. If you surveyed most houses in the 90s, you'd have concluded there was no future for flat-screen TVs.... times change.

Most of the houses were built in the 1980s/1990 when they created a residential development from a potato farm and some early 00s - though there's a couple of new estates that have popped up in the past 5 years.

The town itself dates back to the 1850s, but yes I support that they should ban fireplaces sooner rather than later and replace them with heat pumps/reverse cycle AC, including in existing houses.

[jpd80]

Has fired power plants have an average thermal efficiency of around 33%, replacing those plants with gas moves the efficiency to 40-60%. That change alone should convince many to move away from coal for at least the next twenty years.

There’s also a major ocean current running close to the east coast of Australia, imagine a whole string of generators feeding power up and down the eastern states.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Has fired power plants have an average thermal efficiency of around 33%, replacing those plants with gas moves the efficiency to 40-60%. That change alone should convince many to move away from coal for at least the next twenty years.

There’s also a major ocean current running close to the east coast of Australia, imagine a whole string of generators feeding power up and down the eastern states.

What about nuclear? We have a ****load of uranium, its a clean energy source and we have a lot of barren wasteland to dispose of its waste in.

Then we can use it to disguise a nuclear weapons program

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

What about nuclear? We have a ****load of uranium, its a clean energy source and we have a lot of barren wasteland to dispose of its waste in.

There is no political will. The other issue is we would insist on doing it all ourselves because 'jobs', even though we have no track record/experience in doing so. The sensible approach, and cheapest/safest would be to engage the South Koreans to build one of their turn-key systems. On budget and on time.

It would make sense to do so. We will lose 14GW of generation capacity as we close coal power plants over the next 20 years. We could build 10 of the APR1400 1.4GW nuclear plants. Alternatively, we'd need 500sq km of solar farms, or 3500 sq km of wind farm.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

What about nuclear? We have a ****load of uranium, its a clean energy source and we have a lot of barren wasteland to dispose of its waste in.

Then we can use it to disguise a nuclear weapons program

44% of the worlds known uranium, if anyone should be a nuclear superpower, it should be Australia.

[oldel]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Couple issues that hampered LPG in Australia:

- Dodgy aftermarket conversions being the norm
- Mixer ring LPG setup hung around too long
- Price difference between LPG and unleaded not great enough
- It all happened prior to environmental virtue signalling became a global sport

Everyone's perception of LPG is from that clapped out Falcon or Commodore they had on a mixer ring dual fuel setup back in 2003 that ran like a turd, used heaps of fuel and would backfire and blow the airbox to smithereens every other week because of the aftermarket conversion that was installed by monkeys.

It didn't help that those mixer ring setups hampered performance because of how restrictive they are, so even when it was running well it was still average at best.

The price difference between unleaded and LPG hasn't been that great over the past 15 years or so and environmentalism was a cult that the weird bloke with no friends was into.

It's one of those things where they were ahead of their time, kinda like the Territory Turbo, came out well before performance SUVs were a thing.

The irony is one of the things that started my love for Ford was this absolute ****box EA Falcon on LPG we had when I was a child that left us on the side of the road all the time

I drove a such a beast from perth to sydney, melbourne and back. Didn't break down until a year later when the head gasket went (or more accurately the alloy head corroded enough - it always ran hot being a 3 spd and high revs all the way across, could have been previous owner lack of maintenance though)
Anyway, all this talk of subsidising electrics makes me think of LPG. When i converted my EA there was no subsidies. I paid $1650. A few years later the state government wanted to promote LPG (much like the talk about EV is about now), the state gave you 750-1k. Guess what? The conversion cost went up by that much (or maybe even an extra $100), no savings to the owner, the middleman gets it. Later on it got even worse with a federal subsidy for the same amount, and again a bloody basic conversion then cost went up by that amount or more so a basic conversion was now $3k! End of the day, the converter mechs wanted about $1700 out of you, any free money you got from the gov, the price went up by the same.

Point is the government shouldn't subside EVs, they should be able to sell themselves. Every time the government gives out money it's all eaten up and does not do the job it was supposed to do (see housing grants and solar, insulation etc).
It will just end up the same cost to the end user and end up welfare/freebies for businesses. We don't need welfare for businesses with regards to EVs because their is no Australian business in that game!
These businesses treat Australia like crap - they're all withdrawing local support and increasing prices here more than other countries, so I say no to importer/corporate welfare. If they want uptake, price competitively. Tesla make their cars for here in China FFS.

The subsidy will be the owner not paying fuel excise, how good is that (outside Vic LOL)? I don't agree with Vic doing that especially as they include hybrids, but for the rest of the country, that's your 'subsidy', using the roads outside of Vic for nothing and not having an ICE engine to service. EVs will sell themselves once people convinced they don't need a landcruisers, x5s, jeeps and thai trucks for a school run car or to go to the shops in.
That's the problem here, everyone feels like they need an escape holiday vehicle/tow car just to feel 'freedom', IE they're aspirational 'freedom' buyers that need something more than a hatch, coupe or sedan and subsidising the EV network won't change their mind, it will just be middle class and corporate welfare for the few.

It's not like government build petrol stations, a business sees the business sense in building one and they pay for it. So some electrical provider (sorry, we privatised them so it will have to be private industry funded now), will maybe put charging stations everywhere and make you pay out of your **** to use them, just like they did in Europe, just like what happened with LPG, subsidised or not!
If only we didn't privatise our utilities, if that hadn't happened I'd be all for improving the grid and adding charging points, such a shame. We could have been more like Norway for example then, but we as a nation it seems believe in user pays and in privatising everything, so why change now?

[oldel]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

What about nuclear? We have a ****load of uranium, its a clean energy source and we have a lot of barren wasteland to dispose of its waste in.

Then we can use it to disguise a nuclear weapons program

Haven't you ever played sim city. coal bad, gas better, nuclear dangerous, solar and wind best. Come on, we learnt that in the 90s, so catch up.

Seriously though, after Fukashima there's little appetite for nuclear, and even talking about it is a waste of time. It's only mentioned be people that want to stifle progress with real renewables. It's a stalling tactic.
If you said nuclear in the 90s, you would have a point. If some poli or person in the media brings it up now they're just time wasting as it takes so long to build, they're relics and dinosaurs not worthy of attention IMO.

[wodahs]

Originally Posted by oldel

Haven't you ever played sim city. coal bad, gas better, nuclear dangerous, solar and wind best. Come on, we learnt that in the 90s, so catch up.

Seriously though, after Fukashima there's little appetite for nuclear, and even talking about it is a waste of time. It's only mentioned be people that want to stifle progress with real renewables. It's a stalling tactic.
If you said nuclear in the 90s, you would have a point. If some poli or person in the media brings it up now they're just time wasting as it takes so long to build, they're relics and dinosaurs not worthy of attention IMO.

no matter how safe
id rather be dealing with the waste from renewables than night glow sticks nuclear
and i think if things did go wrong the cleanup is easier to work with

tho having said that im not in agreeance with tax incentives for ev's
not yet anyways lets fix our renewables situation for energy first and help people to get in to that then we can think of the things we run with the power made
and as oldel said like lpg if theres tax incentives then it need to be to get people in to vehicles not going to profits