By what year, should all fossil fuel passenger vehicles be banned from use on Australian public roads?
So that is both new & used vehicles
Doesn't include freight trucks, mining vehicles or trains (in this poll).
For those who choose 'Never' - do you accept the relevant science of the health effects of airborne carcinogens/pollutants from vehicle exhaust? Do you accept the science of anthropogenic global warming?
Yeah, bring back the diesel sewing machines…
Hand cranked even better and older..
id go nucular, the electric/solar ones just don't have the grunt for those tricky to sew situations
Nah, I want a high revving 2-stroke sewing machine
Is OP for real?
Obviously not up with the TRUE SCIENCE!!!!
Oh man, I just, ergh…
"The science" is never established, it's disappointing to see people still grasping these straws. Science is a methodology, an idea, of accruing "knowledge" and getting closer and closer to Truth. Yes ICEV they are carcinogenic, but so are BEVs. Did you know? Almost everything you can think of has some properties that have ill-effects on mammalian cells. What you need to focus on, are the ill-effects (or disadvantages) of ICEV worth the keeping for it's advantages? Ask the same for BEV? What is the cost of change? What is the cost of no-change? And what is the ideal time for transition? etc etc.
From one simple question, it opens you up to multiple complex ones. You need to dig deeper, to form an understanding and not rush to conclusions directly.
My take?
I think it's a personal thing, that everyone needs to consider so as an individual, and perhaps together as a society. The issues with fossil fuels could be pretty bad, such as the smog they're experiencing in Delhi, Karachi, Beijing, etc etc, but these are not comparable to what we experience here in Australia. We have our own unique sets of advantages and challenges that we face.
"The science" is never established
On climate change, it is.
Yes ICEV they are carcinogenic, but so are BEVs. Did you know?
How are BEVs in anyway as carcinogenic as ICEVs? ICEVs literally combust hydrocarbons filled with heavy metals and exhaust it all around us. Catalytic converters and purified fuels go a ways but it'll never be perfect when you're combusting something. What do BEVs do? Rubber particulates from tyres? Mine sites? All equally or more applicable to ICEVs.
From one simple question, it opens you up to multiple complex ones. You need to dig deeper, to form an understanding and not rush to conclusions directly.
Overthinking it. The world needs to be electrified and made lower impact as much as possible, or we continue slowly destroying it. The only alternative is to pretend the world doesn't exist and we're the main characters that none of this affects.
Why?
You should know how this demon works by now.
What I'm finding funny is that in places like California and now Germany (I think it was Germany) they are telling EV adopters not to charge their cars overnight because the government has munted the power supply and now we have a manufactured energy shortage. :)
Forward thinking? Haha, that's for fools.
Not true. They had power issues so asked people to cut down on electricity usage in the early evening (peak time). That included all appliances. Air conditioners, dishwashers, washing machines and for those with EV’s asked them too to delay it if they could. What year do you think we should phase out diesel toasters?
Still got Christmas lights running, yes?
the german european shortage is mostly due to the situation in russia and ukraine, i dont think germans have massively adopted EVs (probably more than others but not insanely). France who doesnt have many Evs and has nuclear stations are also finding themselves caught up in power supply issues to people and businesses
No, the power shortage in Europe is because of deliberately made decisions by European politicians. They could have continued to buy gas from Russia (until the yanks blew up the pipeline I guess) but they chose to virtue-signal instead (and laughingly buy Russian gas via China at a higher cost). The same politicians are shutting down nuclear power as well, that's got nothing to do with Ukraine. They want to create artificial shortages in energy and food. Welcome to the hunger games and the looming technocratic dystopia you've been warned about.
@EightImmortals: the views on nuclear depend on each country (and lets not take germans as example). I wouldnt credit european politicians with being so smart as organising, well just about anything. i exclude the UK when i mention europe, i have no idea what they are up to these days other than making a huge mess
@juki: More info on the shutdowns here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/JH3zb2A7fRjV/
And tons more for those who care to look. Hint, it's all being done in the name of the climate change unicorn.
You are correct most modern politicians are more useless than a scree door on a submarine, but as they are only have to follow orders from the unelected real controllers of the world you wouldn't want too many of them who are loyal to humanity and have the brains to see what's going on and the guts to speak up about it. And we've all seen how the machine deals with the handful that do.
@EightImmortals: Not buying Russian gas is about more than virtue signalling, it's just one of a number of measures used to punish (or directly oppose) Russia's unlawful invasion of Ukraine. It's in the collective European (global even) interest to do what they can to disincentivise any nation from invading another.
Are you really suggesting that it should be ignored? Is it really more important that people are able to use their non essential appliances in the evening ?
And before you say it, yes - western powers have been guilty of the same and should have received the same treatment. There probably is some racism in the importance placed on Ukraine vs other cases (particularly in the middle east and Africa).
@nigel deborah: lols mate, not even.
The people of Europe had ZERO say in it. This was their politicians playing silly buggers with their constituents lives and livelihoods, yes to virtue signal but mostly to start the implementation of manufactured energy shortages and to prolong and escalate the war. I even saw a clip of one German politician saying they don't give rats about their constituents as the Ukraine agenda was more important to them. I think the quote was that the "Ukraine was more important than German suffering".
I'm not saying it should have been ignored, it should have been addressed when the people of the Donbass were asking for help years ago and were ignored. Too late now. And yes, Europe (NATO etc) should butt out unless they have a non-violent solution which they obviously don't.
@EightImmortals: The politicians are elected by the people, and they've made a decision which they believe is in the interests of their country. There are corrupt politicians , sure, but in western Europe it's better than most places.
Not really sure what you're trying to say, are you an anarchist advocating for no government , no laws?
Should we have left Nazi Germany to it, to avoid the pointless suffering of British/American/Commonwealth/etc people in their day to day lives? Food rationing and energy outages were pretty unpleasant I'm sure !
Isnt that Germany turn back coal power plant ? https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-energy-u-turn-coal-instead-of…
Also OP needs to see/research this https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XV9ijKAubfU ( from successful business man )
Troll post?
First you didn't want me to get the pony, now you want me to take it back, make up your mind!
-Homer Simpson
He/She/They/Them probably bought a Tesla and now single handed going to save the planet…
"It cleans the air as it drives through it"….
I don't think they should ever be banned from the roads (people paid good money for them) - but they should be banned from buying new ones. The existing ones will gradually die. ACT will ban new ones from sale from 2035.
i think even if they ban new ones, what will happen is that no new models will be released (as maunfacturers concentrate on EVs), only refreshes on exisiting platforms going forward. Also like with newspapers the same thing will happen, petrol will get more expensive which will hasten the transition to EVs.
Exactly.. this.
That's 12 years away. If these policies change as often as superannuation, almost anything could happen by 2035.
We don't have 12 years. Change could be made much quicker anyway.
At some point ICE should probably be removed from most domestic uses, BUT a ban is not a solution. Either way, we should be exploring the best options to make good use of our fleet as it stands, today. What does this mean?
Well we could already have developed EV kits (many were prototyped in Oz ~20 years ago) and have them on sale.
We could have been producing EVs instead of sending the automotive industry to the wall. Even if we accept abject failure was inevitable for whatever inability we perceive (others have done it already), we could have done all kinds of things, like redirecting the 50B on nuclear subs we'll never need to setup something entirely new.
Or partnered with France to massively expand and roll out EV programs like this in all the key car categories: Michaela Cash and Scromo could have been touring factories building all kinds of EVs (even EV utes for export to the world), instead of getting in the way of our ability to produce anything that requires intelligence, skill, vision, or capability.
If you live in France, you can already opt to commit 5k to convert your hatchback to battery power, and they will do it for you within 2 weeks. https://aeva.asn.au/news/an-ultracheap-electric-car-conversi…
We still have a few smart people. Yet we are not even allowed to innovate using our own vehicles, let alone buy engineered kits like you can elsewhere!
that conversion kit is a great concept. at least it would take some of the cost element out of it
@franco cozzo: EVs were built around the same time as ICE was developed.
Hybrids were built using regenerative braking, CVTs and so on, back in the 90s.
Even with lead acid batteries the concept worked, just not brilliantly. The industry however did not bring them to market until over 20 years later- because of our failure to understand their true value.
Governments failed to encourage improvement, even when not doing so would have global, catastrophic effects. They now claim to be green-thinking as the world blows, burns and floods. Yet we may not even convert our cars to EV and drive them on the road, and we buying approved kits from elsewhere in the world does not change their recalcitrance.
When will the govs change and tell everyone the public will support us update existing vehicles, not just take the easy route to buy new ones. This is why the ban is likely, outdated thinking considers the idea of buying new from Asia, where most of the industrial pollution is occurring, is better (because it is cheaper).
And landfilling the old is still acceptable, or can be considered recycling (the appalling way it is done at present).
First of all your reply is nonsense, because enormous amounts of OIL are required to mine and manufacture batteries.
The environmental cost of the batteries in a EV car are equivalent to many many years of driving an ICE car.
Batteries dont grow on trees. in fact some of the most polluted / poisoned places on earth are suppliers for the batteries that make up EV cars. ALL batteries in ALL forms are toxic and poisonous, go check the chemicals in them and read up.
Lithium batteries are not 100% Lithium, its just one of many components in them. Start making a list of the chemicals that go into batteries, and tell me if you notice a similarity: Cadmium, Nickel, Lead, Arsenic, etc, thats right these same metals are extremely toxic, and their physical properties that make them great for batteries also make them extremely toxic in the compounds they form.
Nothing is free, the only answer is to DRIVE or reduce ALL transport. For example making everyone commute for 2 hours a day is the height of stupiduity, both in wasted time and the energe and resources that it consumes.
No way the current energy infrastructure can be upgraded in 12 years to accommodate a spike in EVs either.
I mean look at NBN, it's been ~12 years, still not available everywhere and it's still wonky.
If I can put 6kw of panels on my roof, I can charge an EV.
Most people in Oz can do that.
For those that can't we build the infrastructure.
Most houses could easily have panels by now, and a hybrid converter that can charge. But we have got a start. If we really got to it, this much could be done in a couple of years flat.
We could have charging stations with nice roadside facilities on every major highway within a year too- we already have lots of driver reviver stops which could be converted, and plenty of petrol stations have space enough to participate in a scheme to improve charging infrastructure. Not to mention all those carparks outside shopping centres where charging could be encouraged.
If I can put 6kw of panels on my roof, I can charge an EV.
Need to be at home during the day though.
@trapper: Correct. But it'd make good start to get the ones who do leave a car at home charging this way.
If we did that, we'd just have to fill in the gaps with infrastructure.
And we really do need to make a start, one day.
Doing both'd be walking and chewing gum, I know… but- at the end of the day, there is a lot of sun and a lot of roofs we can use to fill the gaps to setup charging in sooo many places.
@trapper: Most people are at home during the weekend. Also during summer (at least in DST states) you would be home early enough from work to catch a bit of sunlight to charge.
@miicah: EV's don't need a bit of electricity though, they need a lot of electricity.
You want to charge up your tesla using a little bit of evening sunlight each day like that it would takes weeks or more to get a single full charge.
@trapper: People need to get out of the mindset that EVs need to be fully charged each time you plug in. Yeah that's what you do when you go to the petrol station, doesn't mean your EV needs to get to 100% each time you plug in.
@miicah: So you would be happy to have your battery constantly hovering near empty, barely able to drive more than a few km per day.
That sounds acceptable to you? lol
@trapper: Did I say that would happen?
Charge fully all day Sunday (free), wake up Monday with 100%. Go to work, use 20% (maybe?) come home and charge 10% (free). Rinse and repeat all week you end up on Saturday morning with 60%. Do your Saturday chores, maybe hit 10%, then charge all day Sunday again.
@CowFrogHorse: I didn't say they were. But just extracting coal and gas produces a lot of greenhouse pollution as well. At least a solar panel produces energy 'cleanly' for decades. Whereas the tons of of coal that required to produce the same power, delivered to a furnace likely cost as much, and hasn't even been burned yet.
What better option is there? Nuclear has its own risks, challenges and takes much longer.
2035 feels like too far in the future. I'd support an earlier 'ban' where you could still buy ICE where there's no EV option for your use case. Even more stringent rules for commercial fleets.
That would be contingent on them being comparable in price , which seems to be not far away
My state has run off 100% renewable energy for years and my Tesla has the daily necessities delivered perfectly fine.
It absolutely has not.
The only way "your state"'s power system survives is because it's interconnected with the rest of the east coast grid, so you bum off us (and our fossil fuel power) when your "great system" can't keep up.
@Clear: No, you can't be "over 100% self sufficient", if you were self sufficient, you wouldn't be importing 462mw right now.
Being a "net exporter" doesn't make you self sufficient, could all the states follow tassies lead and everything continue to work? Obviously the whole system would fall over and massive blackouts everywhere.
Energy storage is a HUGE problem with renewables and it gets hidden being people using terms like "net exporter of power" to make it seem like with renewables there is abundant power and the rest of us are morons for not just doing exactly the same… The reality is your system completely collapses without an interconnection to a fossil fueled powered grid.
@Clear: self-sufficient
/ˌsɛlfsəˈfɪʃnt/
adjective
needing no outside help in satisfying one's basic needs.
@Clear: You are acting like it's some extenuating circumstances where the Tassie grid isn't importing energy, it's literally every day…
The Tassie grid wouldn't keep the lights on for 1 day most of the time without relying on a remote fossil fuel generator.
I don't understand how you can claim the Tassie grid is self sufficient.
@Binchicken22: Government themselves said they're 100% renewable and in 2022. There's two different topics here. Their self sufficiency and how much energy is renewable.
@Clear: The government/you can use whatever terminology and definitions to make things seem better than they are, the facts of the situation is as I stated above though.
The Tasmania grid is not self sufficient and you would have daily blackouts if not for being interconnected to other available fossil fuel generation capacity.
@Clear: I'll refer you back to post 1, Tasmania is literally importing 460+ MW right now 🤣
But anyway, you obviously don't want to admit Tasmania and your Tesla aren't "self sufficient", no matter the facts.
@Clear: If they are having to buy it from someone else, they aren't self sufficient.
My house is a net exporter of energy, however it isn't self sufficient, as without being connected to the grid, I would have no power as soon as the sun went down. On a rainy day, also not self sufficient.
@brendanm: Tassie power is hydro, solar and wind. What part of that is not renewable? The government exclude power from outside the state from this since it's not power stations they own or are physically located in the state. Sneaky? Sure. But it's technically correct.
@brendanm: Yes. Renewable but currently not 100% self sufficient when they buy energy. At times they are when they're not buying.
@Clear: Yeah, by that definition I'm 100% self sufficient. I'm definitely not. I export ~ 3 x the electricity I use. During the day I don't need electricity from the grid, but I sure would hate to have no electricity when the sun goes down.
@ozhunter: Glad you finally understand something for once that sometimes you can be and sometimes you can't
@brendanm: Stupid argument from both sides. Tasmania is not self sufficient by design. How they import and export energy is a lot more complicated than you're both considering.
A move to '100% self sufficiency' would be wasteful and likely result in a net increase in emissions. Joining the larger energy network provides a lot of efficiencies .
@nigel deborah: No one is arguing about how they have designed it, simply what "self sufficient" means.
@brendanm: Tassie isn't currently self sufficient. I'd be curious what part of the grid isn't good enough and requires power bought for 1200 customers. Dams are near full, so is it not enough turbines to generate electricity? Not enough wind?
@Clear: Likely not enough turbines. They would likely have sized turbine capacity taking into consideration both solar and wind. Easier to import power than have excess capacity the rest of the time I suppose.
@brendanm: I think you're right. Seems the dam levels are near full which makes sense given the massive floods we've had.
@Clear: I'll put it this way Clear, your wind turbines are currently generating 19MW… The load on Tasmanias grid right now is 1068MW… Bit of a gap there hey?
P.s you are importing 440MW of dirty fossil fuel power into your "self sufficient" grid again.
@Binchicken22: We're not 100% self sufficient currently. I even said it was 85% yesterday. You're telling me it's not self sufficient and I'm telling you it isn't either. You're going in circles.
@Clear: And I quote you yesterday,
"Power was briefly purchased again in 2020 due to hydro low levels.
Since then a lot more has been invested into wind turbines and other renewable areas to make us self reliant without the need of buying power from Victoria, which we haven't for years."
So here we are in 2022 with our renewable hydro, solar and wind energy without anything from the NEM powering my Tesla and allowing me to meet my daily needs. And if shit hits the fan again it's good to know we have the capability to get extra power (whether it's dirty or not) quite easily.
How hard is it to understand your own words ?
"without anything from the NEM powering my Tesla and allowing me to meet my daily needs." - No? really without anything?
"And if shit hits the fan again … " - Lol , not if? But everyday shit hits the fan 100% for sure.
@dcep: I've already said sometimes they're 100% and sometimes they're not. Yesterday it was 85%.
Here's the other point everyone here won't understand because they love to attack others when given the chance. My place isn't one of the 1400 customers that needs the external power. Thus the energy I'm running off is renewable.
Tassie's energy infrastructure has the capability to be self sufficient, but due to various factors it's not always self sufficient.
That's like saying people in aged care homes are self sufficient. That they need assistance every day, but since it's not 24/7, they are "self-sufficient". Even a baby is self-sufficient for some time of the day……..
The issue is too complex to sum up in one short statement about where the energy comes from.
Everyone should become acquainted with the following:
https://opennem.org.au/energy/nem/?range=7d&interval=30m
If so inclined you can look at individual states to see where the energy is coming from now and in the past, in some states back to 1999.
You can see that Tasmania imports and exports power. For the past 12 months imports were 11.8% and exports were 6.3%. This might be an "ah ha!" moment for some, but the more important part is that people should not see this as us vs. them. It is a better system when all states are able to back each other up, regardless of where it comes from.
You will also see that over time the percentage of renewables is generally increasing.
Now play nice!
I'm glad someone gets it ☺️
@Clear: Electrical Engineer here. I'm not familiar on the specifics of generation within TAS but looking at the NEM it seems as though they purposely throttle the Hydro generation, likely for dam level management. They seem to ramp it up during high prices on the Energy Market (AEMO) since they would pay for energy imports. While Tasmania's renewable grid seems to be able to run independent of the rest of the country for a few hours at a time, it would seem the dam wouldn't be able to sustain it's level to keep the TAS grid independent.
@Juice-Wa: Finally a real answer instead of the local forum trolls having the time of their lives.
Do you know if hydro is being throttled all year or in summer when dam levels are typically lower? It'd be interesting to see the summer vs winter levels of power importing and exporting.
Sustainable energy certainly has their limits. Not enough sun here for solar to truly sufficient I think.
They should be banning eletric sewing machines first