So Channel 7 did a Spotlight the Great EV Con.
What do OzBargainers think?
When you bought your EV was environment and social a concern?
How are you finding depreciation and insurance costs?
Waiting for ABC media watch to do a counter segment.
Spotlight The Great EV Con - What Do OzBargainers Think?
dasher86 on 07/04/2025 - 21:26
Last edited 08/04/2025 - 09:52 by 1 other user
Last edited 08/04/2025 - 09:52 by 1 other user
Comments
- 1
- 2
JFC, like Google doesn't exist. I love this "bUt WHaT aBoUt eV PrOdUcTiOn bEiNg DiRtiEr!!1!" nugget.
There is only a "slight" increase in environmental emissions when building an EV when compared to building an ICE vehicle. 90+% of your average car (ICE or EV) is the same. They both have bodies, they both have cabins, they both have wheels, gearboxes, diffs, windscreens, seats, carpet, etc etc… so the only thing that is really different is the traction battery and electric motor as opposed to a fuel tank and an ICE.
While I am not suggesting making an EV is "cleaner" than making an ICE vehicle, it just isnt that wide of a gap between the two based on for the most part they are identical in form and function, so a lot of the parts are identical in environmental concerns to manufacture. But I am also not kidding myself that EV's do produce a little more emissions to manufacture based on battery and motor requirements, but the rest of the car is about the same.
The problem is that you need to look at the existence of a car from inception to retirement, the "cradle to grave" cycle. While an EV may have a slightly increased environmental impact during manufacture, that is just about as far as it goes. Once it is done, that's almost where it stops. They dont "continue" to be dirty.
People will often trot out this "BuT CoBaLt aNd NiCkLe MiNeS!!" and then conveniently forget about how destructive it is to extract oil and refine it… And that is something that has to be done for the whole life of an ICE vehicle. You need to ALWAYS be mining and drilling and extraction oil. EV's can run on solar, wind, basically any "renewable" energy source. Even if you trot out that "BuT cOaL iS DiRtY PoWaH!1!!", it is FAR more efficient to turn coal into electricity to power a single EV than it is to extract oil refine it and then burn it to run a single car.
For an EV, once the nickle/cobalt/rare earth minerals are mined, it is done. Finished. You don't need to keep mining nickle/etc for the rest of the life of that vehicle. Added on top of that, the nickle that IS mined can then be recycled at the end of the vehicles life cycle, meaning that we have to mine for less nickle in the future… Oil you have to keep mining… and once the ICE car is ready for recycling, you can NEVER get back any of the oil the car has burnt over the years. It is GONE.
So, yes, you would have a point if all they did with EV's was build them for no reason and then let them sit around forever, their environmental impact would be greater. But once you look at them from the perspective of a "cradle to grave" lifecycle, then the only slightly extra environmental impact they have at manufacture is quickly eaten up by how clean they are post production and just how "recyclable" EV's are at the end of their life… You cant recycle the 15,000+ litres of fuel you have burnt over the life of an ICE vehicle, but you can recycle about 95% of an EV battery at the end of its life cycle.
So, to answer your original question… It takes about 6 tonnes of emissions to build a mid sized ICE vehicle. For a similar sized EV, it would be about 8~9 tonnes. While this is a slightly larger number it isnt exponentially larger. But look at the ICE vehicle 12 months on. An average ICE will produce about 2.5~5 tonnes of CO2 in just the first year of operation, where an EV running on solar and renewables could produce almost 0.
So after 12 months of driving, an ICE vehicle could be 6 + 5 for a total of 11 tonnes of CO2, where an EV could be 9 + 1 for a total of 10 tonnes. Another 5 years later and the ICE is at 11 + 25 for a total of 36 tonnes of CO2, where the EV is at 10 + 5, for a total of 15. A possible saving of at least 20 tonnes of CO2… So, a short term pain versus long term gain arrangement.
TLDR: EVs pollute a bit more to build, but way less to run—so over time, they’re way cleaner than gas cars.
@boomramada: They are doing it already. For iMiev there is a mob that installs a new battery with usable 250km range. Same for the Leaf. I have met some of the owners of these upgraded cars and they are quite happy with the outcome.
@randysal: i havent seen it in australia, but there were even kits to upgrade gen 2 prius with lithium batteries from the old tech ones, and the result seemed pretty impressive. Unfortunately its the rest of my prius that degraded before the battery
@boomramada: Show how much you actually know… People already converting ICE car into EV. Why do you think it's not "compatible"?
Good on paper, but 2 old ice cars can be rebirth into one or more by Bush Machinic
Doesn't happen. Maybe 40 years ago with an old HQ Holden or a XC Falcon, sure, but modern cars now, no way, not with the amount of electronics new cars have. You think there is a bush mechanic out there slapping together two old, broken Audi Q5's together to make one new one? Doubt it.
One thing I can say is that replacing a battery or an electric motor is FAR easier than trying to find parts for a 2003 Peugeot 307 just to "keep it running".
two EVs would be a squeezed tin can
Exactly what they do with ICE vehicles today. As much as Uncle Ian is a great cobbler of motor vehicles, even he is not taking on a 2010 Holden Barina as a "fixer-upper", that shitter is heading straight to the "tin can-erizer".
send the battery to some poor country in the name of recycling
What, as opposed to the 15,000 litres of fuel that was burnt over the life time of an average ICE vehicle… Where/how are we recycling all that "waste". And just to note, we have lithium battery recycling centers right here in Australia, so no, not ALL EV batteries end up overseas.
Let's check the carbon footprint on that lol.
Yeah, let's check the carbon footprint of 15,000+ litres of petrol being burnt in a vehicles average lifetime… An average petrol vehicle produces about 200g/km. On average, most ICE vehicles do about 13,000km/y and have an expected life cycle of about 10~12 years.
13,000km x 12years = 156,000km.
156,000km x 0.2kg = 31,200kg (about 31 tonnes of CO2)I can assure you that it doesnt take 31 tonnes of CO2 to recycle an EV battery at the end of its life cycle.
Now which one of you is going to buy an old EV in 15 years time and install a new battery and keep it going?
Oh, FFS, this old nugget as well… How many 15+yo ICE cars do you know of that people buy with blown engines in them that people buy just to "keep going"… Virtually no one. No one is going out to buy a 15yo blown up shitter ICE car and "fixing it"… Ever tried getting a "new engine" for a 15yo car? I have… at least once a week… Know how many engines I replace in 15yo vehicles a year… Zero. Uneconomical. Straight to the "tin can-erizer"
I bet a newer battery won't even be compatible with an old car by then
I 100% bet it would. They are electrifying old 1960's and 70's shitters with electric drive trains… If they can make a battery pack for a resto-mod Land Rover III series shit heap, they can easily make one for a Nissan Leaf or Hyundai Ionic, etc.
Batteries are the "EASY part to make. There are no moving parts, it's just batteries, in a box, lined up and spot welded together. It isnt that deep… Try buying internal engine parts like cranks and cams for a 15yo car and see how hard those are to make compared to an EV battery pack.
In fact, making new batteries in the future may actually be BETTER for older ev's, giving them a second lease of life. Battery tech will be better, lighter with more capacity in the same space. The Leaf is already proof of this with old 30kWh packs taken out and replaced with a 60kWh pack that fits in the same space and doubles the range. Who knows, in the future, there could be a 200kWh battery pack that would fit in the place of the 60kWh battery pack my BYD has in it, giving it a whole new lease of life and tripling the range…
So, your comment is bunk and just shows your ignorance on EV's and battery anything.
@pegaxs: I bought a 15yo Falcon two years ago and just put some new brakes on her…
Its running awesome still.Barra engine has done 300,000kms and still going strong.
I reckon she'll do another 300,000.My last Falcon I drove for 20 years…and I gave up waiting for it to die…
@zathras: True, but Falcons are a dying breed.
I've got an AUII LPG just sitting there that I'm not sure what to do with, the paint is suffering from the original bad early 2000s paint quality issues but still runs perfectly fine and only 220000km since 2001. However I have to get the gas tank checked to sell, too expensive so it'll most likely go to scrap unfortunately.
I've even got a 65 Mustang to restore but an EV just makes sense and will probably be the next car I buy.Not so easy for a "bush mechanic" to work on ICE cars made within the last 15 years or so unfortunately. Just too much hassle with the electronics side of things and getting a "good" transmission or engine from a wreckers isn't cheap like it used to be for the Falcons and Commodores etc.
Once these current ICE cars are too expensive to fix then it's off to scrap usually.
@boomramada: EVs use standard batteries. When most people own one there will be an industry for replacing batteries. Literally not an issue.
@Ryanek: Best scenario: Get a reliable second hand (likely ICE) Japanese / Korean car if you can't walk / use public transport. Prevent it from going to landfill.
RIP pegaxs, who involuntarily went on a rant so long that he gave himself a heart attack. He will be sorely missed
He's right about all of it though. I am glad it's not my turn, I went through the same sh!t last week. I am getting sick of telling people how wrong they are, this is the reason people continued to smoke until the government made it uneconomical, because they can't make basic sense of simple facts, like EVs are simpler to build, cheaper to run, and better for the environment
@Jackson: Wait.. Have we lost @pegaxs??
NVM.. I just saw one his posts. Geez. you got me going there.
Do they actually though? Sure once you have the vehicle they have less of an impact, but what about the environmental impact of production?
You mean as opposed to drilling and fracking for oil?
My understanding is they come out even with ICE after 3 years if using fossil fuels to recharge and under a year if using green energy.
It's not a time thing, it's based on distance driven. According to the abc article it's only 23,000km. If there's a mix of 32% renewable and 68% fossil fuels then it's around 38,000km. Either way, EVs are definitely coming out ahead and better for the environment. The only thing that's a scam is their price tag and insurance fees, it just doesn't make sense for financially conscious people. Especially if you buy a Tesla Model Y ($64k drive away) and pay $3.5k/year for insurance, the higher price tag and annual insurance fees will destroy any savings you make on petrol and you'll never catch up compared to buying eg. a Haval H6 ultra hybrid ($41k drive away, 5.5L/100km, $1.4k/year to insure).
if only ppl cud see the ICE fumes that sink on a cold night.. and swamp outwards from the transport corridors into kids bedrooms.. look up the premature death stats due to transport ICE.. hospital visits.. even if there was more pollution at the factory.. that's better than every bedroom, every night, anywhere near a road.. and being breathed in on your daily commute
As an ozb, i'd like to think the people bought an EV thinking that it will have less impact to their pockets
Forever I am surprised at how little people know about the world and how things work.
I didn't see it and don't own an EV, but am in a few EV groups on FB. A number of people have been stating (unverified by me) that the story was mainly about nickel mines, very little of which is actually used for EV batteries and is mainly used for stainless steel I think.
As alluded to above, I am not sure anyone has ever claimed EVs are some magical vehicle which is one with nature, etc. Again don't know much about it myself (or care enough to do any research), but I imagine the materials used for ICE cars (and lots of other consumer products) don't exactly have the cleanest or greenest credentials.
The fact that the reporter apparently formerly worked for Shell (according to Wikipedia) probably doesn't help the suggestions that it was just a big oil hit job.
I didn't see it either, but saw it posted about elsewhere and it's all about the pollution and working conditions of mines in Indonesia. Within the industry, Indonesian nickel is seen as cheap, inhumane and dirty - it's why Australia has pushed for the markets to reflect this in metals, when it's mined in Australia this is nowhere near the same issue (it's like a lot of other metal mining). No one has taken us up on it though.
But you're right, it's a hit job. It was about how dirty EVs are but no one talked about how most nickel in the world is for stainless steel, not car batteries. Nor that a lot of cars use LFP in Australia, which doesn't contain any nickel.
I knew the impacts of making EVs were not great, but the conditions around the Indonesians nickel refineries was disgusting. Rather than anything EV specific, just shows how those countries can be bought off, with no regard to the people who love there. Also the electric viking seems like a massive douche canoe.
The nickel in Indonesia has nothing to do with EV's. Almost all of their nickel ends up in stainless steel, as it is too poor of a quality for making of EV batteries. Added to that, many EV manufacturers have started moving away from EV batteries that require nickel anyway and moved onto battery tech like LiFePo that doesn't use nickel.
While the treatment of workers and the environment in these Indonesian mines is deplorable, it has nothing to do with the manufacturing of EV batteries.
Also the electric viking seems like a massive douche canoe.
You mean the guy that was set upon and poked in the chest by a (fropanity) wit wannabe oil stooge who created the narrative and manipulated footage "for the views"… Yeah, Electric Viking is the douche canoe in this situation, not the guy making up fake shit for internet clicks.
As I stated.
Rather than anything EV specific
Perhaps I didn't work it very well.
This sort of stuff is why I think the focus on CO2 emissions is so silly. We have entire ecosystems being destroyed by people just putting industrial waste into them, and no one bats an eyelid.
We will have to agree to disagree in regard to the electric viking.
Also the electric viking seems like a massive douche canoe.
FWIW, he says he was set up and that the interview was heavily edited. See his video on the Channel 7 piece here;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwfTZrzAx2c
Big Oil strikes again.
I briefly met the bloke, and he's a nice guy, clearly passionate about EVs and green tech, and I have watched his videos for years. His videos are relatively low budget and contain a lot of repetitive stock footage, but he puts out multiple videos a week and I am pretty sure he does all the production on his own.
He's clearly passionate about EVs, but I havent heard him getting challenged on anything he's ever said from serious people. That M Guy on the other hand, he's definitely a douche
Appauling
The show and what it presented or EVs?
It's ragebait for uneducated morons.
Holy (fropanity), I knew it was only a matter of time before that shit leaked out of Fartbook groups and into OzBargain…
What did I think of it? Bullshit made up by Murdoch and big oil shills. It was nothing more than ragebait for EV owners and actual experts in the field and pure confirmation bias circlejerk rhetoric for the knuckle dragging bogans who gobble this shit up.
If you want an EV, buy an EV, if you don’t, then (fropanity) don’t… it really is that simple.
When you bought your EV was environment and social a concern?
No, I was just sick of paying almost $2/litre for petrol to fat, rich oil corporations when I was making perfectly good fuel on my roof.
How are you finding depreciation and insurance costs?
On par with any other ICE vehicle I have owned in my life.
I was wondering how long it'll take to bring in Murdoch. lol
He is the problem to everything.
Stokes is having a toast to this.
90% agree - except the last point. depreciation & insurance are around 10-20% worse.. but expect it to even out over the next 5-10years with the savings on fuel & maintenance
edit: sorry should quantify futher - ICE will lose 40% of its value in the first 100,000 miles (160k kms, or ~10 years) whereas EV will lose 50%
source: https://thundersaidenergy.com/downloads/vehicle-costs-cars-s…in that time (assuming ~8L/100km) you will have used ~13 000L of fuel or $24k (depending on if you use 91 or 95)
then there's the maintenance - let's say you save around $15k on that over 10 years (tires wear out slightly quicker and cost a bit more)so yeah: bottom line saving about 40k in that 10years which evens out with the 50% depreciation on $80k vehicle.
If your vehicle is cheaper, you score more sooner. If it's more expensive - depreciation starts to outweigh the benefits as you approach $100k vehicle
so yeah: bottom line saving about 40k in that 10years which evens out with the 50% depreciation on $80k vehicle.
Your calc here is wrong. Whilst the $40k saving over 10 years does even out with 50% depreciation on an $80k vehicle, you're missing that you end up being $32k in front over the ICE vehicle, since it has depreciated 40% in that same time frame.
The $40k saving only has to offset the 10% difference in depreciation, or $8k; hence $32k in front over the ICE vehicle.
(note: this is per the ballpark figures you provided)
sorry, yes - you are correct
There's far greater uptake of EVs and green energy in China then there is here.
Future Made in Australia.
If you think the reason nothing is manufactured here is because of energy prices, I have a bridge to sell you.
You'll find we don't have the low wages, workforce or tech to do it. You really think you could find 20,000 workers to assemble mobile phones all day in Australia?
Tell me more about the bridge
@Ozbar Gain: It's made out of aluminium, because we still smelt aluminium here, taking up over 10% of the NEM, despite our supposedly high energy prices.
It has a very sharp downward slope, like the percentage of GDP that was made up by manufacturing in Australia between 1960 and 2000, when we had essentially zero solar or wind on the grid, yet manufacturing dropped from 25% of GDP to 10%.
Our energy isn't that much greener either. About 35% of China's electricity came from renewables in 2022(iea.org) and 34% of our electricity came from renewables in 2023(iea.org)
Anyway, it's an excellent bridge, you'll be able to produce so many things on it because it's most filled with petrol cars, I'll do you a great deal.
@freefall101: Ah, so the bridge comes with free economics lessons—how generous! You’re right that wages and scale matter (no one’s lining up to solder iPhones in Sydney), but let’s not pretend energy costs are irrelevant. Heavy industry like smelting hangs on by threads of subsidies and legacy infrastructure, not magic. And yeah, China’s renewables rollout is impressive—when you’re the world’s factory and top emitter, you’d better sprint. But their coal use still grew 4% last year (IEA), while ours dropped. So: cool bridge, but I’ll wait for the version where ‘Future Made in Australia’ doesn’t mean ‘assembled from Chinese parts
but let’s not pretend energy costs are irrelevant
Is not the same as
Our energy is greener, but also much more expensive so can't manufacture sht here
I replied to what you said, not the new location of your goalposts.
Of course energy costs are relevant to manufacturing.
But their coal use still grew 4% last year (IEA), while ours dropped
How much did their overall energy use increase? I can give the lesson in how numbers work to go along with my economics lesson too, if you don't understand what I'm getting at.
@Ozbar Gain: Lets say they used to use 100 coals. Now they use 104 coals. But they also went from 150 energy to 200 energy. In this situation their coal usage can go up, but the proportion of energy from green can also go up.
China is one of the biggest investors in green energy and experiencing one of the fastest transitions to it. Watt for watt, they have more green energy than we do.
What do OzBargainers think?
That the vast vast majority of nickel mined isn't for batteries (let alone ev batteries). While we should all be for improving mining conditions around the world, using those as misinformation "hit pieces" doesn't seem like the kind of media as should be promoting
Most nickel is used for stainless steel, at about 70%, but I dont remember the last time there was an outrage piece on how stainless steel is kiling the environment.
Strangely, I didn't see morning shows and LNP members raging on the news about how evs are killing the environment also mention that the stainless steel industry should be shut down.The next largest is related to other alloys and industrial plating.
Batteries, and that's all including your laptop and smartphone, not just those in evs that still use nickel (as many newer popular models don't) is single digits % of nickel supply usage.
I think the real rare earth metal is the friends you make along the way.
I think we should all breed guinea pigs and train them like sled dogs to pull to us work on our little carts.
Have you seen the conditions of the little cart factories?!?!?!?!
seems like a small problem
The great motor car con
The great pneumatic tyre con
The great seatbelt con
The great power steering con
The great automatic transmission con
The great fuel injection con
The great unleaded fuel con
The great catalytic converter con
The great anti lock brakes con
The great remote fob con
The great in car navigation conOh, you forgot about the "great airbag con"… I remember that being in full swing at the time with pundits claiming that airbags would actually kill more people than they would save each year and they were trying to have them banned or be a delete-able option on any car purchase.
The great con the fruiterer
Another TV station owned by a Billionaire.
Big supporter of LNP.Of course it just happened to be shown in the middle of election campaign.
Rest my case.
Reddit - Channel 7's Electric Vehicle 'news' story on Spotlight(reddit.com)
Anyone catch Channel 7's Spotlight segment on 'The Great EV Con Job"? What utter horseshit. Here's 7 interviewing themselves about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UokhfaYm8AY
The piece that Liam Bartlett - an ex Shell Petroleum consultant - is centred on a nickel mining operation in Indonesia. But the kicker is - that mine doesn't supply nickel used in any electric vehicle battery in Australia. The nickel mined there is of a lower quality (class 2), used primarily for production in stainless steel. Class 1 nickel for EVs is mined in China, Canada, Russia - and Australia.
For those looking to buy an EV and are worried about the environmental impact, please ignore the lies presented in this hit-job.
The rules are based on average emissions across the fleet of cars sold each year. The manufacturers have no other choice, people keep buying petrol vehicles so the manufacturers average emissions don't decrease. They have to force you to buy an EV.
It will work because every manufacturer will do something similar. To decrease sales of petrol cars they will only sell the most expensive models with ICE engines. Hyundai has already discontinued the i20 and only sells the much more expensive i20N, BMW and Mercedes have replaced their most popular models 6 cyl engines with 4 cyl engines. I'm sure there are countless other examples.
They have to force you to buy an EV.
They can try all they like…. wont work.
Focuses entirely on dirty Nickel refining in Indonesia, allegedly one of the "main materials in EVs".
I don't believe that Tesla or BYD LFP batteries contain any Nickel, and they probably make up the majority of EV's in Australia.
Yes, the batteries found in AWD Teslas do contain Nickel as these require greater energy density, however I'd argue the RWD models that use LFP are far more popular.
Like the news, I won't bother to find any research or numbers to support my view.
Wasn't it on one of those Carexpert or Carsguide that 70% of all Model 3 and Y sold in Australia are RWD (LFP)?
Yeah brief googling suggests it’s more than 75% for both 3 and Y.
Slightly off topic, but you must be relatively young to only do one wee between Sydney and Byron.
Back on topic- your diesel does sound pretty economical.
Well done mate, we're all very proud of you
So you can do around 1200km with a full tank? What is the tank capacity? Mine does like 6 - 6.5L for 100km on normal highway (once I saw 4.5L/100km on display but not sure whether it is accurate), so max would be around 800km with 55L tank :/ I never enable ECO mode, though, don't know whether it contributes.
That Indonesian nickel mine visited by that turd of a reporter was opened in 1969 from my googling. Well before any EV i know of existed, so this dirty nickel business is unrelated to EVs.
EVs just happen to consume nickel yes, but that'll only be a matter of time. New batteries will probably replace Ni and all those haters can then hate their steel pots instead.
The first EVs were built at the very end of the 19th century - at about the same time as ICE vehicles.
Just saying.
I bought mine predominantly because they are so easy and enjoyable to drive as a daily but also with environment in mind. I don't think about insurance or depreciation at all and when it's done in 5 years I only hope it's still running smoothly and well. It'll be worth a lot less as any car is but my driving experience is likely to have been better because they do drive that well. Owning a car is a luxury and it is almost always cheaper to not own one at the cost of significant convenience.
Edit - oh and there is no chance I'm watching that piece of slander almost certainly paid for by big fossil fuels.
Floodlight should do a story about sodium battery makers stealing our table salt. Villians!
Surely it could be extracted from Urinals in Coffs Harbour
Nickle seems like a pretty outdated target for outrage, as far as I'm aware isn't LFP the more favoured battery chemistry over the somewhat outdated NMC now?
I'd imagine most EVs were purchased as novated leases with a massive tax write-off?
That's what mine was for anyway…
Cheap/mid tier EVs are pretty good relative to cheap/mid tier ICE cars in terms of features and performance. If you're looking for a "nice" car, the EV experience deteriorates quickly - they perform in straight line speed but the rest is an inferior experience.
Disagree but would be keen to hear what you are driving EV wise? They're quieter, smell better and overtake easier, merge onto freeways easier etc, a function of all that instant power but also being being without a lousy gearbox. They've obviously got every single tech gadget you can think of in most instances too. Unsure what isn't to like apart from a bit less range.
In my POV when purchasing a nice ICE car that has a good gearbox, a good suspension that benefits from the comparably lower weight and greater focus on an ergonomic and high quality interior rather than a tech fest - then an expensive EV isn't very appealing. The EV I test drove but did not purchase was a Taycan. Great car, but a similarly priced ICE vehicle was much more enjoyable.
Evs typically have a lower centre of gravity that helps with handling.
A taycan is a fairly extreme example though. EV sportscars just aren't there yet so I half agree. A byd seal vs whatever 60k buys in new petrol world would be a lot more interesting, probably a Camry of some sort I guess.
Edit - and good luck avoiding tech fest interiors.@drprox: not many are true petrol heads, in which case they will never consider an EV. most people are happy with a comfortable/premium cabin, quiet ride and brisk enough to have a bit of fun. if you want something sporty something like IONIQ 5N is great value
@May4th: I guess so. I didn't buy one because I think it's a fun drive though. I got it because it's an easy drive :)
I still have a fun petrol car it just hardly gets driven which can be a bit sad!
Oh and agree I drive an ev6 gt and that was the only EV I drove that I actually think could be fun. It has a real lsd, huge brakes and the adjustable dampers did a seriously impressive job of flattening the ride out. Seriously hustled for a 2.2tonne monster.
Plenty of the other brands aren't even trying real performance which imo must extend beyond 0-100 in a straight line.
Didn't watch it, don't particularly care one way or the other as all cars (yes including EV's) are not great for the environment. I choose my car based on my needs and cost not on how well it is green washed or not.
Its not a 'great ev con'. The con is that they are pointing at a dirty nickel mine while over 60% of nickel is used for stainless steel and conve iently ignoring what it takes to drill and refine fossil fuel into petrol that is burnt once. A battery is used thousands of times and recyclable at end of life.
Not channel 7 engaging in ragebait at the behest of those invested in geopolitical fuel interests, say it isn't so! The biggest difference with EVs is that the driver is no longer beholden to the fuel cartel and they hate that.
It's an interesting conundrum. Be at the behest of the oil/fuel cartel via ICE or be at the behest of the insurance cartel rorting EV owners.
what?
Lead.
I don't think it is either/or. ICE vehicles need insurance too which will likely go up as they age and car manufacturers stop making new ones.
it's a sorry excuse for journalism, exploiting a humanitarian disaster to push an economic and political agenda. then again we don't expect much better from seven "news" at least most people with more than a few brain cells can see right through it.
no one pretends there isn't environmental impacts of EVs, studies have shown at 2 years roughly is where the breakeven is in terms of EV vs ICE, with EV having less of a footprint longer term
The lead reporter worked at Shell for four years before coming back and started doing this stuff. Yeah, seems unbiased.
- 1
- 2
Didn't watch it and don't consider channel 7 an authoritative source on anything.
Most people who buy an EV understands that they are not carbon neutral miracle machines, they just have less impact to the environment then ICE.
We don't live in a country that has fantastic public transport, so for many owning a car is a requirement.