octave

"Large batteries are increasingly being used to support EV charging stations, providing several benefits like reducing grid strain, enabling faster charging, and enabling grid stability through Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) technology. These batteries can act as buffers, storing energy during off-peak times and discharging it during peak times, or when there is a high demand for charging, helping to manage the load on the grid". https://www.power-sonic.com/blog/battery-buffered-ev-charging/

Some very large charging stations, Shenzhen 637 chargers. these are not superchargers but yes all these taxis do charge at once (30 40 or 50 Kw) Merkingen Germany 250 chargers of various capacities. Barstow California 120 superchargers

Are you saying it takes 1Mwh to put 100Kwh into the battery?

How do you arrive at that figure? EV charger efficiency typically ranges from 85% to 95% for Level 2 charging, and slightly lower for DC fast charging. This means that for every 100 kWh drawn from the grid, 85-95 kWh are effectively stored in the vehicle's battery. The efficiency can vary based on the charger type, age, and maintenance. Elaboration: Charging Efficiency: This refers to how effectively electricity from the grid is converted into energy stored in the vehicle's battery. Level 2 Charging: This is the most common type of charging for home and public charging stations. It generally has a high efficiency, typically between 85% and 95%. DC Fast Charging: While DC fast charging can be quicker, it may have slightly lower efficiency compared to Level 2 charging. Energy Loss: Energy loss during charging primarily occurs as heat due to the conversion of AC power from the grid to DC power required by the battery. Factors Affecting Efficiency: Charger type, age, maintenance, and the vehicle's on-board charging system can all affect the overall efficiency. Importance of Efficiency: Higher efficiency means less energy is wasted during charging, potentially leading to lower electricity bills and reduced environmental impact.

I cant think of any country that is pushing for immediate EV adoption. Most countries have targets for 2030 to 2035, and this only applies to the sale of new vehicles.

Is it impossible to build a factory that has large power requirements in a country town? Some countries have a high EV uptake. Is Norway's grid collapsing? Are there enormous queues to charge? Certainly, Norway is not a vast country, although it is quite hilly and cold, which doesn't help. The premise that we don't have enough power rests on the idea that things never change.

Sure, at the moment, the grid could not support universal EV ownership. But are you saying that the grid has reached its ultimate capacity? Once upon a time, travel in remote areas in petrol cars was difficult. We are comparing a mature petrol distribution system with a developing charging network. Elsewhere in this forum, people have expressed an opinion that Australia should get back into manufacturing. We could say we don't have the power or grid to support lots of factories. This would be short-sighted. You build the grid you need. I don't believe there is any scenario where the number of EVs on the road increases massively in a short time. If you drive around the outskirts of most large cities, you will see vast estates being built. All of these houses require electricity. The grid has to grow to meet demand, and it will. As far as EV adoption goes we are way behind many other countries. This means the experiment is being done for us. Are other countries' grids with greater EV adoption collapsing? If enough people are driving long distances in the country and the facilities are insufficient, isn't this then a business opportunity?

I agree that it does get more difficult. We have picked the low-hanging fruit. On the other side, there is innovation. The grid used to be a one-way street; however, now the grid is much more complex. I take from the grid and give back to the grid. Coming innovations, such as vehicle-to-grid, will be important. Net zero is not just about generating electricity; it also covers carbon removed by natural methods and things such as carbon capture and storage. I view the net-zero target as aspirational. (I would like to lose 10kg by the end of the year, but 7kg would still be good.) If renewables truly are going to double the price of electricity or cause regular blackouts, the public will not tolerate it, and it will be modified. Technology continues to advance. When we built our solar power house in 1990, the most efficient and cost-effective light was quartz halogen bulbs 20w each or 30w (12 volts), where we needed more light. My present LED lights are super efficient compared to the older technologies. I remember paying $595 per 60-watt solar panel; now you can get about 400 watts for about $200. My present solar system (grid-connected) did receive subsidies. Yes, this did come from the taxpayer; however, I am not the sole beneficiary of this. A good example is during hot weather. My solar is powering my aircon and some else's. In other words, during times when a lot is asked of the grid, I am contributing to the grid. The same goes for batteries. I would suggest that if a new coal-powered power station were to be built, it would require substantial subsidies from the taxpayer.

Just skimming through a report from Energy Networks Australia suggests that prices went up in 2024due to high gas prices. "Electricity residential prices (real $2023) are forecast to increase significantly by 2024 due to volatility in international gas prices. » While prices are forecast to stabilise by 2030 there will be slightly higher network prices due to higher input costs. » Prices rise again between 2030 and 2040 associated with firming the system to enable the transition to renewable generation. » Energy sales from electrical vehicles will help reduce network prices by FY2050, helping to bring down energy prices through improved utilisation. However, this will be offset by the need for transmission investment to connect renewable zones." Of course, changing the way we generate and distribute power will have some up-front costs but sticking with the old does not seem to be a viable option. I note that Bluescope is quite active in renewable projects for it's own operations. I disagree with the notion that we are rushing at breakneck speed towards renewables. In 2013 14.76% of power was from renewables and in 2024 it was a little under 40% Yes Australia does only produce a small amount of the total CO2 however if you added the emissions from all of the countries that produce under 2% it is a meaningful contribution. Also do we want to be a backwater that relies on old technology? Whilst China is a huge polluter it is also adopting renewables at a fast rate. It is like turning around a super tanker, but it is happening.

You do have to factor in the different ways people refuel EVs. My son only uses a public charger when on a road trip, perhaps once or twice a year. It makes no sense to pay 60 cents a kWh at a public charging station when he can do it at home for 5 cents a kWh. If we are talking time to refuel, the EV only requires you to put the plug in when you get home from work.

I would agree that it would be impossible to be 100% renewable tomorrow. The history of renewables has been that when it was 5% the naysayers would claim that this was the limit and the grid would become unstable. Every year, the percentage of renewables grows. I believe it is now almost 40%. This, of course, is not evenly spread. Tasmania, for example, is 100% renewable (mainly hydro). There are several countries that are at or extremely near 100%, so it is possible. Of course, many of these countries have natural assets that make it easier. The naysayers often have a point, but that point was valid several years ago. It reminds me of folks who criticise EVs for only having a minuscule range or for taking 8 hours to charge. These are valid arguments if it were 2005. The old arguments often don't get updated as technology inevitably improves. In 1990, we built a house and designed and installed a simple solar system. Our house ran on 12 volts, although later we added an inverter. It was expensive and a little bit like camping. As the years went by, technology improved and became cheaper. In our house, now we are connected to the grid; however, we generate about twice what we use. The next step will be a battery. This does not mean we could be free of the grid again because there is a seasonal aspect to the power we generate. This may change as battery tech continues to advance. In this country, there is a huge potential for renewables. Whilst it is not always sunny everywhere, it is usually sunny somewhere and likewise wind. With modern HVDC and uHDC transmission and improved storage technologies, renewables become more and more viable. Where we are at the moment, with around 40% being renewables, means the EV you charge off the grid is 40% (on average) free from fossil fuels. I can only see this as a good thing. Next year, it might be 45% free of fossil fuels.

This is worth watching. It critiques another clip that compares an EV and an IC on a road trip and points out how dishonest it is. This clip does contain facts and figures so it can be fact-checked.

PM I have seen countless articles like this. Journalist drives........ and finds that......... Sometimes these journalists make expensive choices in the route of recharging facilities in order to prove a point. Do you notice this article gives very few details or route or Kwh cost or even charging times. Because of this it is difficult to draw any conclusions. I have some personal experience. In April, we did a road trip the length of NZ North Island with my son in his Tesla. I know what it cost and I know what charging stops were made and for how long. This article goes on to sing the praises of diesel in a way that makes me wonder who is behind the article. Even at best, this article makes the claim that it believes diesel is best for LONG DISTANCE. My son charges his car once or twice a week for the work commute. It costs 5 cents a kWh to charge at home overnight. The power in his location is exclusively hydro, so relatively clean. Now, if it could sound like my son is a smug EV driver who hates IC cars, this could not be further from the truth. He loves cars of all sorts but accepts change. He owns a Tesla 3P, Honda S2000, Mazda Lantis (which is purely a motorsports car), and most recently has acquired a Porsche Cayenne (an older one). As he says, he "loves his IC engines" but he "accepts that things are changing." Back to diesels. Diesels are terrible in the city for emissions. Diesel exhaust To summarise, I think you would surely agree that the article is very short of facts and figures, the authorship is unclear and it obviously flies the flag for diesel. Even if the conclusions are accurate, so what? It at best compares one particular type of journey, which for many people is rare. To draw conclusions, you would think that they would have quoted the kWh price of charging rather than just saying Tesla Superchargers are expensive. Perhaps they compiled tables of data, but it would be nice if they shared this information.

PM have you fact-checked those points?

Several countries are consistently ranked as having very low crime rates, with Iceland, New Zealand, and Japan often topping the lists. Other countries with low crime rates include Denmark, Ireland, Austria, Singapore, Portugal, Slovenia, and Switzerland. These countries generally share strong social cohesion, effective law enforcement, and often have strict gun control laws. Here's a more detailed look: Iceland: Often cited as the safest country, Iceland has very low levels of conflict and militarization. New Zealand: This island nation is known for its peaceful environment and low crime rates. Japan: Japan's strict gun control laws contribute to its low crime rate. European Countries: Many European countries, especially in Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, etc.) and Western Europe (Switzerland, Austria, etc.) are known for their low crime rates and high levels of social well-being. Singapore: Known for its strict laws and efficient law enforcement, Singapore also consistently ranks high in safety. Factors contributing to low crime rates include: Strong social safety nets: Many of these countries have robust social welfare systems that address poverty and inequality, which can be drivers of crime. Effective law enforcement: These countries generally have well-trained and well-equipped police forces with high public trust. Strict gun control: Many of the safest countries have very restrictive laws on firearms, which can reduce both violent crime and accidental deaths. Cultural factors: Some countries have a strong cultural emphasis on community, cooperation, and respect for the law, which can also contribute to lower crime rates.

The United States has some pretty harsh prisons and draconian sentences. The question is, has this led to lower rates of crime?

I upgraded to Win11 partly because I have a couple of computer experts in my family. One good reason for me to upgrade is that as the software I use has more features added to it, the operating system required also increases. This does not seem to be a problem between 10 and 11 (as far as I know), it is easy to end up with an antiquated operating system. I do find the automatic saving of data on OneDrive annoying, although I believe you can disable it. OneDrive has been useful over the past 18 months due to a legal situation with the drug-dealing neighbours, whereby my doorbell cam footage has been used in a legal case. It was imperative to store these files both on my PC and off-site. I do think that every version that comes out meets with complaints, and then, often, sometime later, when these folks have finally upgraded, this version becomes the one that they don't want to move on from. In terms of spying, I kind of assume that my PC is never completely private. Of course, it is an individual choice, and it does depend on what you use your PC for. There are features that I now use that would not be available to me if I did not upgrade (not so much 10 to 11, but if I were stuck back on 8 or 7)

Historically low overall homicide rate The AIC released two reports on statistics emerging from its National Homicide Monitoring Program, a database that has been in operation since July 1989. The institute reports 232 overall homicide incidents were recorded by Australian state and territory police between 1 July 2022 and 30 June 2023, which resulted in 247 homicide victims. The Australian homicide rate (0.87 deaths per year per 100,000 population) remains historically low. There has been a 52 per cent reduction in homicide incidents since 1989‒90, indicative of a long-term downward trend in unlawful killings. The report reveals police, prosecutors and courts are doing a good job, with 90 per cent of cases being resolved through the justice system. That is, only 10 per cent of homicide incidents in 2022‒23 were not “cleared,” meaning cases where an offender has yet to be identified, a suspect has not yet been charged, or a person is declared missing and police believe it’s linked to foul play.

Nope whether crime has gone up or down is something that can be measured. The fact that homicides have been declining for many years does not have any bearing on the seriousness of each individual crime. Your logic seems to be that if I state that homicides have been falling, then I believe that people should not be punished harshly, which makes no sense at all. Although murders have decreased since the 90s there was a slight uptick recently. This seems to be from Intimate Partner murders. The difference between you and me GON is that you judge these things purely on your gut feeling where as I want the data.

AI Overview No, public perception of crime often differs from actual crime rates. While crime rates have generally been decreasing in many areas, public perception tends to be that crime is increasing or at high levels. This discrepancy can be influenced by various factors, including media coverage, personal experiences, and individual biases. Here's a more detailed look at the factors contributing to this gap: 1. Media Influence: Sensationalism: News media often focuses on dramatic and violent crimes, which can create a perception that these events are more common than they actually are. Repetitive Coverage: Even if crime rates are stable or decreasing, continuous media reports can lead to the perception that crime is on the rise. 2. Personal Experiences and Biases: Fear of Crime: Individuals may develop a heightened fear of crime, even if they haven't been victims, based on personal experiences, stories from others, or general anxieties about their surroundings. Social and Economic Factors: People with higher socioeconomic status may perceive crime as more prevalent or a greater threat, potentially due to concerns about property values or personal safety. Implicit Biases: Racial and class biases can also influence perceptions of crime, leading to inaccurate assessments of crime levels in certain neighborhoods. 3. Lack of Accurate Information: Official Crime Statistics: Public awareness of official crime statistics is often limited, and people may not be aware of trends in crime rates, particularly if they are decreasing. Underreporting: Crimes may not be reported to the police, leading to an underestimation of the true extent of crime in a community. 4. The Role of "Perceived Crime": Impact on Policy: Despite the discrepancy between perceived and actual crime, public perception can still influence policy decisions and resource allocation related to law enforcement. Community Safety: Perceptions of safety can affect people's behavior, such as their willingness to go out at night or participate in community activities. In conclusion, while crime rates may be declining in many areas, public perception of crime can be significantly higher due to factors like media coverage, personal experiences, and biases. This gap between perceived and actual crime has important implications for public safety and policy decisions.

I do not form my opinions on the basis of what a lot of people say; I want hard facts.

I have actually been involved with a legal situation for the last 18 months regarding drug dealers next door in a housing department property. Instead of getting hysterical, we organised our neighbours, made allies in the police and housing department educated ourselves and appeared to give evidence. We won, and these people are going to be evicted by the police and the property is going on the private market. The moral of this is that whinging and whining gets you nowhere. We educated ourselves and kept positive. I am sorry that you seem to be so unhappy with life.

Of course, but rationally, I understand the odds of that happening, and I can avoid hysteria.

Statistics matter more than emotional irrationality.

Many people did resist. During the Vietnam War, over 1,000 men in Australia applied for conscientious objector status under the National Service Act. Of these, 733 were granted total exemption from military service, 142 were exempted from combat duties, and 137 had their applications rejected. Many more Australians resisted conscription through other means, such as burning draft cards or leaving the country, although these actions are not classified as conscientious objection under the Act. Here's a more detailed breakdown: Conscientious Objection: The National Service Act defined conscientious objectors as those who sincerely believed that any form of military service was wrong. Applications: Over 1,000 men applied for conscientious objector status between 1965 and 1971. Outcomes: Total Exemption: 733 applicants were granted complete exemption from any military service. Partial Exemption: 142 applicants were exempted from combat duties only. Rejections: 137 applications were rejected. Other Forms of Resistance: Many Australians who opposed the war also resisted conscription by burning their draft cards, refusing to register for the draft, serving jail time, or leaving the country.