octave

Whoah there this bold assertion needs a bit of evidence. Firstly why do you assert that the electronics that EV manufacturers use are cheap and shoddy? Please provide some evidence for this. As for batteries being toast after 10 years this is also a dubious claim. New Study: How Long Do Electric Car Batteries Last? How Long Do EV Batteries Last? New Research Suggests It's Way Longer Than You Might Think Electric Car Batteries Lasting Longer Than Predicted Delays Recycling Programs I could go on. Do you have intimate knowledge of Teslas construction methods? Are Teslas failing at a high rate? Are early Teslaa being scrapped at a great rate? What evidence is that they "do nothing to ensure that their EVs have a long lifespan." It sounds like you could give me some particular examples of inadequate parts etc. A YouTube channel I follow is Sandy Monro who tears down vehicles from many manufacturers and advises on how they can improve, You can watch him tearing down various Teslas. In the early days, he was pretty scathing but is impressed with how they are now manufactured. He will call out things he considers to be poor engineering Should we not recycle anything? Perhaps just dump everything in a landfill. I would not be surprised if landfill disposal was subsidized. There are successful recycling plants such as Redwood in the US. It is a fact that the components of batteries have some value and where there is value there is incentive. The crusty old EV haters will often say that the raw materials for EV and phone batteries etc will become scarce. This is where a circular economy comes in. A company like Tesla or any other EV company is only viable if it can build its own or source batteries from outside. It makes sense to get more recycling up and running or the business will fail due to materials shortages. You have suggested (incorrectly) that EV batteries only last 10 years. Given that EVs have only been sold in Australia for just a little over 10 years and in the early years sales figures were low, there is simply not the volume of clapped-out batteries to sustain the recycling industry. it is somewhat different in Europe the US and China. One of the biggest battery recycling plants in the US is up and running There is immaturity in EV recycling is mostly because of the lack of end-of-life batteries. Then there are second life uses. If you confidently assert that EV batteries are toast after 10 years then why are there examples of second-life projects? Even by your extremely pessimistic estimation of battery life, you must surely admit that there would be few batteries having reached total end of life. I would love to get my hands on one to use as a home battery but extremely hard to find. I suspect that for some of the anti-EV crowd, it has more to do with anxiety about change. Look if EV are just a totally crap idea they will fail to replace IC cars. If EVs are all failing at 10 years (they are not) and if landfill are overflowing with old dead batteries people will reject them. I do not think that will happen but I guess we will just have to revisit this topic every year or so for the next ten years to see what happens.

People of course are entitled to their own opinions. The problem comes when people believe their opinions are facts. Truth is incredibly important. If someone says 100 EVs have caught fire in Australia this is not asserting an opinion but it is presenting a falsehood. As I have said many many times I don't care whether hate EVs and don't ever wish to drive one, that is totally fair enough they don't have to buy one. Red do you have an example of people denying someone's opinion?

Although there are quite a few errors and in fact, some of the assertions were actually changed in subsequent editions (see the video that KG posted) I do actually agree with the above statement. Pretty much the only reason I have not bought an EV is that my present car is old but in good condition for its age and but would probably not fetch much if I sold it. It would be foolhardy I think we could suddenly change the whole fleet in a short time. The change is slow. In 2034 with the present timetable, you will be able to buy a shiny new IC car (although I doubt it will be economical). Atkinson is right on that point. The model of changing a car (of any type) every 3 years is problematic Although of course if someone does change their EV after 3 years, it is not being scrapped but it becomes available on the used car market.

As I understand it the car has an inbuilt inverter. At this stage, Tesla vehicles do not support vehicle to load.

oops my bad https://www.cnet.com/home/energy-and-utilities/solar-panels-that-work-at-night-developed-at-stanford/

I think mining companies pay royalties to the government. Whether the amount is appropriate is another question (I don't know)

The team from the School of Photovoltaic and Renewable Energy Engineering generated electricity from heat radiated as infrared light, in the same way as the Earth cools by radiating into space at night. Solar Panels That Work at Night Developed at Stanford

They don't have to fly in cash every week. The article that Red posted specifically says once a week. Money people withdraw does not necessarily end up back at the post office. Some may be spent out of the area and some may be held onto by some people. Of course some may be deposited back at the post office

Big Battery Storage Map of Australia There are also growing numbers of home batteries with can sell back to the grid. Growing numbers of EVs with the ability take from the grid when power is plentiful and give power when the grid is struggling. Ever-expanding rooftop solar increasing support by battery. The wholesale price of electricity according to AEMO is falling https://aemo.com.au/newsroom/media-release/east-coast-wholesale-electricity-prices-fall I could go on

Onetrack I have previously put the example of the music school I worked at and my wife managed. Huge sums of money coming in every day during the first week of the term. Her sitting there behind the counter at 8PM with few people around. Even if the owner had invested in an expensive safe that doesn't stop someone from coming in and demanding the safe be opened. Why should the owner of this business be compelled to take cash? If people don't like it they can go to a competitor. Cash handling does take time. Tallying up at the end of the day etc. All the money surely can't stay at the business site. At some time some of it is going to end up in the bank and someone has to take it there. Yes, cash was the preferred method in the past but bank robberies were also common. Back when I joined the airforce we were paid in cash. On pay day the duty sergeant and duty corporal would go down to pay section and pick up the unit's pay. They would then spend quite a while working out the breakdown of denominations paid to each person. (getting it wrong was bad). This system changed somewhat in 1984 when there was a huge armed robbery on Holsworthy army base on a payday. After this when the pay was picked up it was accompanied by an armed guard. We were just one unit on the base, this procedure was done for every unit. Eventually, that was scrapped and money went straight into our account. My understanding is that cash transactions have declined to 13% People are voting with their feet. By the way, no one has suggested who should pay the $4000 a week for the post office at Cooper Pedy to fly cash in. I think it is a reasonable question.

Cash also has hidden costs. Money has to be printed or minted transported and protected. It has to be manually counted it has to be securely stored or transported back to the bank. For an extreme example, the post office in Cooper Pedt, $4000 a week to supply enough cash for those who prefer it. I am happy for people to use the method that suits them. A business should not be compelled to take cash if it is too onerous. That is fair enough, isn't it?

True but the most recent figure I can find is that there are around 4200 post offices. This represents a branch network that is phenomenally bigger than any bank has or has ever had. I guess the question is should the government subsidise unprofitable post office branches? Unlike the big banks, I don't think the post office is raking in the billions. By the way, I am not necessarily against the taxpayer subsidizing services. In the article you linked to it stated that the post office in Cooper Pedy pays $4000 a week to fly in cash. My question is who should pay for that and is it a good use of money when there are more efficient ways?

This is increasingly true of several banks. I have never been inside a branch of my bank and I don't think I ever will. I have absolutely no need to. You can transact at your local post office. To me it is well worth banking with a bank that doesn't do all the things that people complain about. You can't have everything The protections around banking online are quite strong. It is pretty safe as long as you take simple precautions such as not sharing your password and using double authentication etc. Successful scams usually involve people being conned into revealing their bank details. Carrying cash or having sums of money in the home poses a risk.

I do suspect that even the most enthusiastic users of cash still do a lot of digital transactions. One thing I have to do is manage my mother's money as she is in aged care. Having power of attorney I have full authority to transact on her account and she does have a reasonably large sum of money. It does feel like quite a responsibility. I could draw it all out and move to a country with no extradition treaty (I am of course joking). We live in a different state paying her bills would be a little challenging with cash. I think cash to some degree will be with us for some time although its use is diminishing.

Perhaps you should change banks. This is where I bank https://www.bankaust.com.au/about-us The thing is people like to complain but seldom take control. Owned by the customers who by having an account are shareholders and get to vote on the bank's direction. No executive bonuses.

Just to reiterate I am not trying to convince anyone to adopt any particular method of payment. For me, operating cash is just too onerous. Having retired a couple of years ago we are living on our super. This super is not in the local bank but an amount goes into our bank account monthly. There has been much talk on this forum about greedy profit-driven banks. My bank is owned by its customers. I have never paid any fee with this bank. The downside (for some) is that it does not have branches everywhere. I could go down and queue up at the post office but I have better things to do with my time. This morning we got our weekly delivery of fruit, veggies, and fish. We started getting these deliveries during the early stages of COVID-19 and liked it so much that we have kept it up. We pay for this digitally. I do not imagine they would want to set the driver up to take cash and to carry enough change for every transaction. Because this is a regular arrangement delivery is free. When I do go to a supermarket I certainly do not want to have to go to a bank. When we buy petrol we usually use an app which means we don't even have to go to the service station. We started doing this during the worst of covid. We fly to Adelaide 4 times a year. We always book online after searching for the cheapest and most convenient flight. For our next trip, we thought we would do something different and go by train. This was organized and paid for online. I suppose I could have driven to the nearest station and handed over the cash. There are items that we want to examine in person but looking at most of my recent purchases we are happy to read and watch online reviews and then use the net to find the best deal. My credit card costs me $50 a year but this is offset by $200 rewards. We have not paid a cent in interest in the last 5 years. Sometimes there is a surcharge but it is miniscule and certainly cheaper than driving to the bank every week. I cant really see that my life would be better if I drew out money every week.

Whilst this can be true for some things it is not true for the majority of what I spend. I have paid cash for an aircon install but it has to be understood that they are no doubt giving you a fraction of what they are saving in creative accounting with regards to paying tax. Day to day most of us are not paying for items like this. I have just been looking through my credit card statement and I can't see anything in this category. Bunnings are not going to give me a discount, the local cafe won't or the supermarket. If I do pay the occasional surcharge from time to time it is no big deal. I pay down my credit card every Friday and review what I have spent so I pay zero interest. My credit card charges a $50 annual fee but I earn points which I use exclusively for Bunnings vouchers ($200 per year) Again I really don't care what others do, I do what I do because for me it is cheaper and more convenient and aids with accounting.

Woolworths IGA and Coles don't have a surcharge but Aldi does (0.5%) https://www.finder.com.au/how-to-avoid-bank-fees-at-the-supermarket

My son just sent me this surprise visitor he filmed Wellington NZ airport about 10 minutes ago. Untitled 179.mp4

I am in no way having a go at what others do but at my local coffee shop I use my card even just for one coffee. It does not cost anything extra, it is helpful to them in terms of not having to maintain a cash float and at the end of the week I can check how much I have spent, It works well for me.

Yes I am sure banks make plenty of money and could if they wanted to subsidize marginal branches. At some stage though we will have situations where an armored van will deliver cash for the few who still want it. The post office mentioned in the story you linked to that pays $4000 a week to have cash on hand, who should pay for that? Should the Post office pass that on to all customers? The fact is that increasingly fewer people want to use cash. I have absolutely no interest in trying to convince anyone to stop using cash. i also believe you should not compel a business to accept cash if it does not work for them. An example I have offered up before in this thread is the music studio I worked in in Canberra. My wife managed the business for the owner. We would get people to pay for the whole term on the first lesson. Back then this was $350. The hours of operation were between 3PM and 8PM. The area was industrial and after 5PM deserted except for music school students. We used to insist on digital payment over the phone or in person. It would have been monumentally stupid to have someone sitting on the desk with several thousand in the till in this area. I think the business was/is both legally and ethically entitled to only accept digital forms of payment even if only for the sake of the safety of the staff. Again I don't really care how people operate their finances.

I am happy for people to use cash if they want to however I don't think a business should be compelled to accept cash or that matter a card if they don't want to. I am happy to pay a surcharge to use digital means as long as people who use cash pay the costs associated with that. It was the post office. Any business that deals in cash must ensure that they have sufficient cash on hand and in reasonable denominations. Cash has to come from somewhere and there are costs associated with this.

Yes, I watched that earlier. Another example of right-wing media propaganda.

The problem is that drawing out cash is also dependent on a power-dependant network. When you draw out money from a supermarket or post office they don't just hand you a wad of cash and write it down in a ledger. Power being out of course does not necessarily stop the transfer of the data required to do business. If I buy a cheeky glass of wine on an airliner it does not require grid power. If I buy something at a country market it does not require power, even the tofu vegan crowd has a wireless EFTPOS device. Having read the article I have a few questions. Should a private company be compelled to act as a defacto bank by allowing people to take cash if it is economically disadvantageous? "Australia Post, for instance, recently revealed it was spending about $4,000 a week to fly cash to Coober Pedy in South Australia to make sure residents had access to cash." This appears to be incredibly inefficient. My question Red is who should pay for this? I am happy for people to use inefficient cash as long as they are willing to pay the associated costs. I am happy to pay a tiny surcharge to use digital methods. As for horror stories of people traveling 800km to get cash, who would do that? There are easier ways to handle money.

I think most non-rechargeable hearing aid batteries are zinc-air batteries and rechargeable hearing aid batteries are lithium-ion.