Electric car thread

[Marty_d]

I'm someone who's looking at an EV maybe 5 years hence ( if our current cars last that long).

I was interested in Teslas before he went off the rails, but now there's no way in hell I'd buy one.

Chinese for me. 

[old man emu]

28 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

Chinese for me. 

With six you get egg roll.

[onetrack]

And don't forget the operating manual is in Chinglish!!

[facthunter]

Musk has trashed his OWN  brand . Teslas are made in China anyhow. SO are Trumps BIBLES. Cost $3 USD,  sell for $50 USD.   Nev

[red750]

15 minutes ago, facthunter said:

SO are Trumps BIBLES.

And the RED hats.

[facthunter]

IS NOTHING SACRED??    What's the Mark-up on them? Nev

[Litespeed]

Mark up on a MAGA hat?

 

Loss of 80. IQ points on average

[facthunter]

THAT would put some in a MINUS territory. Nev

[Litespeed]

MAGA hats are the new ten gallon hat for a tea cup brain.

[old man emu]

MAGA caps don't stop you getting a red neck.

[kgwilson]

Musk was a visionary, a bit like Steve Jobs of Apple. Apple now are the 3rd largest mobile phone maker after Samsung & Xaiomi now that Jobs is dead. He was reputedly an arsehole but developed a following of iphone fans that were almost like disciples. Apple will end up like Nokia, once by far the biggest mobile phone company. iphones have become boring with few new or innovative features and are far too expensive. An iphone 16 looks almost the same as an iphone 11

 

Now Musk is orchestrating the demise of the company he created with his antics and ultra right wing concepts. He is the richest person on the planet & was given a $US65 Billion salary in 2024 from Tesla. The US justice dept would not approve it even though it was approved by Teslas shareholders & would be one of the reasons he jumped in to bed with Trump

 

The EV industry is far bigger than just Tesla and while in some markets the increases slowed in 2024, world wide the increase in sales was pretty much as expected, championed of course by the Chinese who now produce by far the most EVs and are way ahead in innovation and battery technology as well as almost every part of the support infrastructure from high speed charging, 5 minute battery swap stations etc. Many of the legacy auto makers will not survive even in the medium term. There were 17. 1 million new EVs sold globally in 2024 up from 13.6 million in 2023 & 10.4 million in 2022. About 114,000 EVs were sold in Australia in 2024, still a small percentage of cars sold but a record high.

[nomadpete]

7 hours ago, kgwilson said:

Musk was a visionary, a bit like Steve Jobs of Apple.

So some say. But I rather think of them as alert opportunists.

 

Collectively, their longer term success look to me looks less admirable.

Edited February 5 by nomadpete

[facthunter]

Money, Power and Greed  is addictive and mind altering.  Nev.

[facthunter]

When you're filthy rich you get FUNNY friends who wouldn't give you the Time of day IF you weren't filthy rich. Nev

[red750]

https://au.yahoo.com/news/tesla-chooses-aussie-coal-town-074551573.html

[facthunter]

Dutton's "PLANNED" a Nuculer Power plant at Collie. 78nkms from a cooling  water source.  Nev

[facthunter]

ALL you happy ICE car drivers might concern yourselves with our Hydrocarbon FUEL RESERVES. Nev

[onetrack]

Dutton's nuclear plans will never find majority support, and the timing of his nuclear plants only ensures his fossil-fuel mates keep making a big killing from coal and oil. It would be at least 20 years before he could get a nuclear plant up and running (thanks to cost overruns, and construction delays galore) - and by then, battery and renewable technologies would make nuclear power look positively stone-age. Virtually every single nuclear plant in the civilised world is multiple years behind schedule, and multiple billions over budget.

 

Historical trend:
Nuclear power plants have historically been prone to cost overruns and delays, particularly in recent decades, with projects in Europe, North America, and Asia facing significant issues. 
Reasons for delays:
Factors like complex design, intricate safety regulations, unexpected geological conditions, supply chain disruptions, and labour issues can contribute to prolonged construction times. 
Impact of cost overruns:
These delays often lead to significantly higher project costs, making nuclear power less financially viable in some regions. 

 

Edited February 8 by onetrack

[pmccarthy]

So,which large projects are not subject to these three effects?

[Jerry_Atrick]

That's a very good point...  The question then becomes which are more likely to run into overruns, and what is the magnitude of those overruns?

 

I don't know, so I asked the internet about the difference of cost and time blowouts of nuclear versus renewable project, and the closest response to the question I got was from AI, which cites interesting articles on why nuclear is more suscetoble to these effects:

 

However, haven't had enough time to research myself, so am happy to have AI corrected, but it sort of makes sense that nuclear would be more prone to overruns as it is more complex, and as a species, we are pretty terrible at estimating things, especially when confirmation biask kicks in as we want to do the project.

 

But, even assuming there is the same chance an in relative terms, it has the same impact, by definition, the hideously expensive, complex, and long durations to build nuclear as opposed to renewables will mean that the impact of these overruns will be massively higher.. does it not? And so why a) go to the initial much longer term and much higher expense and then incur much longer duration and much higher additional costs... for the same output...

 

This quotes a CSIRO analysis. OK, it is summarised by the climate council - I don't have time to review it, but even if these are slight bendings of the truth, you would be crazy in Australia to go nuclear today; 20 years ago - yeah - but today - just plain stupid: https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/csiro-confirms-nuclear-fantasy-would-cost-twice-as-much-as-renewables/

 

To quote - the cost of electricity will be double. Lets say thats an overstatement - even if it is 50% higher, why wouls yoou pursue it?

 

Then the average cost overruns in relative, not absolute terms puts nuclear storage (and we are going to need some) at 230%, and nuclear power at 120%. Solar is 1%, wind is 13%, and hydro is 75% (which would be attribued to its higher complexity)... Even at the highest overrun, it is 60% of nuclear's lowest average overruns, but I would hesitate to guess most of Autralia's renewable mix would be solar and wind.

 

You don't need me to explain the maths of the stupidity of pursuing nuclear in Australia on the pure economics..

 

And, it will probably create as many jobs, and the best thing is they will be distributed in the regions rather than concentrated.

 

 

 

Edited February 8 by Jerry_Atrick

[red750]

49 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

So,which large projects are not subject to these three effects?

Ask the Vic government.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Good point.. and other states too.. Victoria, although disproportionately reported by the MSM, is not the only one.. Just so happens, Adnrews wasn't as hated by the MSM as the others: https://grattan.edu.au/news/34b-and-counting-beware-cost-overruns-in-an-era-of-megaprojects/

 

It's more about the size and complexity than any  particular government. Let's dface it, they provide the costs by the contractors engaged, they don't come up with a number whipped from their own posterior.

 

 

Edited February 8 by Jerry_Atrick

[pmccarthy]

I recall that the CSIRO has admitted that they have no expertise is estimating the cost of nuclear. They subcontracted the work to a consultant who also had no specific expertise, and who used juniors to Google the information needed for their estimate.

[onetrack]

Very few large projects are unaffected by cost overruns and delays. Expensive land requisitions bumps up project costs today. But a monstrous project to build multiple nuclear reactors in Australia has never been undertaken in the history of the nation, and it is expenditure, on which hangs our national energy security, for multiple decades to come.

 

So, we would have to import overseas experts (usually American, perhaps Europeans and British), at additional cost (think of the Snowy Hydro project, which was very dependent on American advice, engineering and construction knowledge, American construction companies, and 100,000 immigrants from 30 countries), because the skills are not currently here.

 

Neither do we have 100,000 displaced WW2 immigrants to provide the labour force for nuclear power plant construction. Perhaps Dutton is planning to import Indian labourers on visas, as the Arabs do?

 

The Snowy Hydro scheme cost us $820M over 25 years and was completed on time and on budget - due to American expertise and quick learning by Australians and the immigrant workers.

However, the vast percentage of the Snowy Hydro Scheme employees were paid relatively low wages and endured spartan living and working conditions, that are unacceptable today.

 

We have the expertise , the labour and the experience to build solar farms, wind turbines, pumped hydro, install grid backup batteries, and even build desalination plants. But we have exactly zero experience with any nuclear power station construction, and it will be a large, sharp, and expensive learning curve, for all involved, if any nuclear power installation does actually go ahead.

[Jerry_Atrick]

7 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

I recall that the CSIRO has admitted that they have no expertise is estimating the cost of nuclear. They subcontracted the work to a consultant who also had no specific expertise, and who used juniors to Google the information needed for their estimate.

 

BS!

 

Any references, because, lets face it, if that were the case, the Murcoch press would have been all over it, and it would be easy to find. But I couldn't find anything.

 

I could find an interview by Sarah Fergusson to Chris Bowen and Tim O'Brien. Let me summarise.. He stated that the CSIRO admitted to a parliamentary committee that they haad less expertise in certain areas than the IAEE - that's it. Whoopee do.. what does that prove? . Chris Bowen pointed out that with Tim O'Brien raised concerns that the CSIRO underestimated the lifecycle of nuclear plants and their operating capacity; the CSIRO took it onboard, and ran the numbers and found there was no basis for that assertion and even if there was, there would be little change: https://minister.dcceew.gov.au/bowen/transcripts/interview-sarah-ferguson-abc-730-4

 

Nothing I could find suggested the CSIRO contracted out the work, let alone to a subcontractor with no specific experience. Think about.. Globally respected scientific organisation contracts out research in a subject it has no experience in........ to an organisation that has no experience in it... Quite a stark raving made assertion. But people will use anything to justify their postiion no matter how much the facts show otherwise.

 

Virtually every respected organisation in the world that has looked at it says no.. but hey.. go by your recollection of a totally illogical scenario...