12 July 2024

The road may get bumpy but there's no going back for EVs

| Ian Bushnell
Join the conversation
129

The 2024 BYD Seal Performance AWD from China. EVs will only become more efficient, diverse and affordable as the transition gathers pace. Photo: James Coleman.

For some, they are just a way to get from point A to point B, but motor vehicles are much more than that.

If there was one consumer item that defined how we live, work, love and play, it would have to be the car.

Everybody remembers, usually with affection, their first (car, that is). Even if it was a bomb, that first car represented freedom, the ability to travel far beyond the limited geography of previous years.

It was also another private space beyond the family home or the bedroom to take refuge in, extra special because it was mobile.

READ ALSO When 500,000 homes in Victoria lost power, these Canberra EVs got to work

My first car was a Toyota Corolla that ran on the smell of an oily rag but needed the radiator filled every couple of hundred k’s or so. It went to from Brisbane to Sydney and back before I had the head or something like that replaced.

I sold it for $300 after it got banged up – all my own fault.

It also had manual transmission, which I’m told only real drivers use. But it didn’t take me long to realise that auto was the way to go.

Change can be easy sometimes, but some find it hard to let go. Even the move to unleaded fuel had its opponents.

Now we’re facing another change, and one far more monumental than before.

For some, the switch to electric power will tear the heart and soul out of motoring. Without oil, petrol and the roar of an engine, the road is somehow less inviting. But that’s a bit like how steam can enhance the romance of rail, yet we wouldn’t tolerate the cinders and smoke all the time.

Others embrace the quiet, clean power of the EV and see its potential as the technology develops even further.

The range anxiety is understandable. With a fully established network of service stations, the internal combustion engine may be dirty but reliable.

And in a country like Australia, with its long distances between cities and towns, the thought of your car dying in the middle of nowhere can be terrifying.

Yet, most Australians live in cities and do most, if not all, of their driving within a limited range, meaning they can charge at home.

For the open road, batteries are getting more efficient and the charging station network is being developed but needs to be accelerated. Hopefully, the arrival of new EV models as a result of the new vehicle efficiency standard will help drive this further, as well as increasing the number of models and bring prices down.

In fact, highway service centres should by now all have to provide a charging capacity that can grow as the number of EVs increases.

Sales figures show a steady uptake of EVs despite the negative headlines and social media mischief fed by a combination of industry resistance, genuine apprehension and, unfortunately, a degree of politically motivated culture war.

READ ALSO Canberra racetrack that pulled a 3000-strong crowd in one night wins government funding

This is an industry in transition.

Today’s EVs are not perfect (and were ICE vehicles ever that?), which is why, for some, the hybrid will be the bridge to going fully electric.

There are issues to sort out, but the change is happening, in spite of headlines such as half of all EV drivers would go back to an ICE, or that sales are stalling, or how many social media pictures of EV fires there are.

EV technology will advance, batteries will evolve, and models will become more diverse and affordable as economies of scale increase.

We need to decarbonise transport as part of the overall bid to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate global warming. That should be a given.

The chariot was constantly changing throughout history. This change is just more important than any before.

Join the conversation

129
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

John Cardogan – motor vehicle engineer. You reckon he might know, eh?

Add in that it appears Climate Change cant be proven scientifically, the whole faulty push for EVs just crumbles when you realize it appears the total underpinnings are just hot air.
People should as a starting point research the data from the 800,000 years of Vostok Ice Cores data that show CO2 increase follows temperature increase, the opposite of the climate change fantasy. Or put another way, as the world warms up, Co2 follows behind. Basic science.

I think John Cardogan says it best about the cult of EVs with this video
https://youtu.be/f9MHj3Vcom8?si=N6lfnA56JhcegGPO

There is no evidence that current levels of CO2 (which are historically low at around 400 parts per million) are harmful to the planet. Further, climate scientists have determined, and both sides agree, that the warming effect of each molecule of CO2 decreases significantly (logarithmically) as its concentration increases. This is one reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming when the concentration of CO2 was approaching 20 times that of today. This inconvenient fact, important though it is, is kept very well hidden and is rarely mentioned, for it undermines the theory of future catastrophic climate change. Diminishing returns apply.

CaptainSpiff11:40 am 13 Jul 24

@Mark – how rude of you – disrupting the narrative like that with actual facts.

Here are a couple more (doomers please hold your ears):

* Satellite measurements confirm the earth is greening thanks to increased CO2 levels. Obvious really, but for some reason the climate cult never talks about this.

* The mild warming that has occurred so far (a whole degree in the last 150 years!) has on net saved lives, as many more people die from cold than from heat.

@Captain Spiff
Yes, you are right, the earth is greening – but that’s not necessarily a good thing, as this article (https://www.vox.com/down-to-earth/2024/2/7/24057308/earth-global-greening-climate-change-carbon) explains.

As for “mild warming”? (your description which is not supported by scientists).
Perhaps you’d like to compare the number of lives saved from your “positive” outcome, as opposed to the number of lives lost from the catastrophic weather events attributed to climate change?

CaptainSpiff10:48 am 14 Jul 24

@JS Like all good little climate cultists, your automatic response is Appeal to Authority. Hilarious though that your authority is a vox.com journalist (!) But anyway, maybe you can summarize the tripe and explain to us how it’s Actually a Bad Thing that the earth is getting greener? Perhaps you would prefer that it got browner?

And “Mild warming” – how else would you describe it? Depending on which dataset you look at, the global surface temperature can be considered to have risen roughly 1 degree in the last 150 years. That’s a fact! Sorry if it doesn’t suit your “catastrophic” narrative.

As for attributing catastrophic weather events to “climate change” (i.e. 1 degree of warming in 150 years), this is the ridiculous game that the media loves to play. Good luck finding any kind of scientific process by which such attribution could take place.

@Captain Spiff
Like you, I am not an expert on climate change. While you stick to the ill-informed denialist “climate change is cr*p” mantra, I rely on the proven, peer reviewed scientific expertise of others to inform and educate me. So, yes my “authority” on this occasion is a vox.com environmental correspondent whose article is supported by links to scientific publications and research papers.

So, because you are unwilling to inform yourself, let me help you with a few salient points from the article.

A 2019 Nature Sustainability study, using satellite data, found that the Earth had increased its green leaf area (i.e. the amount of leaves) by 5 percent in the last two decades. The study found that the dominant driver of recent global greening is a combination of more farming and, to a lesser extent, more tree planting. People are growing more crops on the same amount of land and turning barren patches of soil into verdant farms. These trends are especially prominent in China and India. Together, these two countries account for roughly one-third of all greening.
Planted forests often comprise just one or two tree species and don’t offer much in the way of biodiversity or other benefits, like erosion control. In some cases, the trees eventually die.
There’s a lot that color alone leaves out, such as what that “green” is made of. Companies commonly tear up native forests to plant commercial crops. Satellite data alone struggles to capture these changes in land use.
Industrial farms not only replace native ecosystems but require huge amounts of water and chemicals, such as fertilizers and pesticides (which are known to harm humans and ecosystems). The Imperial Valley of Southern California, once a desert, is now covered in vast stretches of farmland. Those farms have turned the region green — and it’s visible from space — yet they’ve done so, in part, by draining the Colorado River and fueling a water war.
Making nitrogen fertilizer and other agrochemicals requires a huge amount of energy, which typically comes from fossil fuels. Plus, much of the carbon absorbed by plants on a farm gets reemitted into the environment after they’re harvested.
No doubt you’ll come back with – but they are producing food! While CO2 fertilization can make some crops grow faster, research has also found that it can decrease their nutritional value. So pumping CO2 into the air means more but often less-nutritious vegetation.
So, greening is occurring but it’s not inherently good. Sometimes it’s bad. Context, it turns out, matters a lot.

CaptainSpiff6:57 pm 15 Jul 24

@JS You’re twisting yourself into a pretzel, just to defend a precious narrative. Are you seriously arguing that higher CO2 levels are a negative for plant and crop growth? Really?

It’s hard to believe such basic facts can elude you. Are you aware that farmers enrich CO2 levels in their greenhouses?

You are so far from science that it’s not even funny.

@CaptainSpiff
Perhaps you should actually check the science before you dig (pun intended) yourself an even bigger hole. Data from multiple sources shows that elevated levels of CO2 has a negative effect on plant biology – specifically it may deteriorate the nutritional quality of most staple crops, leading to malnutrition and health problems.

So, rather than deningration and baseless denials go away and do some real research.

Keyboard Warrior10:35 pm 12 Jul 24

What’s a 10:year old EV with a failing battery going to be worth?
Unlike conventional engines that go forever, there is going to be a stockpile of these beautiful cars stacked up at the junk yard in just 10 years.
How environmentally friendly is that?!

Conventional engines Do Not go forever, although if you maintain them regularly (oil, oil filters, air filters, spark plugs, spark cables, engine seals, etc etc) you may extend their useful life to a few 100K if you’re lucky. And less face it, mechanics don’t do engine re-builds anymore – they replace them with specialist refurbed units.
On the other hand, electric engines have minimal moving parts to wear and do not require maintenance. Batteries are useable in an EV until ~70% efficiency, after which time they can be either recycled (there are growing companies who are piloting this) or re-purposed. But unless there’s a fault in the battery to degrade it quickly, current data on efficiency loss suggests a battery pack will take an EV much, much further than that above.

Agree…..It would be like buying a second hand washing machine!!!!But at least the washing machine would be easier to shift when it ‘drops dead’!

I don’t want an EV just yet, until battery safety is vastly improved. Lithium car batteries are highly flammable, difficult to put out, burn at extremely high temperature and emit toxic fumes. If we’re all driving EVs then all the car crashes everywhere will be much more dangerous than now with ice vehicles. Imagine a multi ev car prang in a Sydney tunnel and a fire breaks out. The toxic cloud will overwhelm everyone in the vicinity. One or two breaths of the toxic fumes will knock you out. This would result in multiple fatalities. just last month a lithium ion battery factory fire in South Korea killed 22 people. No-one seems to be talking about this. Teslas advice if your car battery catches fire is:
“Battery fires can take up to 24 hours to extinguish. Consider allowing the battery to burn while protecting exposures.” Thanks Tesla! I wouldn’t want to live in an apartment complex with a basement full of evs, too dangerous imltho.

I must be in the 40%…I never, ever want my old clunker back…

If you are thinking of getting a hybrid, but could afford a full BEV (Battery EV), get the BEV. Hybrids had a place. It was five or six years ago when infrastructure and battery range was still being developed. Today, in my experience, BEV can do the majority of things a driver wants from a car. I’ve driven BEV for 4 years, 64000 km, and – over the years – been a driver, owner and professional user of cars for 50 years. These are the best tech I’ve ever owned or driven.

I do. Not sure what you’re raising here.

Daniel O'CONNELL3:16 pm 12 Jul 24

So why don’t they pay rego in the ACT like everyone else?

They do. Next whinge point.

So what’s your point, other than perpetuating a social media myth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aYd2OCNhdg&ab_channel=9NewsAustralia

@Peter H
… and your point is?

To wind you up?

..to wind you up, my dear boy!

@Peter H
… whatever floats your boat

kaleen_calous2:11 pm 12 Jul 24

From this potential new vehicle buyer’s perspective EV are an immature technology. While electric motors, chassis set-up, control and hotel services are first rate the batteries remain a work in progress. I would say at least 10 years before the range, stability and cost is anywhere near present ICE vehicle standards. The lithium based chemistry of current EV battery technology is unlikely to remain the standard. Today’s EV purchase will quickly become so obsolete that it will be laughable in a few years. This means your $60k purchase will be virtually worthless very quickly. I think I will hang onto my diesel ICE for a bit longer than I would like. On the other hand buying a new ICE vehicle would likely become a stranded asset.

Yes, batteries are advancing, which is rather the point, though the other doubts are, doubtful.

“On the other hand buying a new ICE vehicle would likely become a stranded asset.”

You may consider it the other tail of the issues facing early adopters. For them, rapid technological and manufacturing improvements lower new prices, raising effective costs on renewal. The other tail, for late adopters, is deflated values of stranded assets.

EVs have had their 15 minutes of fame but sadly haven’t proven themselves very reliable, efficient or clean. With tanking second hand values and batteries that cost tens of thousands to replace, there seems to be a lot of buyers regret these days. A recent study in America showed that 60% of EV owners won’t buy another one.

It’s a cult.

I’ll stick with diesel. There is no scientific proof that climate change is real anyway, so the main reason for pushing EVs is a dead duck…..

kaleen_calous1:48 pm 12 Jul 24

⏲️ wind-up stirrer or fantasist – can’t work out which from here.

Still failing to define “scientific proof”, stevew77?

To refer to your previous feeble effort, I will define a galactic seahorse as “what it says”.

When you can manage that pretty basic definition, I will again invite you to state in what respects climate change falls outside all other science.

@kaleen_calous, probably both though I lean more to your latter.

CaptainSpiff10:08 am 12 Jul 24

Predictable puff piece from a climate doomer.

EV’s are great technology. One only wishes they could be treated as just that, rather than being the subject of religious affection by deluded “save the world” type people.

Lefty Boomer9:33 am 12 Jul 24

Riotact has a famously conservative comments section and today is no different. Grasping at anything to bolster that sinking feeling when they see the growing numbers of EVs on the road. I’m doing a count each rip into Canberra (about 60km) and since 2022, when I’d see one ev per trip, now it’s regularly 15-18 per trip. The comments sections on ev articles are lighting up with the angst.
Most articles are clickbait/noise that just obscures the hard numbers.

Private transport makes maybe 20% of Australia’s greenhouse gases so even if we all went to EVs tomorrow it would make little difference to our carbon footprint.
And don’t forget most EVs are charged with electricity generated from burning coal.

“The road may get bumpy but there’s no going back for EVs”, except for if you buy Chinese made crap.

They say more about your political alliance than ‘saving the planet’.

The current grid can’t be satisfied with pure renewables and additional load is needed to be met with additional dispatchable power this is coal or gas generators.

The difference of charging an EV is more coal burned, for a vehicle that has range anxiety and would otherwise burn petrol.

EV charging with distribution losses.. 40% loss is lost as waste heat.

We’ve also had EVs before Ian. So this change has come and gone already.

A Nonny Mouse9:47 am 12 Jul 24

What about the ‘transmission losses’ with petroleum fuels? How much is burned just to get the petrol to your car? Fuel for the tanker taking crude from the middle east to Singapore, more tanker fuel bringing refined petrol to an Australian port, more burned in a road tanker taking it to your local petrol station.
As for electrical distribution losses, they are zero when charging from home solar. When charging from the grid they are well under 10%. Nothing like 40% is lost as heat.
However, an Internal combustion engine does lose most of the energy of its fuel as waste heat. Only about 25-30% actually pushes the car along. 70-75% is lost as heat.

Keyboard Warrior10:41 pm 12 Jul 24

“75% lost as heat” I’m fairly neutral on this debate but seriously who the hell told you this? Thanks for the laugh..

Keyboard Warrior makes multiple anti EV comments but then claims to be “fairly neutral”.

LOL, yes thanks for the laugh.

As to the topic, please lookup ICE engine efficiency and you will see that 25% efficiency is standard, the vast majority of energy is lost as heat. Which the cooling systems on every ICE vehicle should have given you the hint for.

Ahh fond memories of my first car, for exactly the reasons mentioned – freedom and independence.

A VW Beetle with its distinctive engine noise, and then a Golf.

We are on our first EV now, and enjoy the ease of driving it. Quiet, smooth and decidedly nippy.

We also have a diesel vehicle, so are not about preaching environmental arguments.

I’m sure our energy source(s) will continue to evolve and we will see Hydrogen as a real option too within the decade.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.