Automotive safety through education. 4X4s, sports cars, towing, car tech or whatever else I find interesting and feel like explaining. My videos tend to be long and detailed, so if you really want to understand something after not figuring it out with other videos then have a watch, if you want pure entertainment then maybe this channel isn't for you. I will not:
- use the word 'awesome' unless it is truly merited - promote products I don't believe in - attempt to create a sense of a drama when there is none
What I believe in: l2sfbc.com/about/what-i-believe-in/
I am extremely disappointed with this policy to the extent that it will be a game changer for me come election time. I simply cannot accept that EVs are a good long term solution. Clearly there are many obvious (such as charging and the source of the power) issues as well as less obvious issues such as cost of production, access to raw materials and disposal of waste. And I guess there is much more. Thanks again for another brilliant explanation.
So shorten paid(the tax payer paid )a speechwriter 600,000 dollars over 2 years. He is just one of the snouts in the trough. Yet we get higher living costs all because the political classes want their coffee shops to have clean air. Good luck getting tradies for a reasonable price. Good luck in the cities getting food at a reasonable price.
Very concise presentation without bias, excellent. I am an Electrical Engineer and had the opportunity to work on EV charger projects here (and power companies and wind power projects) and I can only say one thing - Australia does NOT have the capacity to accommodate the volumes of EVs this crazy government is throwing in our faces. While they are shutting all coal fired power stations, the baseload capacity and reliability decreases at a concerning rate and the wind/solar will never replace that. Kiss any industry investment goodbye. These new standards are simply another way to introduce the typical Labour taxes and try and force people to buy cars they don't want unfortunately. Looking at the current trends, I can see people are certainly avoiding EVs due to mainly inconvenience in charging, depreciation and obsolescence, the early adopters have purchased their EVs and now there is glut of EVs in holding yards.
Thank you! I would however ask for your calculations to prove Australia cannot handle EVs. I did some rough calcs and found the increase would be minimal - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-12RoTa4qs1E.html and, EVs can actually help load-balance by providing power to homes during periods of high demand such as a hot evening, then charging only when load reduces at night. That said, when it comes to recreational vehicle use at least, there are very significant challenges for providing charging infrastructure to cope with peak demand.
@@L2SFBCHowever this will not happen as governments dont want us to be self sufficient and have standalone power systems. They want us to be connected to poles and wires, as it is a service fee that continually makes them money and thus 'power'. You are being idealistic( nothing wrong with that) as opposed to realistic. But hey if self sufficiency becomes viable, im all in. Screw the elites
Hi Robert, Loved the Video and your explanation regarding the governments new taxes for 4X4 now that you have done that could you also do a comparison of the cost and pollution for the EV extra power station emissions, the pollution form Lithium batteries etc etc and then way up the pros and cons with NVES that would be the true comparison I believe.
hi - many others have done that, no need for me to replicate their work. Every time it's been done the result is the EV is worse initially, then over time the ICE vehicle catches up and ends up with greater lifecycle emissions. The only difference is where that crossover point occurs; that's dependent on mileage, size of battery, how the battery is charged etc etc.
Great video - I’m a Grenadier owner in the US. Very interested in the Fusilier ReX as a “run around town do some gravel roads and go skiing” scenario - something for my wife as her daily. It should be capable but doesn’t have to be a tank and don’t expect it to measure up to the Grenadier off-road capabilities. In the US and Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Australia and Africa, an off-road EV is a non-starter. The Rivians are really only being used by soccer moms around town. In other words, “good enough” performance for the Fusilier will be, you guessed it, good enough.
If the purpose of the measure is to reduce CO2 emissions, then the question arises as to how the electricity is generated in Australia. Will the additional consumption by EVs be green electricity? How is the fast charging network developed? Fast charging means a charging capacity of 150kW or more. If these requirements are not met, then there is no point in EVs
There is a point to it even without considering how the electricity is generated. Even coal-powered EVs have advantages in emissions, and also consider that vehicles pollute in population centres, coal stations away from the populated centres.
One issue that isn’t considered is the amount of CO2 that is generated to fuel the EV. Nuclear is off the table for electricity generation so if there is no wind or it’s at night gas or coal will enable electricity generation. Another point is how much CO2 is generated to get the lithium, cobalt etc out of the ground and refined? And even if it was all solar or wind where are these things made? Yes, correct China, where they use enormous amounts of coal for their manufacturing and where do a lot of that come from? Again correct, Australia, how obscene is that. Punish the plebs but allow the millionaires to make even more and of course nothing will ever happen about that because that would decimate our economy.
Coal-powered EVs are not an environmental disaster in the big picture, once the electricity is made then losses are small - if that's to be compared consider the cost of finding, transporting, refining and re-transporting oil. The whole mining thing - yes, EVs need those minerals, but so would any vehicle, and EVs can at least second-life their batteries or recycle, albeit with more energy use. It'd be nice to see huge incentives for solar panels which again would make EVs more attractive, and reduce coal-power dependence.
This was ridiculously helpful, thankyou. I have a Suzuki Grand Vitara I'm about to upgrade my wheels and tires on (from 226/65/R17 to something on a 16in wheel) and the irony of seeing a GV in this video made me smile a lot!
This really upsets me. I worked hard all my life to one day buy a brand new petrol v8 Holden. I will be hanging onto my old cars petrols and diesels as long as I can
Can you explain what’s happening with doltinthedirt Everest sliding backwards with front wheels locked but not back wheels? Are they using foot brake/handbrake/no brake? What is this telling us? Would this not happen to a 4x4 with centre diff lock in the same situation?
In terms of punishing a cohort it reminds me of the VicRoads scam... pay $300 per annum to register your vehicle and $500 for TAC insurance (example ratio but certainly not far fetched). Many say it's great because the TAC scheme covers the cost for road accident victims. I don't disagree with that statement but I take offence that all those who hold a Victorian drivers license and don't have a vehicle registered in their name don't contribute to the scam (sorry I meant scheme). Whereas Victorian license holders who own multiple vehicles and who don't have access to a human cloing machine to replicate themselves are paying TAC insurance for each of their vehicles, yet many (certainly those who don't have access to a cloning machine) only have the ability to operate a single vehicle at any point in time. History will repeat and NVES will be welcomed by the masses. Very frustrating.
Interesting point. I love the TAC too, great concept. Is it unfair to make drivers who own multiple cars - like me, I own two - pay twice? In a sense, no. But in another sense, yes. Need to ponder this one.
2.7 l/100km is 87mpg. Totally infeasible, even for a hybrid. Even low drag EVs are only getting 110 MPGe or so. And if you're burning coal for the electricity, your CO2 emissions will be higher than an equivalent gas engine.
Those are idiotic targets before 2030 - EVs will be running on coal fired power until they get nuclear. The rate at which those taxes come is ridiculous. The government just wants the tax. Bowen and Labor are dangerous fools. Labor needs to be sent to the wilderness again.
NVES is just a bloody carbon tax! Lol And like you say, there's no suitable EV alternatives for the 4x4's and utes. And better battery tech is a very long way off. I liked how you mentioned that light vehicals only contributed to 10% of the total co2 emissions, this is also true globally, and this really shows how insane the NVES actually is, it will be like pissing in the wind. If we were really serious about reducing our co2, in a more timely maner, we would be focusings on the bigger picture, our reliance on coal, gas, deforestation, ect.
Well, every bit helps when you're trying to achieve a goal, be that reduce emissions, lose weight, or shave thousandths off a laptime. I do support an emissions standard. Just not unrealistic ones.
@@L2SFBC unless supplying your owm electricity you are at the mercy of power companies who can raise prices at will. that isnt a good direction of travel :/
Won't make any difference, the targets are such that not even hybrids could manage them. The pro-EV people don't like hybrids, and I think it was the Greens that wanted them out of any incentives.
Thankyou for a balanced presentation of the current situation. EVs are given a very non-critical card in most of the current spin. For instance I was having a discussion with friends where an EV owner said their home power charging tariff was $0.08/KWh. While a charging station close by was $0.60/KWh. For people unable to access off street parking, the charging station could be as expensive as fossil fuel for a vehicle already significantly more expensive than a conventianal ICE vehicle.
Yes, it could be, and that's another example of EVs not fitting everyone's use case. Apartment dwellers do find it hard to charge EVs. We need to fix that, the technology is there. I think that's better done by incenting EVs not penalising non-EVs.
@@L2SFBC ev is just a stop gap and a very long term costly one until we actually have cleean energy. right now we dont so ev's arent even renewabale anyway
Hi you have explain the Australian System who well. I hear that the new Euro standards in Europe will not only affect ice vehicles but also EVS with taking admissions from tire where particles and other particles that EV and petrol vehicles will be producing . So you going to put your foot down and you burn burnout you’ll text for that part you put out in Europe UK another part of the world . The industries going the same as many other things like mini professional chainsaw manufactures have electric chainsaws for the Home handyman and some professional use to offset the missions produced by their Big 125cc /professional saws for in the forestry etc. I’ll stick with my manual transmission V8 diesel for the next 20 years thanks and I can see it will go up and value too until they ruled unroadworthy like some vehicles are being in the UK at this moment and then it’ll be worthless and it to scrap to the youth.
I dont think America has the upper weight weighting in their calculator. I may be wrong, but I have heard this in a discussion of the American system, along with the chicken tax, which is why all their vehicles are getting/got bigger. Larger engine in larger vehicle, emissions compliant
I knew we couldnt have an original idea here in Aus. Vehicles need to be made for purpose, ie more robust vehicles for regional australia and tradies. The suspensions on most modern cars die on regional roads and uses. Ergo, more cars will die and more enviromental damage as a result.
Out here in the provinces, we generally buy the heavier vehicles because they last. The roads are crap and the wildlife is bigger, so the extra suspension travel soaks up the bumps and because there is more mass to them they can be built heavier so as no to shake themselves to bits. They are also able to be serviced, rather than disposable. We have full solar at our place with a house battery, as well as an EV. Taking it to work as a daily isn't practical as there is no where to charge it there and 550km weekly commute will run it flat. So I'd need to leave it at home for a sunny day to get 1/2 a charge and leave it on all weekend (fingers crossed for it to be sunny) to hopefully get it fully charged, or buy 2 EV cars and just drive them on alternate days. More often than not it also runs the house battery down trying to fill the car battery and we run out of power in the early evening. Green utopia is a way off yet...
it's an interesting way to achieve the goal. I think it's due to the reality there is no viable alternatives, if the prices of fuel went up, it would reduce demand but not by as much as people think. I can foresee diesel hatches and other fuel efficient small cars holding their value very well.
I'm not sure about small cars holding their value. Once EVs become cheap enough, you'll buy one to save fuel. But not yet. I just did the sums and for a local runabout I'm better off driving my Ranger than buying an EV as another car. But if I could get a viable EV for $5000...that equation would change, particuarly if I got incentives such as reduced rego. I think many people would love to have low cost local motoring.
I recently bought an LC300 as I was thinking that I've just turned 60 & this will probably be the last plus 150K car I will be buying with retirement approaching. Having watched the video I'm feeling pretty good about the purchase. The vehicle should last me out. I also have a three year old Ranger ute for work which I will replace this year or next to avoid price rises. I have a RR sport that I kept as the trade in price offered was so low it didn't make sense to part exchange it on the cruiser. I'll just keep that until it becomes economically unviable. Great video - Thanks.
You have certainly started a very worthwhile discussion on this highly political topic and especially as it affects the Australians that live in regional areas. There is nothing in this proposal that accommodates hybrid technology or using alternative fuels (methane, ammonia, fuel cells, synthetic fuel) or really new alternative combustion engine technology. A concept like this proposal deserves a far wider community discussion about the nationwide transportation needs and requirements of an aging population across this vast and diverse country
Hydrogen would meet the targets as it is a ZEV (Zero Emissions Vehicle), albeit again at the tailpipe. Without wishing to drag up the whole hydrogen-electric debate, again there will be use cases where hydrogen is the best. And yes there is synthetic fuels. As I said in the video, I feel this is a pro-EV push not a low-emissions push.
@@L2SFBC very true, its outrageous to think that me, with my old car doing low annual miles will have more impact that ;any; new car. im also too old to re invest and should not be punished for this situation
Car makers that only sell the higher emissions vehicles will be in trouble. I'm looking at you Ford and Isuzu and Ram. Not many offsets available in your fleets.
Starting to run up to the laws of physics sooner than later. Big vehicles require a lot of energy to move through the air. This is why all the new EVs are designed to have such low aerodynamic drag, lower ride heights and low front bars.
@@HardstylePete yes, that was my point. Also, I think this will increase the number of older cars on the road, even as ICE technology develops to its inevitable limits. At some stage, the government is likely to increase the fuel excise, or something similar, to make older cars less viable.
The future NVES speculation was dumb and a bit FUDish. Other than that the video was ok. With this NVES I wish there was some adjunct that manufacturers could use to convert existing vehicles from ICE to EV. As in, it added to their offset calculations somehow. After all, an ICE to EV conversion is a "double win" - one less ICE and one cleaner vehicle. Note that if something was done for this, part of setting it up would require more training/jobs, etc. As for fast charging for EVs having a detriment, this is mostly for older vehicles and it's generally no longer an issue. There's more advanced battery thermal management in place now. A recent example I saw was for a Lightning that's done about 100000 miles in about 2 years, mostly fast charged (from memory 700+ times) and still has 97% battery health. The F150 Lightning is $209K, not $250K, but that's still too high. As for the lack of charging infrastructure that would deal with a lot of range issues, perhaps we could swing some of the billions in fossil fuel subsidies Australia does every year into an accelerated roll out of chargers, transmission line infrastructure, battery storage and renewable energy generation. I bet if the money became available, the range issue would reduce significantly. Obviously battery tech, etc is required to improve the max distance a vehicle can go without needing a recharge - it's happening and with NVES there's extra incentive to do more. I also wonder how many utes are being bought now just because they are more tax favourable? I suspect a number of those could be switched to something else, even EVs. Perhaps then some of those manufacturers with mixed fleets (cars, utes, etc) can adjust the quantity of what they sell and play the offset game for some time and not adjust their larger SUVs/4WD.
Thank you, great comment! 1. I marked the future as speculation; why do you say it's FUD? Right now, I see pro-EV people very much against large batteries, 4x4s etc. Why would that not translate into legislation? It may not, hence I noted it was speculation. 2. The F-150 is around $250k once you consider onroads. 3. Many EV manuals I've read say to try and charge to 80%, and reduce use of fast charging, and not let it drop below 20% (current guidance from Tesla for example). I have seen data that says there's no effect, provided the battery is conditioned etc. Essentially, the point is that you need to manage the battery and that's extra work people typically don't need when they're on a trip, and you may need close to 0-100% fast-charging as opposed to a roadcar jumping from fast-charger to fast-charger, 30-80% each time. I can't see that sort of use being good for the battery? 4. Utes and tax - who knows who "needs" a ute vs just bought one anyway. 5. Charging infrastructure - absolutely! Need a lot of more that, but even if you can stop every 250km for example for 30-60 minutes, that's still increasing journey time by a fair bit. The bigger point was localised temporary increases in population such as holiday times. 6. conversions - nowhere near cost-effective unfortunately, and converted ICEs tend to make poor EVs compared to vehicles designed as such from the ground up. But, I do agree that's another area to explore, and possibly the high cost could be made less with incentives.
@@L2SFBC For 1, I expect some reality to apply. We're getting semis that are battery powered. Energy density is increasing (and needs to) to have more onboard power for some types of vehicles. Inner city commuters? They're essentially there and just need the costs to come down (as what eventually happens with all tech disruptions). Rural/regional will need more as you've mentioned in the video. 2. Price on the Ausev website is around $209K, on roads are not $41K 3. The reason to keep within the 20 to 80 range is generally to do with the charging curve and the times to charge, nothing to do with degradation. Each EV has a charging curve where at some point it becomes much slower to add each %. The 80% figure is usually it. 4. Yes, I was wondering if the tax benefits weren't in place, how the market would like for the actual consumer demands. But as you essentially say, we can't know why a ute is being bought. 5. Again, the tech is improving all the time for charging. Recently a Polestar was charged (I think to the 80% figure) in 10 mins. There's development of even faster charging, so that 30 - 60 minutes will reduce quite quickly. Even now, the F150 Lightning can go from 20 to 80% in about 40 mins, although that's starting to look a bit slow these days. And with the range that can be covered between charges, having a break might be useful to help fight fatigue. Of course, what breaks a person needs is different for everybody, but at least for me I'm getting old enough that the charging time is rarely an issue any more. :) 6. Absolutely, the cost is such that you could buy a new EV - at least for those small mass market cars, so they are definitely not the target. However it might be a different issue for the sports cars, larger SUVs and 4WDs that might be converted for less than the cost of new. There are some places in at least Australia and UK that do conversions, e.g. of Land Rovers, etc.
I think AusEV have just reduced prices, having checked their website which has changed a bit. They started at $224k / $254 plus onroads which is well over the $250k I mentioned. Now it's lower and they're also talking about equivalent costs. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. My main point re 80% was in fact time to charge; namely when towing etc you'll often need to go say 5-95% as opposed to 20-80%, with consequent effects on charge time if not battery health. With bigger batteries in towcars that's quite a difference between a 130kWh battery going 10%-95% vs a 60kWh battery going 20-80%. Especially if you multiply that out with many wanting to charge at the same time. Consider also when towing the additional time if you need to ditch the trailer to charge - I would like to see more drive-through charge bays, but few have been designed as such. The speed of charging; there's always a headline figure, but that requires you to find a suitably fast charger, nobody else to be using the other bays, the battery to be ideally readied etc so it's not a figure to be relied on. However, even charging time isn't just the whole problem - it's availability of chargers, and concentration of demand during peak periods. These problems are by no means impossible to solve, it's "just" infrastructure build and tech advances like solid-state batteries, but we're a long way off both, and therefore in my view the legislation should reflect that, tightening over time, not now. I do not agree with the "EVs force you to take breaks therefore road safety" argument. Drivers should stop when, and as long as the human needs a break, not the machine, and EVs force stops for the machine not the human. EVs won't make irresponsible drivers responsible. Personally I like the idea of conversions and companies like Jaunt are doing great work. I hope to see commoditised kits which make converting vehicles like say MX-5s, Land Rovers and so on very cheap and easy, again possibly with incentives - I can't see anyone bothering with a Yaris. I would like to see old Leafs given new batteries, as in fact is happening already.
@@L2SFBC I essentially agree with most of what you wrote there (although I didn't mean to imply that EVs would directly improve road safety - idiots are idiots and the vehicle type won't matter). Lots of areas have to improve, but there needs to be some push for it. Some of it is "chicken and egg" type problem (e.g. charging infrastructure) that should be handled by the government. We've had decades of inaction by the Coalition and slow, limited action by Labour on the progress that we need to move forward. Now that we're in more of a crisis situation we're going to have to pay for that stupidity and lack of foresight and leadership. If NVES had been started much earlier, or better targeted incentives used earlier, or better tax rules, or winding back fossil fuel subsidies, or... then perhaps the perceived aggressive timetable for NVES would not be such an issue.
I really think steps need to be taken using every reasonable option to push back against this stuff and see the government that is threatening to implement it is abolished. If peaceful change can not be accomplished, things will have to get messy .
Its already passed parliament. The only option now is to try and have it watered down, but there is no chance of it being repealed as even if the Coalition was to win the next election, they would not have the numbers in the Senate to get the repeal enacted.
@@L2SFBC I think it would actually be pretty based to wait until you're 70 years old and if you still remember how much you absolutely hate the government try and even the score because death or jail is probably better than a nursing home.
I live rural and am off grid with no chance of connecting to one. I tow a lot and long distances. How does a ev fit into this scenario? Sounds like I’ll be forced into buying an older less efficient vehicle at an increased price. Very unimpressed with the government’s model on this. But it seems like I also have zero chance of doing anything about it, unless of course I move to the city, give up towing and everything else I love about life in Australia.
Depends on how long those distances are and what you tow. Maybe a EV of today could suit you. Maybe not. Into the future, EVs will increasingly be able to do this sort of job.
I think we should be getting rid of the government and replacing it with one that will get rid of this stupidly until there are vehicles that are fit for purpose. A runner round town car no problem, an suv to take the kids to school no problem. a commercial for business or vehicle for remote area at the moment dose not exist.
