The political and commercial influence behind the dismantling of this country's rail transport industry in favour of the trucking industry is a massive part of the problem. Also, the urbanisation of farmland forcing us to import produce from further and further away is another contributing factor. There is so much more we could have done and can still do. The biggest hurdle we face is a political class whose main concern is staying in power.
One of the most annoying things about housing on farmland is that a lot of it tends to also by default, be some kind of floodplain because that's why the soil is so rich. Then we have all the weeping, my shit got washed downstream and 'someone do something' crowd which seems to insist on living in them regardless of knowing what rivers do every decade or so. The other political hurdle we face is the politicians being subsidised by being funded by corporate entities who don't have the public, national security, country, housing and employment interests at heart
Agree, Australia has a lot of wonderful places to live. We don't have to all pile into Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. There is a very good life to be lived elsewhere at much lower cost and much improved lifestyle. Disclosure: I am delighted I don't live in any of those places and further more rarely visit them. When I do I can't wait to get home.
Anybody headed out to the Hawkesbury recently? Paving fertile, watered farmland to build McMansion farms, no infrastructure, jammed traffic and no trees. It’s impressive, amazing and depressing at the same time.
Again as one engineer to another, I could not have articulated the global EV greenwashing as well as you just did. Absolutely 1,000% bang on. Gotta love those awkward facts.
As a three Tesla family I've got to laugh at your comment. While the nay-sayers and skeptics make patently dishonest arguments against EV's and keep paying for expensive gas, my family has been reaping the cost savings of driving electric for almost 5 years now. In other words, people are hurting from high fuel prices because of their own lack of critical thinking.
But ElecElec is also going through the roof and in Oz it's mostly coal fired. Sola panels are forcing kids and Weiga Adults to die in Africa and work as slaves I China. One wind turbine takes 80,000 kg of concrete for its base. Magnets are rare earth from Africa and the blades are balsa wood stripped from trees in the Amazon, coated with petroleum based plastic resins Again NOT RECYCLABLE. It's a disaster.
@@schwarzwolfram7925 my oldest EV is a long range Model 3 (2018) that’s at 99,800 miles. I gave it to my son about 3 months ago. At that time I estimated that it had lost maybe 5% of its range, although on a daily basis you don’t even notice. From what I’ve read, 1% per year is typical. BTW, the only maintenance I ever paid for (besides tire rotation/replacement) was about $200 to fix the trunk latch. I’ve also had the charge door opener replaced and ultrasonic sensors put back in place when I hit an object in the road. In both cases Tesla came to my house and fixed them for no charge. Also, tire replacements aren’t any more frequent than the Dodge Journey I used to drive. I really can’t exaggerate how terrific my cars, and the company, have been.
C02 is needed by plants to live, no CO2, all plant life dies. More CO2 greens the earth, CO2 is required for photosynthesis... sigh. It blows my mind how many have been so successfully moronised to believe CO2 is bad for the environment. *"What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition, of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2 the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison."* ~ Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. is an _[Alfred P. Sloan]_ Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Hey John, if EVs are such a fraud (and you do make a pretty compelling case that we shouldn't have any until every house has a battery) - why then are you pimping the hell out of them on your website?
Even better, because you can use other rechargeable battery technologies at fixed locations, in addition to just lithium. A house doesn't move. Lithium ion virtue is that its more energy dense than other batteries. That's why they're great for EVs, and cell phones. You don't need that at your house. Old fashion lead acid, will do just fine, and enough capacity to take your house off grid, really doesn't take that much space, if you're a house, and not a car. There are other lithium alternatives, too. Such as flow batteries, and sodium ion.
100%. Small government that stays out of our lives is the only solution. Instead they betray the people and meddle in their lives. Vehicle emissions standards is yet another deceptive move to gain power, control and take from the average person.
Totally agree, politicians should stop giving 1Trillion annually of tax payer money to prop up the fundamentally flawed oil and gas industry. They should stop permitting destruction of land to dig for oil and building pipelines, they should stop sending citizens to die to control oil resources. Less government intervention more free market. You are spot on
Great job, I was a total EV skeptic before seeing your video, but now I’m absolutely on board with your argument! I mean I never really thought how EVs go a long way in ensuring our own energy security from being dictated by those few oil rich countries, and that they only really emit tyre pollution when compared to their combustion engines peers. You are totally right, we need to do something about those huge unregulated polluting trucks on our roads next, they are the real issue!. I’m sold on your suggestion of becoming more self sufficient in my electricity needs, it’s time I join the 30% plus of Australian households who already have solar panels on their homes and the ever increasing record number of home batteries being installed across the country. Getting off the grid will surely only give me even more bragging rights down at the country club. Finally, I would really like to thank you for the trading tips, I’m so going to put all those supercharged hard earned petrochemical shares dividends I have into the next big money making ventures you highlighted, lithium resources and battery recycling! Your right there’s shitloads more money to be made in the pending battery materials boom, and those batteries destined to go to the tip that should instead be going into my wallet, and come to think of it these super big battery guzzling SUVs EVs are only going to help fatten it up even nicer! Thanks again for your brilliant ideas!
Another one who thinks these EV's are environmentally good.While it is not the case.The pollution of petrol cars is just replaced to the electric plants!And more heavily than ever!Not to mention the vast building need for more electric plants and outbild of more cables on the country.
There is no regulatory mandate to recycle those massive, problematic EV batteries. There is currently little market for metals within waste batteries due to the difficulty and dangers of extraction. Your local scrap metal merchant won’t buy and who wants to own or stockpile such potentially dangerous ticking time-bombs until a mass extraction industry is finally established? That recycling industry should have been up and running before release of EVs onto the mass market. The lack of legal mandates upon manufacturers and/ or owners to compel responsible recycling, combined with the fact that there is no established recycling industry, means many batteries will be dumped to landfill, leaching ultra-toxic materials into groundwater-no good for the biosphere, current life or future generations.
I was always concerned by the environment and I always supported movements to save this planet, but after seeing all this environmental groups (that should know better) promoting the EVs as a solution for this planet I simply stopped to care. This planet is doomed by human stupidity and we can’t help…
EV's provide a small contribution to the overall issue of climate crisis. I emphasize small as the biggest contributors are in agriculture, deforestation, fuel burning and even methane from permafrost melting. The biggest drive for EV's is that fossil fuels are going to end in decades, not centuries.
keep it going John! From here in the US -- these fools plugging in their EV's don't understand what fuels make that electricity. Let alone what your deadass battery does in a landfill. God help our children since they are being programmed to not help themselves.
Lol yeah all the batteries will be in landfills. You’re right. There’s not already many recycling companies set up. Well just dump them in landfills and the ocean. And everyone know where their electricity comes from. The key is getting to a point where it doesn’t come from coal - and even when it does it’s STILL more efficient then an ICE car.
Agreed John. EVs have their place, but I do fail to see them as a cure all for the Greenie's woes. I don't want one as my secondary car, as my needs are a little to unpredictable for them. As for a daily runabout around the shops and commute, one would be ideal also. Horses for courses.
Hit the nail on the head again. Significant point hidden in there was the trip to church. Most people don't go anywhere. Short commutes, shopping trips, local journeys mostly. EVs are great at making air in cities less polluted. EVs should be small, lightweight local vehicles, like golf carts. If it rains, fit the sidescreens, and wear another jumper.
Fully agree, EV became popular when they started going for performance rather than fit for purpose efficiency. The leaf never went anywhere because it was slow and small. We can’t save ourselves but the marketing makes us feel better….
MG3 / Kia Picanto sized EVs have a role if you dont ever need to use one to do more than 200kms at a time. That puts them into a "second car" class that will limit take up unless they are cheap.
@@remakeit2628 So 'You' are not 'Most'. As EVs are expensive, have hard suspension, despite having had heavy ICE cars for decades, and many have raised floors to accomodate the batteries, leaving rear seat passengers with their knees under their chin, i wonder what you have compared yours with, to declare it so much better than an equivalent priced ICE car.
Actually, the politicians are merely a manifestation of the populace, i.e., us. Blaming the politicians is really a cop out. Though if you'd replaced politicians with marketers, I'd have accepted that.
@@andrewthomas695 Actually, politics and politicians are at the center of most of the world's ills and evils. The heart of the problem is the populace belief that politicians and politics are a source of just, equitable, and efficient solutions to modern problems when they are nothing more than necessary evils to help keep peace in society.
My first wife was rather a mistake, the body work was good, but it was loud, brash, American, and was actually made in China. I had her for a couple of years, and then things became unreliable. The issue is that I had signed the paperwork with witnesses, and disposal was extremely difficult, rather costly, and whilst the manufacturers were very sympathetic, they took the view that I had taken her off the block, and around the corner before saying "I do" and that unless I wanted to upgrade to their younger model, that they would have to stand by their product. I should say that they said something about how I had installed a child seat without their permission, and that it invalidated some warranty or something... I decided to next try a second hand eastern european model. This was promising to start. Eventually ended up having 3 kids across the back. The eldest is now 26. After 5 years of ownership, I became increasingly dissatisfied with the constant whining sound whenever I was popping down the shops, or going to the pub. It took me another 5 years to get rid of that one, and involved me having to move country for work. Unfortunately, it cost a fortune just to pop to the shops, as the Satnav default location was Harvey Nic's, Sloane Square, Knightsbridge and Harrods. I then decided to get myself a newer model, and this time got a frankly amazing deal on a 1991 model, as the production facility she was made in was closing down, and as such, great deals can be had on USSR stock manufactured in the final days of the facilities operation. I understand from her that there was some rolled up, management buyout by a group calling themselves the Russian Federation, but I picked her up cheap, in Western Europe, and have had a reliable time since. I did temporarily have a friend called Tiffany as well, and to be honest, that was in Australia, but many many years ago. John, it might be an idea to check the previous owner paperwork, if you have it to hand ...
You, sir, just made my day. 🤣🤣🤣 After having been through several locally produced models that were new old stock, I upgraded to a much newer model (as in 10 years newer) from a northern state and - despite having a few mechanical design flaws - it oozes character and came with heaps of clever gadgets. Not going to trade in any time soon by the looks of it. 😍
Hi John, the issue isn't the free market (which is merely vestigial at this stage), it is the gross distortions of the market caused by "green" government policies.
When the aviation industry signs onto UN sustainable development goals, which seek to destroy the aviation industry by curtailing the amount of flights globally based on emissions quota, you know they are being subsidized not to provide the service which their very existence depended upon. Clear free market intervention.
OMG, I just about spit my morning coffee onto the window of my truck. Your sarcastic humor is awesome. You may be based in Australia but your message resonates around the world. BTW, I'm from Canada and drive one of those carbon puking trucks you mentioned. I see these "TWATS" as you eloquently stated driving Teslas more and more. Our winters can be harsh. I'd like to know how much EXTRA electricity they are using just to keep running in the winter. Those cars have to stay running to keep the batteries from freezing. Plus the range decreases by at least 1/4. And don't get me started on the kobalt mining in desolate countries that are akin to labour camps. Sorry for the rant. Love you. I'll keep watching you. Your one of the to few who tell it like it is.
well just because they are not ok, doesn't mean you are ok. you are also driving something bigger then you need. i understand you need it (carbon puking trucks, as you put it) for work. but then dont drive it to the store or as a regular mode of transportation please.
I’ve been driving an EV for a little over a year into a 2 year experiment. I’m going back to a gas car at the end. The EV doesn’t save me money or save the planet.
@@MelbourneHandyman Isn't the carbon cycle and generation of atmospheric carbon dioxide the target we hope to reduce? If not, we could end up like planet Venus which has had a runaway CO2 greenhouse effect for other reasons and the surface of which is now hot enough to melt lead.
@@Michael.Chapmanat its surface Venus has a pressure 92 times that of Earth's surface pressure. It's 92 times denser, which is why it's so hot. Emissions aren't making our atmosphere denser.
Thumbs up. CO2 is required for photosynthesis... it's plant food, takes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, it's a miracle molecule required for life on earth. @@MelbourneHandyman
You are what this world needs, an individual who has the stones to lay it out minus the sugar coating. A wealth of information, experience, and a solid plan to make a positive impact. Thanks for all that you do, I hope our politicians are pushed out before it's too late.
CO2 is plant food, w/o it, you die. Search for this article title on the net: *"Carbon dioxide isn’t a “pollutant” causing global warming, it’s the elixir of life itself"* Here's an excerpt; Without CO2, all plant life would die - which means all humans and animals would also die. CO2 is _plant food,_ after all, facilitating photosynthesis and the life cycle itself. Removing CO2 from the planet like the climate cultists are demanding would render the entire world _barren of life._ It would quickly become a wasteland marked with death and destruction - and would certainly not be a paradise. For the past several years, the corporate-controlled media, Leftist politicians, and members of the Church of Global Warming have been telling us all that CO2 is a "pollutant." Nothing could be further from the truth. _[Related: CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with global temperatures.]_ *"CO2 emissions from industrial processes of the last two centuries have been highly beneficial to plant growth,"* writes Vijay Jayaraj. *"Scientific studies show that CO2 has played a significant role in the re-greening of the earth after abnormally low CO2 levels had limited much of the planet's vegetation due to CO2 starvation."* The massive increase in food production over the past century, which allows for the feeding of eight billion people worldwide, would also not have been possible without CO2 - not to mention slightly warmer temperatures in some areas that are more suited for agriculture. Ironically enough, CO2 is also responsible for keeping the planet green, as in rich and lush with trees, fauna, and other plant life. Without CO2, the entire planet would be brown and barren. For all of their talk about embracing a "green" agenda, the greenies are fighting against the very things that actually keep the planet green in color. Talk about insanity. According to Scientific American, CO2 acts as a fertilizer to keep natural ecosystems intact. Forests, jungles, savannahs, tundra, and everything in between all rely on CO2 to thrive, keeping animals and humans alive as part of the food chain. Amazingly, increases in CO2 from the pre-industrial age until now have allowed for "increased trees" productivity of around 23 percent. This means that CO2 is actively greening the planet and making it more liveable. "For most of the other plants humans eat - including wheat, rice and soybeans - having higher CO2 will help them directly ... Doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels does boost the productivity of crops like wheat by some 11.5 percent and of those such as corn by around 8.4 percent," says Francis Moore, a professor at the UC Davis. _[end of excerpt]._
Whenever I try to explain the exact same stuff to EV lovers, they just won't hear any of it. If these people were really wanting to save the planet, they wouldn't need their EV to go 0 to 60 in 3 seconds, which is pissing away huge amounts of power and tearing up the tires, which isn't needed. EVs should be made to be as economical as possible, not rich tw*t speed machines.
We live in a capitalist society. I hate it, but it's fact. Those super fast twat machines are more profitable than the sub $35k simple EV's we all want to buy, so they're the first to market. Not really much is an argument, unless cheap EV's never exist. And since they're already being sold elsewhere (there are sub $10k USD EV's being sold) you basically don't have an argument.
Mainly because we don’t care what you have to say because we already know. I hate servos mechanics and car dealers with equal distain. Driving and ev 1500km a week allows me to avoid all 3 of them. All my cars leave me the same way. Which is on the back of a truck to be scrapped because I’ve driven the wheels off it. You can’t be “saving the planet” while also driving 80k a year in any kind of conveyance. But they fit me like a glove.
If we can't get behemoth engined hemi-cummings-trackstar😁 utes pickups to accept moderate 0-60 times, why would you think EV buyers should/would. Virtually nobody is willing to make tradeoffs.
I don’t care what anyone says about EVs. I love my EV and I use the very best kind. It’s called a Waratah, it’s about 150 metres long and steers like it’s on rails. I don’t even have to wear a seatbelt, and it goes well and truly faster than the road speed limit! It’s truly amazing and I’m super thankful that someone else is doing the driving.
I’m an EV owner, and I agree with most of what you’re saying. It’s a fun car and I live in Manitoba where most electricity is hydro, for whatever that is worth. One point you made about national energy security is what I think is quite important.
A, trucking operator I spoke to recently, who runs a fleet of around 20 prime movers, and his own workshop carting B-doubles around, mentioned the front axle load limit. 6 ton in Australia and to benefit electric trucks, 11 ton in the USA (on the same hardware) so they can carry more battery weight up forward. He has been speaking to a representative of Scania about it. Can't find a workable solution.
Tyres, brakes and kingpins are engineered to this limit. Add in the load spread amongst axles. Now add in load carrying capacity (reduced) and the need to spread the load differently to comply. Yeah, nah, not happening. EV trucks might work for uban deliveries but never heavy haulage over distances. Imagine how long you would be waiting to charge it at Bundaberg on the way to Cairns. Who is paying the downtime? LOL
Seeing a few trucks trialling CNG gas or Natural gas as a fuel in the UK. Also the company who delivers for McDonald's run trucks with bio diesel from recycled cooking oil from the restaurants. All of these options are possibly suitable for long distance haulage vehicles.
@@bentullett6068 Unless you are McD - where do you get enough bio fuels? 40l per 100km or do you grow crops with scarce water and harvest with diesel tractors and process it in fossil fuel plants? EV's are only 'Green' because we ignore the manufacturing pollution
@charlesmartell4484 where does that 8,000kg come from? AH - reduced load capacity. Yeah. Why does Australia run road trains? more freight per truck/driver/capital cost
I'm presuming most of the battery weight is carried on the rear axles. Pepsi are beta testing 25 or so electric semis and the feedback has been very positive on most aspects from range to drive-ability etc. Apparently the drivers love ém.
"Remote combustion is still combustion". I agree 100%. As a 'Strayan, I currently own a 5.7L V8 Commodore. It will continue to produce 4 tonnes of CO₂ every year. Every. Year. And nothing can possibly change that. The petrol that I'm burning is also forever gone: it's pumped out of the ground, converted to petrol, then burned to produce energy and pollution. The material dug up to produce batteries is merely incorporated into them; it's not "consumed" by the process. You can recover it, with the recycling that you dismissed as "not Government mandated". Soon, it will be economically mandated, so I'm not worried. According to your figures, if I change to an EV, then I will consume 30kg of CO₂ every charge - meaning I could charge 133 times in a year (once every 2½ days) to produce the same amount of CO₂. The. Same. Amount. And if the electricity producers change a coal-fired plant to a renewable plant, I will automatically produce less CO₂ - and fewer fugitive emissions too. The changeover to renewables has its problems, but the fact is that by centralising power generation and making it renewable, it improves everything - as long as you're not burning the fuel yourself.
and keep this in mind... that same v8, come shtf... theres plenty of ways to keep it running... woodgas, start digging into all that landfill for plastic to melt down, coals abundant in nsw... good luck replacing ECUs and inverters and semiconductors with no grid, no internet, no schematics, no manuals, no idea how those stupid little epoxy encapsulated black boxes actually work... and everything you need to diagnose if you do know... doesnt work. or its a fecking jury rigged contraption that barely works cus suddenly you cant order parts... whereas strapping a makeshift dizzy to ANY engine, figuring out a spark, fuel... thats childs play. points... induction coils... weee. gunna be oxy torches around, workshops, old engines, belts... warehouses full of stuff if you can get to them... ffs, watch the thai guys make engines from old fridges. theres no reason it doesnt work. just an air compressor with fuel and spark. big deal. why you would bother though... prove a point? mad max all the way! ka choonk, ka choonk... bring it on. i know theres shale oil under me? maybe i should start drilling, lol. yeah, northwest sydney. has capped off oil wells. ;) its under there. lots of it. squeezed in beside all the coal... the future is bright! as long as we get a carrington event. screwed otherwise.
@@davidnobular9220 The current suggested legislation is (paraphrased) "to prevent the sale of new ICE vehicles", to stop the demand on petrol into the future. They're not even beginning to suggest they'll prevent the sale of used cars - in the same way that they haven't prevented the sale of cars without seatbelts. Seatbelts were mandated decades ago, but you can still buy seatbelt-less vehicles precisely because they're classic/vintage. Again, I'm not worried.
Great post John - you've brought up some excellent points. I bought a used Lexus 300H about 5 years ago - wasn't really looking for a hybrid, but the price was right. After driving this thing for 5 years and putting about 110K miles on it, I don't understand why everyone doesn't buy one over an EV or a regular ICE vehicle. Even with 150K total miles, I still average between 38-40 MPG - the non-hybrid ES 350 averages about 26-28. I really think hybrid technology is the way to go - I really don't see a downside. To be honest, the hybrid technology is integrated so well into the vehicle, I often forget it IS a hybrid. Amazing technology!
A lightweight plug-in hybrid is the best solution. Distance is unlimited. Driving on a recharged small battery offers savings that an EV car will never provide. A small battery doesn't have the initial high pollution problems or the problems with pollution at the end of life. Note: Joethl4981. A small battery and a small amount of "stripped ground" is the best possible solution.
I run a 22 year old Honda CRV. Cost 3k, been running 2 years and still worth 3k. Now - about that EV. 60k divide by 10 years = $120 a week AND new pollution from making a new one every 10 years AND making new batteries every 7 years. Old cars make less pollution over their economic lifespan and are way cheaper per kilometer
What battery only lasted 7 years? The first gen 1 leafs are over a decade old now and are still running. They use a very outdated cell tech and chemistry too.
@@N1rOx NZ leafs are lasting 7 years. The replacement battery costs 8k on a car worth 7k. USA Teslas are 23k on a 21k car. The battery guarantee is 7 years (8 in the UK) and 160,000km. After that, they are uneconomic to replace. In the UK, any mildly serious accident = writeoff because the battery status is unknown. Then look at whole of life - In 20 years, 2 EVs, 2-3 batteries versus a 40k ICE that will do 260,000+km. Doesn't add up.
It's a shame that LPG cars didn't become fully mainstream. My bicycle is my choice for commuting to work. My LPG car is great at long country drives and towing.
It's starting to make a come back. Noticing that they are looking at LPG, CNG and Natural gas options for running trucks here in the UK. Passed a DAF truck the other day and noticed that the diesel fuel tank had been replaced with CNG gas tanks.
lpg is dearer than petrol in the regions.. and unfortunately a terrible long distance option unless yyou have multiple tanks, not all service stations sell gas and the pumps have issues in some weather conditions (you get a lot less gas for your money in hot weather and the pumps freeze in winter
My 33 year old Landcruiser has been on lpg for 31 years and still going like it was when new, its not very fuel efficient but I can guarantee you its better for the environment than any new ev
One aspect of EVs which I never see covered is the fact that gasoline is a byproduct of producing heavier hydrocarbons. You have to drive off the natural gasoline portion of the oil to get to the kerosene, diesel, bunker fuel etc. Depending on where the oil was produced, the fraction that is natural gasoline can be very high. So as long as we need the heavier fractions of the oil to be refined, we will get gasoline. This gasoline will be burned whether or not we ourselves burn it or export it to some other country.
@@ZREXER1250 This is exactly what happened with all the LPG that was coming out of the North Sea. It was flared off. It would have made sense to power cars with it (despite cylinder-head issues in some cases) but, thanks to lobbying from the European car manufacturers that had invested heavily in diesel engine development Gordon Brown was persuaded to bump up the tax on LPG and in so doing killed off the LPG initiative.
did you know when you are refining gasoline, the byproducts are kerosene, diesel and bunker oil. yeah, i need bunker oil, oh wow look at all the gasoline left over. we dont make ships with motors to burn bunker oil, me make bunker oil burn in ships. kerosene and diesel might not fit this example perfectly but i hope you see my point. like all chemical reaction these can be studied both ways.
@@ColinMill1 we have virtually unlimited LPG in Ireland but our WEF guys in charge recon its best environmentally to leave it and import oil and litter the country with the white elephant windy things
Recently did the calculations with my home solar panels. I have 18 panels and export 40 kWh per week when there is nobody at home. If I had a top model Tesla 3 with a flat battery and wanted to run the thing on purely renewable power (ie: that which I currently export to the grid) it would take 2 weeks to charge the thing up (assuming it was at home from 8am to 3pm when I am currently exporting to the grid). Given that most of my driving is during daylight hours, the only way I could give that "green electricity" to the car would be if it was stored in a battery, which costs $20,000 to install. Even with all that extra infrastructure cost (and fire risk), the best I could expect is to get 300km/week out of the car. I have concluded I am far more environmentally friendly if I continue to drive my 10 year old V8 Jaguar than to commission the building of a new electric car (with all the carbon footprint that entails) .... the Jag is also lighter on the tarmac than a new BEV.
Spot on, John. The fundamental issue is energy over consumption, regardless of the source of said energy. We are being sold a bill of goods, to the joy of car manufacturers who are salivating over the once in a generation opportunity to replace the entire fleet. In 20 years, people will be wondering why it didn't fix the problem.
@@bobmcl2406 _True, they were a bit slow on that, but to be fair it was somewhat harder for average joe to see the scope of that blunder at first. We have friends in europe wondering why politicians weren't reacting to diesel pollution at the end, when it was obvious people were dying. I'm thinking THAT history will pressure a quicker response. IDK why otherwise seemingly intelligent U.S. politicians (like A.O.C. and president Biden) are pushing this idiotic E.V. craze; money? Remember, V.W. had the gall to complain that they weren't getting enough U.S. fuel mileage credit for cleaning up the air and money kept that idea afloat even though it was a blatant lie!
Still working on my first ex wife John, 25 years of trying to convince her there are better options out there for her. Not only a poor husband but apparently a poor salesperson too.
I'm in the UK and was talking to an Australian recently. When I brought up the Australian electricity production from coal, he corrected me saying that it's mostly renewable. He genuinely believes this, so someone is doing a very good greenwashing job down there. Oh by the way, he lives in Canberra!
Well, sure. Australia wide our grid is largely fed by coal still, but the ACT (and Tasmania) are completely fed by renewables. ACT is the home territory of Canberra. Again, admittedly, the ACT is a bit of accounting spin (they buy renewable energy generated elsewhere on the eastern grid, not necessarily generated within the ACT) but it's absolutely true that they are paying for renewable energy. That's probably what they were thinking.
@@hargeaux " but the ACT (and Tasmania) are completely fed by renewables." You left out the "on average" part. plenty of time there is coal being burnt to keep the lights on in ACT.
I live in a city where it seems every second car is new twin cab ute, SUV etc. with one passenger. If people cared there would be less of these and more 2nd hand Corollas. Love your work, but we are screwed.
Superb essay John. *Remote combustion vehicle* - nail on the head! It will never be efficient to burn fuel remotely from where you need it. The EV has a place, but not in the the recyclable product bin. My fear is EV batteries will become the new asbestos in about 10 years when ICE cars are banned. So ordinary people are effectively imprisoned in their 15 minute cities. As we won’t have cars. At all.
EV batteries are required to be recyclable by law, the components are valuable. CO2, NOX, CO are our new asbestos and these come from shitty inefficient toxic internal combustion vehicles
This was actually not as bad as the headline indicated. Luxury cars, oversized cars, EV or not, is of course never resourceful. Normal sized medium range EV with nickel and cobalt free batteries IS a win. Btw, all essential materials in all types of lithium batteries are 97% recyclable. Process is scaling as we speak.
FACTS: Electirc is 77 percent efficient vs 20 percent efficient. It takes about 4 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of energy to produce 1 gallon of gasoline. The same energy moves a tesla about 16 miles down the road. Australia's renewable energy isn't close to many EU nations but it's on a strong growth curve, with about 33% coming from renewable sources in 2022. I have both an EV and a truck for traveling long distances and hauling things, it's a starting point, but once swappable energy sources and battery density increases I will go fully electric.
The greenest car maker is the one who perfects vehicle to grid technology to allow the EV to soak up the surplus renewable energy around the middle of the day and allow it to go back into the grid at peak time at night. It may even provide more cash flow for the EV owner. There is an opportunity here for govt, electricity grids and car manufacturers to work together to allow the battery to be used for transport as well as to take houses off the grid. You don’t need to split the battery into 6, just allow it to discharge the battery into the grid at peak time.
I've been a software developer for logistic companies in the EU for a very long time and can tell you that they are VERY concerned about the amount of fuel used. Not because of CO2 (unofficially) but rather the massive fuel cost savings they can make on educating drivers in a fuel-efficient driving style. I have implemented a bunch of such software just for that reason. There are even scoring boards for companies where the winning company each year has a lot to gain by saying they are the most fuel efficient company.
A good idea should be teaching that to the general public as well. I see non green stupidity every day binary stop / start driving with no in between. I read the traffic ahead and roll to a stop whenever possible or at least to a safe speed without holding people up. Does wonders driving a commodore large car (2013 vf sv6) with long term fuel averaging slightly less than 10 litres per hundred with a 2/3 mix of suburban and freeway driving using 98 ULP plus at 180,000 km I’ve only done one set of brake pads and still on factory rotors hope to crack 250,000 km at least. Surely keeping my car maintained and not scrapping it for a Tesla I’m doing what I can for my carbon footprint.
Fix roads for max flow and less stop/idle time, synchronize traffic lights, encourage online work, sales and education. that would take more cars off the road than anything else. This EV thing is crap.
If you have a fleet & want to save money run some fuel efficient driver training AND competitions with prizes for most fuel efficient drivers. If you can get depots competeing it gets better, we all like to be on a winning team...
@@partymanau In my city of Warsaw, in Poland those governing idiots do exactly the opposite. They remake streets to be narrower hoping to force people to switch to a public transport. However its ultimate result is never-ending, barely moving, air polluting traffic jam.
Bro you're seriously underrated and need more subs. Consider it an honour! Very eloquently put and this needs to be seen by those crazy environmental nutcases.
One might be as eloquent as possible and one might be as sincere as possible, but one can be sincerely and still sincerely wrong, consider the below of where John get his argument fatally flawed wrong = intellectual suicide; *"What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition, of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2 the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison."* ~ Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. is an _[Alfred P. Sloan]_ Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It leave me astounded almost to full silence how Ozzie John missed how CO2 is required for life on this earth, CO2 is part of photosynthesis. It's a miracle molecule taking up only 0.04% of the atmosphere. It's plant food, they take in CO2, then convert to O2/Oxygen we need to live also, it's called a reciprocal relationship with plants. We carbon based life.. Please consider the above quote, and the below also, the quote above is a decades truthful, forthright, honourable experientially, quality well learned scientist. I share this with you so that you might see it is indisputable overt science misinformation or in competence to feed one's viewers that CO2 is supposedly a pollutant and to believe it is proves immensely that such people who would believe that failed basic science class or they are huge liars getting super-rich off a super world scam. Here's more for you; *"Nevertheless, there is another threat on the horizon. I see this threat in environmentalism which is becoming a new dominant ideology, if not a religion. Its main weapon is raising the alarm and predicting the human life endangering climate change based on man-made global warming."* ---- *"The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity, is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."* ---- *"I'm convinced that after years of studying the phenomenon, global warming is not the real issue of temperature. That is the issue of a new ideology or a new religion. A religion of climate change or a religion of global warming. This is a religion which tells us that the people are responsible for the current, very small increase in temperatures. And they should be punished."* --- *"The attempts to command the climate and decide about the temperature on our planet are wrong and arrogant. I wrote a book about it which was published in English under the title 'Blue Planet in Green Shackles."* --- *"The climate change debate is basically not about science; it is about ideology. It is not about global temperature; it is about the concept of human society. It is not about nature or scientific ecology; it is about environmentalism, about one - recently born - dirigistic and collectivistic ideology, which goes against freedom and free markets."* ---- *"Environmentalism is a dangerous ideology endangering human freedom."* ~ Václav Klaus, Czech economist and politician, served as the second president of the Czech Republic from 2003 to 2013. From July 1992 until the dissolution of Czechoslovakia in January 1993, he served as the second and last prime minister of the Czech Republic while it was a federal subject of the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic, and then as the first prime minister of the newly independent Czech Republic from 1993 to 1998. *"The oceans that surround the world produce 185 billion tons of CO2 per annum. *Man per annum only produces six billion tons, so what could possibly be the concern? One volcano puts out more toxix gases-one volcano-than man makes in a whole year.* And when you look at this "climate change," and when you look at the regular climate change that we all have in the world, we have warm and we have cooling spells."* ~ John Raese, American Businessman *"CO2 is not a pollutant in any normal definition of the term."* ~ Joe Barton, _[R-Texas]_ GOP Congressman
I still want to know what is going to be done about limiting the environmental damage of dead lithium batteries, once the virtue signallers have finished with them. Product life cycle is about from the ground and back to it, and from a climate impact perspective I am not convinced about any of this.
As an early EV owner and believer, I agree, I love the performance, no smell comes out of tailpipe (no tailpipe), fewer parts to break down, and quiet operation. Since then I have done the research. Super expensive, current battery tech not good, range inadequate, charging time too long, AC/heating drains bettery, fire concern always worries me. The argument of C02, is stupid. C02 is not pollution. It is not what is causing warming. The sun is far more of a factor. C02 is at a historic low. In the past with much higher Co2 levels, it did not cause run away greenhouse effect. The science actually shows that warming drives C02 not the other way around. C02 is plant food. Plants thrive in more CO2 The whole idea of burning fuel remotely is better for the environment is also ridculous. They tried to ban gas stoves here, so you use natural gas to turn it into electricity, then transmit that electricity to the house, then convert it back into heat. That is pure insanity. The losses in conversion twice, the losses in transmitting it over electrical lines is not helpful. The grid can not handle all these cars charging. They haven't upgraded it in decades.
I know this has been said before, quite possibly by myself, but having a small EV for day to day running around (even an early Nissan LEAF @24kWh) doing short runs like most of us acutally do, and another car for 'other' driving jobs is going go work out better. A PHEV is like two cars at the same time while only actually having one. One purchase, one insurance, one rego, one Warrant of Fitness (WoF-NZ) or what you might call it, one parking space, one place to keep all the crap you keep in your car, etc. And the 12 to 20 kWh battery is going to allow many more of them to be built than the 100plus kWh monsters currently being pushed on the range anxious wankers with too much money to burn
Here in the UK there is certainly a breed of pure EVangelist who treats the PHEV owner like a bad smell, as if they are some kind of traitor to the cause. Pointing out that the PHEV owner is probably making better use of the available battery capacity than the pure EV owner does not go down well with them.
If you have the charging facilities - many units don't - then maybe a good idea, but very heavy and very expensive to buy. Mild hybrids seem to be the way to go - electric assist. Nissan E power, Alfa Tonale and Haval H6
Depends on the circumstances, I spend far less time "refueling" my EV than I ever did with liquid fuel simply because it's at home, get home and push a plug in takes all of 5 seconds I don't care after that because I am already at home. No longer do I need to detour every week and stand there for 5 mins waiting when I can be at home already.
Microcars and subcompact EVs are great if your major travel is limited range and limited speed applications. Smaller batteries that charge more quickly, cost less , and require less maintenance than ICE engines, and have no exhaust or noise. I would buy one at a reasonable price and use it for around town errand running. It would probably be cheaper to put the mileage on it than my larger ICE vehicle. I would keep my ICE vehicle for my main vehicle. I am under no illusion that I am going to "save the planet" by going EV nor do I want to virtue signal.
Or complete the 400 mile journey I do several times a year without the need to charge up - and do the first half of it in a Scottish winter (lights on, heater and wipers on max!)
@@dabrab Unfortunately 400 miles is not going to cut it in Australia. 3 or 4 times a year I drive out of Sydney & do around 1,300 klm in a day just by myself. I no people who drive upto 2,000 klm in a day when they share the driving. With limited fast charging infestructure outside big cities, these trips are impossible to do.
My 10-year old Nissan Micra self-identifies as an EV, and it parks itself in EV parking slots at the local supermarket. So there is a bigger issue here, which is the discrimination against cars that self-identify as EVs but rude, ignorant and evil people say horrible things. What is the government doing about this?
I should generate a QR code link to this. Print it, and hand it to all the Tesla and various other EV owners I get up here in Babylon by the sea. (Byron Bay, catch up). I was astounded at how ordinary the EQA 250 was that I towed on the weekend. $90k odd. Seems to be a $30k whack on top of a GLA for slightly less convenience. Or you could get an EV6 for less.
Not only will EVs wipe out hundreds of thousands of jobs in the automobile manufacturing industry but they will decimate local economies too by wiping out many jobs in fuel transportation, gasoline and diesel sales, repair shops and almost all auto parts stores. Just imagine when there is no more demand for a mechanic because there are no more bad engine mounts, radiators, radiator hoses, heater hoses, engine coolant, mufflers, exhaust systems, drive shafts and U joints or CV joints, fan belts, serpentine belts, oil changes, transmission repairs, etc. What will all those mechanics do for a living? Will they all get jobs changing tires on EVs? Gas/petrol station jobs...gone! Automobile repair shops.....gone! Auto parts stores....gone! What will all those people do for a living?
Thanks John for confirming my thoughts on those vehicles. Even though the mines give out methane there are the machines that move and remove the overburden. One large bulldozer would most likely burn 600 or so liters, add in the dump trucks and the co2 gets stacked against electricity further, and I am not a fan of those dumb wind turbines that seem to have a short life. I have more of a tendency toward nuclear as the power stations presently using steam driven turbines are already there, all thats needed is a reactor to make steam, and bingo, away we go, but that won't work because there wouldn't be enough tax money wasted. Oh and someone will bring up Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, well things are very different now and don't say anything about Fukushima, all that area is on a fault line, Australia is in the middle of the plate. If they were serious this would not be an issue, but rockets keep flying to space, if they don't explode first, and bombs in Ukraine keep falling. It's all become a brainwashing exercise to the point of laughter.
I've never clicked on a video and liked it so bloody fast! Thank god someone has said it! I've always felt EV's were just a big con, for wealthy people to brag to their wealthy mates that they care about the environment.
No, it is simple economics. I have never heard any EV driver bragging about how green they are. You never buy any petrol. Some EV's require almost no servicing. They cost peanuts to run if you use low cost electricity to charge overnight. Purchase costs are coming down, an MG4 is about the same as a base model VW Golf (all cars are expensive these days). Range around 300 miles now common. 20x less likely to catch fire than an ICE car per 100K miles driven, 10 yrs+ data supports this. Latest battery chemistries have no cobalt (as if you ever cared about that when it was being used to refine petrol and diesel). Batteries now expected to outlive the life of the car and even then they retain about 70% of capacity when new so starting to be used as grid storage. Electricity will eventually be really cheap so everything will move in this direction due to simple economics. Your feelings are irrelevant, economics drive everything. Also very useful not to be dependent on oil from very dodgy countries who can hold you to ransom at any time. Less city pollution highly desirable too. 1 in 8 people with lung cancer have never smoked.
Think you may deserve a noble award for this enlightening conversation. Taking houses of the grid is far easier and effective and convenient than stupid BEVs that no one really wants.
I just see EV's as soulless appliances. Plus judging by the depreciation values here in the UK if you have a battery fault its just like a appliance throw it away and buy another.
@@machinehead6892 plus some will throw them away quicker as they won't have the latest fashion accessory car with the new gizmos to show off to their friends.
I have a ten year old EV and let me assure you it has bags of character. I smile whenever I look at it. It's a somewhat quirky Peugeot Ion, which is a Peugeot branded Mitsubishi i-MiEV - a Japanese Kei Car, designed for crowded Japanese cities, so it is tall, narrow and long. It is equally suitable for the narrow, twisty and hilly roads in this part of Scotland. I'll concede that many EVs seem soulless, because they've been designed in a wind tunnel, because aerodynamics determine range more than almost anything else. However, as battery technology advances the range constraint will cease to be relevant and so aerodynamics will become less important. The Nio ES6 launching soon will have solid state batteries that give a range of 930 km, which is more than almost anyone will need. It's only a matter of time before these solid state batteries give rise to a whole generation of funky new designs. No doubt you think that the noise made by an internal combustion engine is important to the soul of the car, but I found that it was amazing how quickly I stopped missing the noise. I think soul is whatever we want it to be. Kids learning to drive in modern electric cars will see soul very differently to our generation.
Always love your commentary! I live in a small town in Kentucky and the only charging stations are for teslas. Anything else you have to drive 100 KM to Louisville for a fill up. If you have the “three pronged suppository “ you have to take it to the dealer for a charge. At least in this part of the world EVs are expensive and inconvenient.
Thanks but I won't have battery in my home if it caught fire and I lived I could become head in the bed because cobalt made me a crippled gimp for life😮
I own a TPS BEV and every time I go to the dealer in the Portland OR area 22:56 the dealer is using the EV and handicapped parking stalls for their vehicles. I complain and they say they will fix it, but it never happened in the eight years of Mercedes BEV ownership.
Every household multiple power points capable of charging an EV. Even with the USAs 120 volts you can still get 60 miles of range overnight which more than covers the average 30 miles per day.
@@phillipbanes5484 I am not saying that EVs are suitable for everyone but they are a good solution for a large proportion of people who have off street parking & do the average commute of 40 miles per day (your number). Of course there are exceptions like someone who wants to tow a 5 ton van 500 miles uphill every day but that's a very small proportion. I do uber & happily charge my car at home & do on average 200 miles per day.
In the 90's we saw Lindsay Fox do a deal with the govt which phased out rail transport of goods, favouring trucks to become the main method of transport. They even removed the rails on key transport links and turned them into bike paths, ensuring future govts could not afford to re instate the rail transport network. We now have the most expensive, inefficient and carbon heavy method of goods transport in Australia.
I think that was done in the States too. I remember my grandfather told me, for we were working in a city where most of the train tracks were abandoned, that the railroads weren't needed anymore because the freight that they carried was transported by semi. Also, we used to have many railroad companies. Some were large corporations, like Union Pacific, and others were small and localized, like the Soo Line. In the 90's however, a few large companies merged into mega corporations (Burlington Northern and Santa Fe became BNSF, while Norfolk and Western and the Southern railroad became Norfolk Southern) and the preexisting major corporations, together with the newly merged BNSF and Norfolk Southern, bought out all of the smaller companies. So now the American railway systems are owned by no less than four corporations: UP, BNSF, NS, and CSX. I'm convinced that it was another move by the powers that be to consolidate all businesses under the control of the federal government. The railroad corporations are quite corrupt too. The tracks and equipment are not maintained the way they once were, and when an accident happens, like the recent Palestine, Ohio derailment, the corporations bribe the city and the press lie about the damage, while they use the most expedient methods to "clean up" the mess.
One of your better rants on the topic, thank you! Lots of good facts as always, but I especially like that you have a good solution. On a topic I have been wondering about to. Related to that, what are your thoughts of the emerging V2H (vehicle-to-home) and V2G (vehicle-to-grid) features turning up a bit? Is that a genuine option (and potentially blend of best of both worlds, have your car and off-grid house too), or just a really great way to rapidly kill the chemistry inside the battery?
Love your channel John and the content. Thinking on this video makes me ask what will happen to these EV's when their batteries expire and need replacing. Tesla are charging $20,000 for a new battery and I'd say that other EV manufacturers would be charging similar prices. My thoughts on this are at about 8 to 10 years and the batteries would need replacing at the cost mentioned earlier. The average person would not be able to afford to replace these batteries. These batteries would represent maybe 50% of the value of the car. Most people would not replace these batteries so what would happen to these cars, of to the wreckers? I'll stick to my petrol engine that can be rebuilt. Another thought on costs would be with all this extra weight from the batteries in these EV's is how often would you need to replace suspension bushes and components ?
This idea that people will change batteries is just fake news. An EV, even with todays technology will do 200,000 miles and still have 90% capacity left. What is the drop in a petrol engines mpg figure after 200,000 miles and do people replace their petrol engines after 200,000 miles. Off course they don't. High mileage electric cars will retain their batteries in the state they are and go onto the second hand market in the same way as a worn out petrol engine car does.
also the cost of the batteries is coming down by the time they need replacing...more than 10 years the cost will be a lot less and the battery will be better again!
Everything you're saying is 100% on point. The real issue is that we aren't questioning the primary assumption: that CO2 is any kind of issue. All we argue is that the plans the governments of the world dont reduce it. We just dont argue enough about why we even need to.
Well lifeforms are carbon-based. We exhale carbon dioxide while plants inhale it and exhale oxygen. I guess that stopped being taught in schools because climate people either don't know that, or they don't like people, animals, or trees very much. They probably envision a world that looks like Mordor.
Correct and value chains that are carbon intensive. For example, not many people think about the carbon to get bananas grown in Panama to a supermarket in Germany.
@@CA999 Not a thing in the vast majority of cases. While many brands are boneheaded about making their products repairable, the "products built to last" back in the day were huge expenditures that required family savings, while nowadays people demand cheaper prices but also stylish design. If people were willing to pay more for clunkier and more expensive products brands wouldn't have switched to efficient production with minimum viable product.
One thing not taken into account is all the charging stations being installed around the places, these use resources and produce emissions to manufacture. Some will also have solar/battery storage systems installed for that extra green tick. What a great combo to have next to each other - petrol station and a battery storage system charging an EV. What could ever go bad in that situation.
As an atmospheric chemist I can tell you not all greenhouse emissions are equivalent. This is due to residence time. This is the time from birth to death (emission to sequestration) of a greenhouse gas. Water, the most prevalent greenhouse gas has a residence time of several days to several weeks in most instances. Carbon dioxide has a residence time of around 100 YEARS and methane has a residence time of around a decade. Methane emission from leaky land fills, old oil fields, and coal seams need to be sealed. The EV Chevy Hummer is an abomination at 5 tons. However, we can make light cars like a Tesla Model 3 that are very efficient (approx. 1Kw-hr for 8 km of travel). Using solar electricity at home can run your home electrical needs and change your EV. Your EV also becomes a battery for the grid. Also note that Nickel-Cobalt-Lithium batteries are on the way out. Lithium-Iron-Phosphate batteries are the most current large scale battery technology. Sodium batteries are just coming out and not based on Lithium. Tesla for instance is working on a iron-nitrogen magnet that is many times more powerful magnet than a rare earth magnet for their electrical motors. John your arguments are about Hollywood type influencers greenwashing their habits. For me having an energy efficient home, using solar, and in my instance wind energy as well, charging an EV overnight is the right thing to do. I think you are dead wrong on EVs and hopefully you will come around.
Thanks for another great clip John. Please keep up your great work. On a daily average our 11KWH solar panels generate 50KWH. We use 8 KWH and export 42KWH into the grid (we get fuck all for them). We are more than doing our bit for Climate Change. I am not planning to buy an EV anytime soon. Lithium fires , inferior range, long charge time and scarce charging stations are all BIG EV NEGATIVES
Hey John, the answer isn’t to cut up the EV9 battery into six bits. The answer (as you’ve previously noted) is to make V2L (vehicle to load) and V2G (vehicle to grid) technologies ubiquitous so that EVs are incentivized to take surplus renewable energy off the grid between 10am and 2pm and then supply it back into the grid at night. That way, the battery is used both for transportation and the grid. You don’t need to cut up the battery into six to supply six houses. You just need better V2G and V2L infrastructure. You can have your cake and eat it!
Sorry, but any "plan" that begins by assuming perpetual motion machines are a "thing" is a fail. You can't use the battery for transportation and THEN use it to supply the grid (with the energy you just used for transportation); AOC (U.S. representative) has embarrassed herself with this line of reasoning as well.
@-IE_it_yourself yeah I guess the only question is would you make enough money off of doing it to pay for the loss of capacity of your battery and eventually a new one
Thanks for this John. Appreciated the construction of the argument. Absolutely love seeing intelligence at work. As a retired nurse with solar on the roof, battery storage, and a smaller EV I would agree with your condemnation of the huge battery EV offerings. Having read the comments here there are some who I am sure who did not grasp the nuance of the facts laid out and instead somehow stopped at "EVs are a fraud..." We need to do all the things and it bothers me too that some of the most consequential changes are not politically easy and keep being avoided or deferred. Thanks for calling out the bullshit m8!
Here's a start. Climate change is 0.2 deg C of global Cooling since 900AD. Choosing the end of the little ice age which is one of the coldest periods in the holicene as normal is just a political agenda.
The uniquely Australian problem is also a uniquely New Zealand problem... EV's here are delivered to the retail store by diesel trucks after arriving in NZ on car carrier boats which burn Boiler Fuel (even dirtier and cheaper than Diesel)... Great presentation mate...
What is your point? How are your gasoline and diesel cars delivered to the retail store? Likely be diesel truck too. Stupid argument you are making. Don't most your vehicles arrive in country by carrier boats burning boiler fuel (bunker fuel)? as does all your imported goods by large shipping vessels uses the same dirty fuel? The difference is the EV doesn't pollute while it is operation (Ozone, Particulate Soot, etc.)
Mr John if there was an Academy Award for a UA-cam video I think you would earn it today straight away. EPIC my good man!👏 All superlatives aside, our mutual governments are ripe for a redo. The apathy and bullshit are a bit too much and the stakes are too high. Cheers, Señor Juan🤠🤙
Academy award yes...because he likes to entertain.. Noble science prize... no... why? Because to claim CO2 is bad for the earth, either one has been put into a seriously deep mind-control delusion by the powers that be due to one's own failure to pay attention correctly in elementary science class in school, or they are a wicked liar taking advantage of the former ones mentioned. It is mind-boggling how many on this page are congratulating John on a supposedly flawless irrefutable episode when actually to claim such a thing shows how Dunning-Kruger Effected infected those claiming that are, to not even know basic level nature science to know that CO2 is required for PHOTOSYNTHESIS = if we have no CO2, we have no plants/trees etc. So i leave you with this; *"What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition, of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2 the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison."* ~ Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. is an _[Alfred P. Sloan]_ Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. CO2 is w/o a shadow of doubt to factual operational scientists: a miracle molecule that only takes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, it is required for life on this earth = it's plant food for the love of truth! Without CO2 there is no life on earth! We are carbon based life! So seriously consider the above quote from a decades experientially and eruditely gallant, straightforward, quality, truthful scientist in truthful weather science so that you might learn how to discern indisputable science misinformation about CO2 that is being propagated by so many either incompetently or if deliberately to feed people obviously false science to them who clearly failed elementary science class that supposedly CO2 is our enemy and an enemy to the earth. What lunacy to think such or to even be led too believe that, man is our society becoming deliberately so Antichrist.
Great work John I love your rant's and I 100% agree with what you had to say, getting solar & home battery are a no brainer, not because it saves on co2 but because it saves you money. In the UK and I'm sure in many other country's you can get time of day tariffs, meaning you can buy electricity cheap ( mostly at night) and then sell it back at peak times. This can means owning an EV can make perfect sense. Zero cost for petrol and net zero cost for electric. I can't be the only one that does this as I see more and more people getting both solar & ev's. It's nothing to do with co2.
One minor point which never gets mentioned, probably because it is a minor factor, is that ICE vehicles get their power from a consumable. My car has a 60 litre fuel tank and so, when the tank is nearly empty, the car is almost 60 kg lighter, which very slightly reduces fuel consumption. EVs on the other hand, are stuck with their battery weight whether they are fully charged or almost empty. It makes little difference but it could be the difference between reaching a refueling point and stopping a mile short.
The extra weight also means they tend to be involved in bigger accidents. US has some interesting stats on this, typically the EV is 30% heavier for the same class of vehicle.
And you can't just carry an "electron can" that mile to rapidly refill it, walk back to your vehicle either. Gasoline or Diesel, no problem. Not that I want to walk two miles round trip, but maybe some passerby might assist to or fro.
An EV battery weighs around 600Kg or more depending on size of vehicle. That's over 10x as much. That 540 Kg + extra requires a considerable amount of power to move it. The more range you give EVs, the bigger the batteries the less efficient they are, more wear on tyres, bearings, brakes etc. and the less space available for passengers and luggage.
This is certainly a factor not lost on those working on electric flight. Like it or not such aircraft will have to have undercarriages capable of routinely handling landing at full take-off weight.
Facts and Stats talk, but BS seems to get the most amount of traction. For most people sadly, they ain't going to learn these truths, but find out the hard painful expensive way whether it be through inconvenient charge range anxiety and lengthy wait times, expensive lengthy repairs, poor winter performance and the worst of them, run-away fire destroying possibly their house. You work incredibly hard in all your fact finding and calculations. Another true asset to the automotive world not getting what you deserve, but giving to the many others that are interested in the Auto World. ps, me ole camry wagon 5 spd 4 banger now on 454k km's and still going strong..... yes!!!
"Remote combustion is still combustion" is technically correct, but "remote combustion" at combined cycle plants is about twice as efficient as the average internal combustion engine. That difference matters, and it's something you should have mentioned, because people just stupidly assume that there's no difference between burning fossil fuels in a vehicle, and burning them at a power plant.
The EV can still take those houses off the grid! You just need vehicle to grid technology and incentives to encourage EVs to take surplus renewables energy at midday, then allow discharge at peak times from 6pm and 10pm. The battery can be used for both transportation and to take those six houses off the grid. You can have your cake and eat it!
There are several reasons why I am not sold on EV’s. 1) The cost. At $60k it put the affordability for the vehicle out of the range of most middle and lower class citizens. 2) The time it takes to recharge the battery. With an average recharging time of 20 minutes and not enough recharging stations in popular or isolated areas. You could be awhile waiting your turn. 3) Replacing the battery is very expensive. Probably costing more than market value of used EV. 4) There is the lack of available electricity during the summer months because of lack of investment into utilities infrastructure. 5) Lithium batteries do work well in very cold or very hot climates.
One of your best! Thankyou for providing evidence for the ( EV as Messiah) skeptics amongst us! I'm confused about the maths- if you use smaller batteries ( 6x smaller in your example), don't you have to charge the big one 6x less based on capacity? The actual electrons required would be the same wouldn't it?
Charging is only 60% effective, for every consumed 10 KW*h only 6 KW*h goes into battery charge that will be available for your car, 4KW*h just goes into heat. Isn't it a good idea to charge your car underneath your house, in order for heat not to go to waste :)
@@user-mc7ez6lm4x Absolutely, until it catches fire in the middle of the night and kills everyone while they are sleeping with toxic gasses as it burns the house down with an unkillable fire. (sarc)
@@user-mc7ez6lm4x That is such a comical load of horseshit. Lithium Ion battery losses are near 0% at 60% of capacity. The total charging losses including converting AC to DC is like 12% to 15%, not 40%. It is like this entire board is overrun with idiots with zero actual science or math skills.
Well said. Most people still haven't grasped the purpose of EVs and "renewables". That purpose isn't to save our climate from collapse. The purpose is to save the prime directive from any potential harm coming from any actions that might result from our concerns about our climate collapsing. The prime directive is of course "thou shalt maintain eternal economic growth". EVs and "renewables" are devices for diverting any will we might have to address climate collapse into tangible symbols of our virtue which, rather than posing any threat to the prime directive, create new impetus for industrial growth.
The extra financial upfront cost, if spent on solar, would do more for the planet and have a longer useful lifespan. Add in the insurance company automatic write offs and the shortened lifespan (Australian vehicle suppliers only have to make parts available for 10 years - best of luck getting that dashboard repaired)
What a solution, hey!! That very idea would also have helped Labours green energy plans… but not in the way they want. Labour don’t want Australian owned green energy, they’d rather give away 10,000 plus useless refrigerators to businesses (refrigerators that can’t hold temps within food safety guidelines), push EV vehicles and offer free heat pump hot water upgrades, before offering solar installation subsidies… They’re doing anything to “minimise” household power consumption, but nothing to help households generate or store power! All whilst allowing huge solar and wind farms to pop up all over our landscape… 100% of which are all foreign owned and the majority owned by foreign companies that have never had any interest in Australia’s energy generation prior. EV’s are just a way of ensuring the energy companies will still be required after dark. Not even 2 Tesla power walls could store enough energy to charge an EV and run a household when the sun goes down.
@@lukeclifton4392labour have been offering solar install incentives for years in Victoria (highest rooftop solar ratio in Australia). You might want to rethink home batteries being at all better for the environment. They're absolutely not and only serve to provide the owners with something to brag about.
I kindly disagree, seriously disagree due to a serious mistake he makes in this episode regarding factual basement level operational science in the area of CO2. So i will share this with you; *"What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition, of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2 the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison."* ~ Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. is an _[Alfred P. Sloan]_ Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Therefore: it is quite sad man...seriously... that he got such basic science wrong, why? Well firstly because the quote above shows you are exactly who the quote is referring and also, because the fact Ozzie John knows all he does seemingly more accurate and correct than not as he presents, but yet after all that display of what he knows which again would seem to be all accurate, yet he STILL gets an enormous fact of rudimentaary factual operational science incontrovertibly fatally wrong that inescapably then causes his argument to be quite dead on arrival wrong in key parts, thus, to simply have a fatal error/malfunction due to fatally flawed first stage inputs for part of his argument which means then he will have to reassess his argument and thus he will have to go back to the drawing board to rebuild his argument because of this indisputable fatal error he makes regarding basic operational factual science about CO2.
My issue with EVs are not that they are inherently bad, per se. It's the fact that not only have people been misled about not only the batteries, but also about the infrastructure needed to get these battery charging places to work in extreme weather changes, such as the heat of summer and the cold of winter. In Colorado, for example, during the winter, a man with a Rivian truck went out in the middle of the night, in the middle of winter, and found that more than 15 chargers had issues where they intermittently worked, or not at all. And this was sampling of over 20 chargers by different manufacturers. The main issue? The power cables would become stiff, and the actual charging connectors wouldn't connect electrically to his Rivian. The other thing is lithium itself. We only have about 50-80 years' worth of raw lithium left, globally. That being said, I still don't understand why fossil fuels are so denigrated, when both fracking and carbon capture, along with synthesizing fuels, has become a lot more common. Even algae eating garbage produces pure diesel fuel. Regardless, the only way EV costs will come down is not because of manufacturing processes, but rather will come down when much more common materials are used for battery packs in cars. Two of the most common materials on Earth is zinc and chlorine -- and Gulf & Western Industries in the 1970s was creating then battery packs for cars (three classes of vehicles), as well as power sub-station locations. While not producing all that many units, they did demonstrate proof of concept, using a battery pack in a 1970s Volkswagen Rabbit. The point is, unless battery packs are using common materials, with power produced from nuclear power plants or hydro plants, EVs will continue to be a novelty, as they were in the early 1900s. Retired American late-night TV show host Jay Leno has examples from all three power sources in the early 1900s: Gas, steam (Stanley Steemer), and EVs (he has a 1908 EV). Gas-powered cars won the Car War back then, because of its convenience coupled with energy density. But at the same time, enivironmentalists have to realize: Energy, like anything else in life, requires a trade-off. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. And no matter how you get it, you'll always have losses. These things are facts, and are irrefutable. Because you cannot get out of a system more energy than you put in. The most you can get out of a system is what you put in. And in order to have an EV society, these things must be taken into account, no different than Power-to-Weight Ratio (PWR) is for fuel efficiency now.
Love your work, particularly your attachment to the facts - thank you mate. Dropping in ordinary language while articulating the science is top shelf, please know you are appreciated mate. Could you please highlight the threat of the facts and the possible ‘deconstruction’ of the internet as we know it, posed by AI. What does this mean and are we watching the value of information evaporate before our eyes? Will the internet be forever irrelevant when it comes to the facts as AI accelerates irrelevance. Thanks again. Andrew
JC …I’m a long time follower but rarely comment but this EV perspective is gold! Shared it far and wide. People need to know this stuff…the previous video about greenwashing (no surprise Dan’s lot were front and centre!) was also enlightening! Keep up the good, nay great work and have you thought about politics? And for the record, on wife V2 and I think she’s a keeper! Keith M.
Search for this article title on the net: *"Carbon dioxide isn’t a “pollutant” causing global warming, it’s the elixir of life itself"* Here's an excerpt; Without CO2, all plant life would die - which means all humans and animals would also die. CO2 is _plant food,_ after all, facilitating photosynthesis and the life cycle itself. Removing CO2 from the planet like the climate cultists are demanding would render the entire world _barren of life._ It would quickly become a wasteland marked with death and destruction - and would certainly not be a paradise. For the past several years, the corporate-controlled media, Leftist politicians, and members of the Church of Global Warming have been telling us all that CO2 is a "pollutant." Nothing could be further from the truth. _[Related: CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with global temperatures.]_ *"CO2 emissions from industrial processes of the last two centuries have been highly beneficial to plant growth,"* writes Vijay Jayaraj. *"Scientific studies show that CO2 has played a significant role in the re-greening of the earth after abnormally low CO2 levels had limited much of the planet's vegetation due to CO2 starvation."* The massive increase in food production over the past century, which allows for the feeding of eight billion people worldwide, would also not have been possible without CO2 - not to mention slightly warmer temperatures in some areas that are more suited for agriculture. Ironically enough, CO2 is also responsible for keeping the planet green, as in rich and lush with trees, fauna, and other plant life. Without CO2, the entire planet would be brown and barren. For all of their talk about embracing a "green" agenda, the greenies are fighting against the very things that actually keep the planet green in color. Talk about insanity. According to Scientific American, CO2 acts as a fertilizer to keep natural ecosystems intact. Forests, jungles, savannahs, tundra, and everything in between all rely on CO2 to thrive, keeping animals and humans alive as part of the food chain. Amazingly, increases in CO2 from the pre-industrial age until now have allowed for "increased trees" productivity of around 23 percent. This means that CO2 is actively greening the planet and making it more livable. "For most of the other plants humans eat - including wheat, rice and soybeans - having higher CO2 will help them directly ... Doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels does boost the productivity of crops like wheat by some 11.5 percent and of those such as corn by around 8.4 percent," says Francis Moore, a professor at the UC Davis. _[end of excerpt]._
So if climate is an issue why do countries fight citizens to import immigrants that need houses cars electricity gas etc Guess you never thought about this
The numbers are somewhat different here in New Zealand where we have > 85% renewable generation. Old EV batteries with solar is pretty popular, that's a great way to get another decade out of them. Even so, I'm not parting with my 20 year old Jag V8 any time soon!
The political and commercial influence behind the dismantling of this country's rail transport industry in favour of the trucking industry is a massive part of the problem. Also, the urbanisation of farmland forcing us to import produce from further and further away is another contributing factor. There is so much more we could have done and can still do. The biggest hurdle we face is a political class whose main concern is staying in power.
One of the most annoying things about housing on farmland is that a lot of it tends to also by default, be some kind of floodplain because that's why the soil is so rich. Then we have all the weeping, my shit got washed downstream and 'someone do something' crowd which seems to insist on living in them regardless of knowing what rivers do every decade or so.
The other political hurdle we face is the politicians being subsidised by being funded by corporate entities who don't have the public, national security, country, housing and employment interests at heart
Agree, Australia has a lot of wonderful places to live. We don't have to all pile into Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. There is a very good life to be lived elsewhere at much lower cost and much improved lifestyle.
Disclosure: I am delighted I don't live in any of those places and further more rarely visit them. When I do I can't wait to get home.
Anybody headed out to the Hawkesbury recently? Paving fertile, watered farmland to build McMansion farms, no infrastructure, jammed traffic and no trees. It’s impressive, amazing and depressing at the same time.
Actually lot of transport is going back on trains lately
Stupid has a price. Luckily, our kids will pay for it. So proud of my generation 💩
Again as one engineer to another, I could not have articulated the global EV greenwashing as well as you just did. Absolutely 1,000% bang on. Gotta love those awkward facts.
Alelluia for the man that speaks truth to power.😊
I'm surprised that an engineer has problems with basic maths.
You don't have a clue and neither does he
@@allanrogers6599 oh really? Please do enlighten us. But try to stick to the facts. We're waiting....
@@andymanaus1077 classic response from someone who can't assemble a reasoned argument. 🤣
I've always hated EVs. I hate them so much more now. The vehicles are very dangerous and the drivers are utterly obnoxious.
You just gained 1000 horsepower!!! This video is exactly what I've been trying to tell people as an engineer for years!! 🔥🔥🔥
General public: Fuel prices are going through the roof, people are hurting!!
Marie Ationette: Let them drive Teslas...
That’s exactly what former children‘s book writer now-turned-Finance minister of Germany said.
As a three Tesla family I've got to laugh at your comment. While the nay-sayers and skeptics make patently dishonest arguments against EV's and keep paying for expensive gas, my family has been reaping the cost savings of driving electric for almost 5 years now. In other words, people are hurting from high fuel prices because of their own lack of critical thinking.
But ElecElec is also going through the roof and in Oz it's mostly coal fired. Sola panels are forcing kids and Weiga Adults to die in Africa and work as slaves I China. One wind turbine takes 80,000 kg of concrete for its base. Magnets are rare earth from Africa and the blades are balsa wood stripped from trees in the Amazon, coated with petroleum based plastic resins Again NOT RECYCLABLE. It's a disaster.
@@dc14522 Five years? How are the batteries holding up? (Honest question)
@@schwarzwolfram7925 my oldest EV is a long range Model 3 (2018) that’s at 99,800 miles. I gave it to my son about 3 months ago. At that time I estimated that it had lost maybe 5% of its range, although on a daily basis you don’t even notice. From what I’ve read, 1% per year is typical. BTW, the only maintenance I ever paid for (besides tire rotation/replacement) was about $200 to fix the trunk latch. I’ve also had the charge door opener replaced and ultrasonic sensors put back in place when I hit an object in the road. In both cases Tesla came to my house and fixed them for no charge. Also, tire replacements aren’t any more frequent than the Dodge Journey I used to drive. I really can’t exaggerate how terrific my cars, and the company, have been.
I've always thought EVs were a fraud but I'd never thought of the other uses these batteries could have been put to. Spot on mate. Thanks a lot..
C02 is needed by plants to live, no CO2, all plant life dies. More CO2 greens the earth, CO2 is required for photosynthesis... sigh. It blows my mind how many have been so successfully moronised to believe CO2 is bad for the environment. *"What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition, of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2 the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison."* ~ Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. is an _[Alfred P. Sloan]_ Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Hey John, if EVs are such a fraud (and you do make a pretty compelling case that we shouldn't have any until every house has a battery) - why then are you pimping the hell out of them on your website?
Even better, because you can use other rechargeable battery technologies at fixed locations, in addition to just lithium. A house doesn't move. Lithium ion virtue is that its more energy dense than other batteries. That's why they're great for EVs, and cell phones. You don't need that at your house. Old fashion lead acid, will do just fine, and enough capacity to take your house off grid, really doesn't take that much space, if you're a house, and not a car. There are other lithium alternatives, too. Such as flow batteries, and sodium ion.
Not so much a Fraud as a sub-optimal decision. Hydrogen - now there's a proper Fraud
When politicians dictate the direction of the market only a disaster can result based on what history tells us.
100%. Small government that stays out of our lives is the only solution. Instead they betray the people and meddle in their lives. Vehicle emissions standards is yet another deceptive move to gain power, control and take from the average person.
Also a disaster when politicians define "the science" and what doctors are allowed to say and do.
Totally agree, politicians should stop giving 1Trillion annually of tax payer money to prop up the fundamentally flawed oil and gas industry. They should stop permitting destruction of land to dig for oil and building pipelines, they should stop sending citizens to die to control oil resources. Less government intervention more free market. You are spot on
Politicians are just puppets. That's why it doesn't matter who we vote for. Follow the yellow brick road.
Thank goodness someone is prepared to tell the truth about EVs.
@@vasil7410explain yourself. Do facts lie?
@@vasil7410lol
The truth about EV's:
Tesla model Y will be the most sold carmodel on planet Earth in year 2023 and year 2024. 😊
@@ericdolby1622Tesla model Y will be the most sold carmodel on planet Earth in year 2023 and year 2024 😊😊😊
Yes, a totally unbiased petrol head ....
Great job, I was a total EV skeptic before seeing your video, but now I’m absolutely on board with your argument! I mean I never really thought how EVs go a long way in ensuring our own energy security from being dictated by those few oil rich countries, and that they only really emit tyre pollution when compared to their combustion engines peers. You are totally right, we need to do something about those huge unregulated polluting trucks on our roads next, they are the real issue!. I’m sold on your suggestion of becoming more self sufficient in my electricity needs, it’s time I join the 30% plus of Australian households who already have solar panels on their homes and the ever increasing record number of home batteries being installed across the country. Getting off the grid will surely only give me even more bragging rights down at the country club. Finally, I would really like to thank you for the trading tips, I’m so going to put all those supercharged hard earned petrochemical shares dividends I have into the next big money making ventures you highlighted, lithium resources and battery recycling! Your right there’s shitloads more money to be made in the pending battery materials boom, and those batteries destined to go to the tip that should instead be going into my wallet, and come to think of it these super big battery guzzling SUVs EVs are only going to help fatten it up even nicer! Thanks again for your brilliant ideas!
Another one who thinks these EV's are environmentally good.While it is not the case.The pollution of petrol cars is just replaced to the electric plants!And more heavily than ever!Not to mention the vast building need for more electric plants and outbild of more cables on the country.
There is no regulatory mandate to recycle those massive, problematic EV batteries. There is currently little market for metals within waste batteries due to the difficulty and dangers of extraction. Your local scrap metal merchant won’t buy and who wants to own or stockpile such potentially dangerous ticking time-bombs until a mass extraction industry is finally established? That recycling industry should have been up and running before release of EVs onto the mass market. The lack of legal mandates upon manufacturers and/ or owners to compel responsible recycling, combined with the fact that there is no established recycling industry, means many batteries will be dumped to landfill, leaching ultra-toxic materials into groundwater-no good for the biosphere, current life or future generations.
@@jooproos6559 I agree, and the problems are more numerous than those you’ve mentioned…
I was always concerned by the environment and I always supported movements to save this planet, but after seeing all this environmental groups (that should know better) promoting the EVs as a solution for this planet I simply stopped to care. This planet is doomed by human stupidity and we can’t help…
EV's provide a small contribution to the overall issue of climate crisis. I emphasize small as the biggest contributors are in agriculture, deforestation, fuel burning and even methane from permafrost melting. The biggest drive for EV's is that fossil fuels are going to end in decades, not centuries.
@@mjcapintoThe true long term contribution is to manufacture less vehicles
@@bestduckyrblx2944 Is true that we will have to collectively redefine the purpose and use of vehicles. Does that mean produce less? Perhaps.
Becouse this left green extremists,I stopped recycling. .
don't forget all the wood burning cooking in the third world, what are THEY going to do?@@mjcapinto
keep it going John! From here in the US -- these fools plugging in their EV's don't understand what fuels make that electricity. Let alone what your deadass battery does in a landfill. God help our children since they are being programmed to not help themselves.
The change from the fossil fuel age to the electric age is a 100 year+ process. You fail to facto in clean fusion power.
He's not advocating against batteries altogether. Listen to him unfiltered. Geez.
Lol yeah all the batteries will be in landfills. You’re right. There’s not already many recycling companies set up. Well just dump them in landfills and the ocean. And everyone know where their electricity comes from. The key is getting to a point where it doesn’t come from coal - and even when it does it’s STILL more efficient then an ICE car.
I wouldn’t buy any car that the Chinese are involved in.
So don't use EVs in US, move to Scandinavia, move to Australia, New Zealand, or WTF, why not Russia?
Agreed John. EVs have their place, but I do fail to see them as a cure all for the Greenie's woes.
I don't want one as my secondary car, as my needs are a little to unpredictable for them.
As for a daily runabout around the shops and commute, one would be ideal also.
Horses for courses.
Hit the nail on the head again. Significant point hidden in there was the trip to church. Most people don't go anywhere. Short commutes, shopping trips, local journeys mostly. EVs are great at making air in cities less polluted. EVs should be small, lightweight local vehicles, like golf carts. If it rains, fit the sidescreens, and wear another jumper.
No fuckin' way I'm going to do the 7-hour round trip to my nearest capital city in a fuckin' golf cart!
@@wiseoldfool Which part of "short commutes", and "local vehicles", didn't you understand?
Fully agree, EV became popular when they started going for performance rather than fit for purpose efficiency. The leaf never went anywhere because it was slow and small. We can’t save ourselves but the marketing makes us feel better….
MG3 / Kia Picanto sized EVs have a role if you dont ever need to use one to do more than 200kms at a time. That puts them into a "second car" class that will limit take up unless they are cheap.
@@remakeit2628 So 'You' are not 'Most'. As EVs are expensive, have hard suspension, despite having had heavy ICE cars for decades, and many have raised floors to accomodate the batteries, leaving rear seat passengers with their knees under their chin, i wonder what you have compared yours with, to declare it so much better than an equivalent priced ICE car.
Great video, the truth about EVs is in public domain,
The problem as ever is politicians.
and the lying legacy brainwash media
Actually, the politicians are merely a manifestation of the populace, i.e., us. Blaming the politicians is really a cop out. Though if you'd replaced politicians with marketers, I'd have accepted that.
@@andrewthomas695exactly. The pollies get on board after.
@@andrewthomas695 Actually, politics and politicians are at the center of most of the world's ills and evils. The heart of the problem is the populace belief that politicians and politics are a source of just, equitable, and efficient solutions to modern problems when they are nothing more than necessary evils to help keep peace in society.
Voters are to blame.
My first wife was rather a mistake, the body work was good, but it was loud, brash, American, and was actually made in China.
I had her for a couple of years, and then things became unreliable.
The issue is that I had signed the paperwork with witnesses, and disposal was extremely difficult, rather costly, and whilst the manufacturers were very sympathetic, they took the view that I had taken her off the block, and around the corner before saying "I do" and that unless I wanted to upgrade to their younger model, that they would have to stand by their product. I should say that they said something about how I had installed a child seat without their permission, and that it invalidated some warranty or something...
I decided to next try a second hand eastern european model. This was promising to start. Eventually ended up having 3 kids across the back. The eldest is now 26.
After 5 years of ownership, I became increasingly dissatisfied with the constant whining sound whenever I was popping down the shops, or going to the pub. It took me another 5 years to get rid of that one, and involved me having to move country for work. Unfortunately, it cost a fortune just to pop to the shops, as the Satnav default location was Harvey Nic's, Sloane Square, Knightsbridge and Harrods.
I then decided to get myself a newer model, and this time got a frankly amazing deal on a 1991 model, as the production facility she was made in was closing down, and as such, great deals can be had on USSR stock manufactured in the final days of the facilities operation. I understand from her that there was some rolled up, management buyout by a group calling themselves the Russian Federation, but I picked her up cheap, in Western Europe, and have had a reliable time since.
I did temporarily have a friend called Tiffany as well, and to be honest, that was in Australia, but many many years ago. John, it might be an idea to check the previous owner paperwork, if you have it to hand ...
You, sir, just made my day. 🤣🤣🤣
After having been through several locally produced models that were new old stock, I upgraded to a much newer model (as in 10 years newer) from a northern state and - despite having a few mechanical design flaws - it oozes character and came with heaps of clever gadgets. Not going to trade in any time soon by the looks of it. 😍
Hi John, the issue isn't the free market (which is merely vestigial at this stage), it is the gross distortions of the market caused by "green" government policies.
Correct.
Yep, can’t be a free market if your not free to make the choice. Government is forcing company’s to comply and we are left with no other options.
When the aviation industry signs onto UN sustainable development goals, which seek to destroy the aviation industry by curtailing the amount of flights globally based on emissions quota, you know they are being subsidized not to provide the service which their very existence depended upon. Clear free market intervention.
Can you name one single “green” government policy causing distortions in the markets
@@mrcontrarian1416 You mean like subsidies for "renewable energy"?
OMG, I just about spit my morning coffee onto the window of my truck. Your sarcastic humor is awesome. You may be based in Australia but your message resonates around the world. BTW, I'm from Canada and drive one of those carbon puking trucks you mentioned. I see these "TWATS" as you eloquently stated driving Teslas more and more. Our winters can be harsh. I'd like to know how much EXTRA electricity they are using just to keep running in the winter. Those cars have to stay running to keep the batteries from freezing. Plus the range decreases by at least 1/4. And don't get me started on the kobalt mining in desolate countries that are akin to labour camps. Sorry for the rant. Love you. I'll keep watching you. Your one of the to few who tell it like it is.
well just because they are not ok, doesn't mean you are ok. you are also driving something bigger then you need. i understand you need it (carbon puking trucks, as you put it) for work. but then dont drive it to the store or as a regular mode of transportation please.
I’ve been driving an EV for a little over a year into a 2 year experiment. I’m going back to a gas car at the end. The EV doesn’t save me money or save the planet.
Your EV series has been full of references and facts. Much appreciated!
Carbon is not the problem
@@MelbourneHandyman Isn't the carbon cycle and generation of atmospheric carbon dioxide the target we hope to reduce? If not, we could end up like planet Venus which has had a runaway CO2 greenhouse effect for other reasons and the surface of which is now hot enough to melt lead.
@@Michael.Chapmanat its surface Venus has a pressure 92 times that of Earth's surface pressure. It's 92 times denser, which is why it's so hot. Emissions aren't making our atmosphere denser.
Thumbs up. CO2 is required for photosynthesis... it's plant food, takes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, it's a miracle molecule required for life on earth. @@MelbourneHandyman
Thumbs up to you.@@HarryCallahan72
You are what this world needs, an individual who has the stones to lay it out minus the sugar coating. A wealth of information, experience, and a solid plan to make a positive impact. Thanks for all that you do, I hope our politicians are pushed out before it's too late.
Yeah, get rid of all politicians.
UA-cam and TikTok experts could take their place.
@oldbatwit5102 I think you're missing my point. We need politicians out and people who have a brain with desirable functions in.
CO2 is plant food, w/o it, you die. Search for this article title on the net: *"Carbon dioxide isn’t a “pollutant” causing global warming, it’s the elixir of life itself"* Here's an excerpt;
Without CO2, all plant life would die - which means all humans and animals would also die. CO2 is _plant food,_ after all, facilitating photosynthesis and the life cycle itself.
Removing CO2 from the planet like the climate cultists are demanding would render the entire world _barren of life._ It would quickly become a wasteland marked with death and destruction - and would certainly not be a paradise.
For the past several years, the corporate-controlled media, Leftist politicians, and members of the Church of Global Warming have been telling us all that CO2 is a "pollutant." Nothing could be further from the truth. _[Related: CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with global temperatures.]_
*"CO2 emissions from industrial processes of the last two centuries have been highly beneficial to plant growth,"* writes Vijay Jayaraj.
*"Scientific studies show that CO2 has played a significant role in the re-greening of the earth after abnormally low CO2 levels had limited much of the planet's vegetation due to CO2 starvation."*
The massive increase in food production over the past century, which allows for the feeding of eight billion people worldwide, would also not have been possible without CO2 - not to mention slightly warmer temperatures in some areas that are more suited for agriculture.
Ironically enough, CO2 is also responsible for keeping the planet green, as in rich and lush with trees, fauna, and other plant life. Without CO2, the entire planet would be brown and barren.
For all of their talk about embracing a "green" agenda, the greenies are fighting against the very things that actually keep the planet green in color. Talk about insanity.
According to Scientific American, CO2 acts as a fertilizer to keep natural ecosystems intact. Forests, jungles, savannahs, tundra, and everything in between all rely on CO2 to thrive, keeping animals and humans alive as part of the food chain.
Amazingly, increases in CO2 from the pre-industrial age until now have allowed for "increased trees" productivity of around 23 percent. This means that CO2 is actively greening the planet and making it more liveable.
"For most of the other plants humans eat - including wheat, rice and soybeans - having higher CO2 will help them directly ... Doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels does boost the productivity of crops like wheat by some 11.5 percent and of those such as corn by around 8.4 percent," says Francis Moore, a professor at the UC Davis.
_[end of excerpt]._
Hello, I was a mechanic for 40 years. This is ridiculous. Need another solution.
Yes me too I was a Ford dealership mechanic for years I'm now retired
Whenever I try to explain the exact same stuff to EV lovers, they just won't hear any of it.
If these people were really wanting to save the planet, they wouldn't need their EV to go 0 to 60 in 3 seconds, which is pissing away huge amounts of power and tearing up the tires, which isn't needed. EVs should be made to be as economical as possible, not rich tw*t speed machines.
We live in a capitalist society. I hate it, but it's fact.
Those super fast twat machines are more profitable than the sub $35k simple EV's we all want to buy, so they're the first to market.
Not really much is an argument, unless cheap EV's never exist. And since they're already being sold elsewhere (there are sub $10k USD EV's being sold) you basically don't have an argument.
Mainly because we don’t care what you have to say because we already know. I hate servos mechanics and car dealers with equal distain. Driving and ev 1500km a week allows me to avoid all 3 of them. All my cars leave me the same way. Which is on the back of a truck to be scrapped because I’ve driven the wheels off it. You can’t be “saving the planet” while also driving 80k a year in any kind of conveyance. But they fit me like a glove.
Never challenge an evangelist, it is exercise of stolen time.
@@hargeauxIf you hate it, why don't you move somewhere more to your liking?
If we can't get behemoth engined hemi-cummings-trackstar😁 utes pickups to accept moderate 0-60 times, why would you think EV buyers should/would.
Virtually nobody is willing to make tradeoffs.
I don’t care what anyone says about EVs.
I love my EV and I use the very best kind.
It’s called a Waratah, it’s about 150 metres long and steers like it’s on rails. I don’t even have to wear a seatbelt, and it goes well and truly faster than the road speed limit!
It’s truly amazing and I’m super thankful that someone else is doing the driving.
I’m an EV owner, and I agree with most of what you’re saying. It’s a fun car and I live in Manitoba where most electricity is hydro, for whatever that is worth. One point you made about national energy security is what I think is quite important.
A, trucking operator I spoke to recently, who runs a fleet of around 20 prime movers, and his own workshop carting B-doubles around, mentioned the front axle load limit. 6 ton in Australia and to benefit electric trucks, 11 ton in the USA (on the same hardware) so they can carry more battery weight up forward. He has been speaking to a representative of Scania about it. Can't find a workable solution.
Tyres, brakes and kingpins are engineered to this limit. Add in the load spread amongst axles. Now add in load carrying capacity (reduced) and the need to spread the load differently to comply. Yeah, nah, not happening. EV trucks might work for uban deliveries but never heavy haulage over distances. Imagine how long you would be waiting to charge it at Bundaberg on the way to Cairns. Who is paying the downtime? LOL
Seeing a few trucks trialling CNG gas or Natural gas as a fuel in the UK. Also the company who delivers for McDonald's run trucks with bio diesel from recycled cooking oil from the restaurants. All of these options are possibly suitable for long distance haulage vehicles.
@@bentullett6068 Unless you are McD - where do you get enough bio fuels? 40l per 100km or do you grow crops with scarce water and harvest with diesel tractors and process it in fossil fuel plants? EV's are only 'Green' because we ignore the manufacturing pollution
@charlesmartell4484 where does that 8,000kg come from? AH - reduced load capacity. Yeah. Why does Australia run road trains? more freight per truck/driver/capital cost
I'm presuming most of the battery weight is carried on the rear axles. Pepsi are beta testing 25 or so electric semis and the feedback has been very positive on most aspects from range to drive-ability etc. Apparently the drivers love ém.
"Remote combustion is still combustion". I agree 100%. As a 'Strayan, I currently own a 5.7L V8 Commodore. It will continue to produce 4 tonnes of CO₂ every year. Every. Year. And nothing can possibly change that. The petrol that I'm burning is also forever gone: it's pumped out of the ground, converted to petrol, then burned to produce energy and pollution.
The material dug up to produce batteries is merely incorporated into them; it's not "consumed" by the process. You can recover it, with the recycling that you dismissed as "not Government mandated". Soon, it will be economically mandated, so I'm not worried.
According to your figures, if I change to an EV, then I will consume 30kg of CO₂ every charge - meaning I could charge 133 times in a year (once every 2½ days) to produce the same amount of CO₂. The. Same. Amount. And if the electricity producers change a coal-fired plant to a renewable plant, I will automatically produce less CO₂ - and fewer fugitive emissions too. The changeover to renewables has its problems, but the fact is that by centralising power generation and making it renewable, it improves everything - as long as you're not burning the fuel yourself.
I reckon they'll legislate you and your vehicle out of existence, unfortunately. By 2030 or 2035 at the latest.....
and keep this in mind... that same v8, come shtf... theres plenty of ways to keep it running... woodgas, start digging into all that landfill for plastic to melt down, coals abundant in nsw...
good luck replacing ECUs and inverters and semiconductors with no grid, no internet, no schematics, no manuals, no idea how those stupid little epoxy encapsulated black boxes actually work... and everything you need to diagnose if you do know... doesnt work. or its a fecking jury rigged contraption that barely works cus suddenly you cant order parts...
whereas strapping a makeshift dizzy to ANY engine, figuring out a spark, fuel... thats childs play. points... induction coils... weee.
gunna be oxy torches around, workshops, old engines, belts... warehouses full of stuff if you can get to them...
ffs, watch the thai guys make engines from old fridges. theres no reason it doesnt work. just an air compressor with fuel and spark. big deal. why you would bother though... prove a point?
mad max all the way!
ka choonk, ka choonk... bring it on. i know theres shale oil under me? maybe i should start drilling, lol.
yeah, northwest sydney. has capped off oil wells. ;) its under there. lots of it. squeezed in beside all the coal...
the future is bright!
as long as we get a carrington event. screwed otherwise.
@@davidnobular9220 The current suggested legislation is (paraphrased) "to prevent the sale of new ICE vehicles", to stop the demand on petrol into the future. They're not even beginning to suggest they'll prevent the sale of used cars - in the same way that they haven't prevented the sale of cars without seatbelts. Seatbelts were mandated decades ago, but you can still buy seatbelt-less vehicles precisely because they're classic/vintage. Again, I'm not worried.
@@johnadriaan8561 I hope you're right.
Great post John - you've brought up some excellent points. I bought a used Lexus 300H about 5 years ago - wasn't really looking for a hybrid, but the price was right. After driving this thing for 5 years and putting about 110K miles on it, I don't understand why everyone doesn't buy one over an EV or a regular ICE vehicle. Even with 150K total miles, I still average between 38-40 MPG - the non-hybrid ES 350 averages about 26-28. I really think hybrid technology is the way to go - I really don't see a downside. To be honest, the hybrid technology is integrated so well into the vehicle, I often forget it IS a hybrid. Amazing technology!
Hybrid is still requiring a battery that has stripped the ground of non renewable resources, but the same problem applies.
More complicated, thus more things that can break.
Heavier, so more brake and tyre wear, worse handling.
Battery.
Those are the downsides.
Just bought a 250h. Fantastic cars.
Brakes wearing out is a bit of bullshit as regen acts as braking offsetting the weight issue
A lightweight plug-in hybrid is the best solution. Distance is unlimited. Driving on a recharged small battery offers savings that an EV car will never provide. A small battery doesn't have the initial high pollution problems or the problems with pollution at the end of life. Note: Joethl4981. A small battery and a small amount of "stripped ground" is the best possible solution.
I run a 22 year old Honda CRV. Cost 3k, been running 2 years and still worth 3k. Now - about that EV. 60k divide by 10 years = $120 a week AND new pollution from making a new one every 10 years AND making new batteries every 7 years. Old cars make less pollution over their economic lifespan and are way cheaper per kilometer
. . . and we need this sort of interjecting ad on mainstream tv like youtube interrupts the topic, or just fact cards like for like EV - ICE
What battery only lasted 7 years? The first gen 1 leafs are over a decade old now and are still running. They use a very outdated cell tech and chemistry too.
Plus, there are new gasoline engines available that use 60% less fuel. They exist. EV's can never catch up to that.
@@N1rOx NZ leafs are lasting 7 years. The replacement battery costs 8k on a car worth 7k. USA Teslas are 23k on a 21k car. The battery guarantee is 7 years (8 in the UK) and 160,000km. After that, they are uneconomic to replace. In the UK, any mildly serious accident = writeoff because the battery status is unknown. Then look at whole of life - In 20 years, 2 EVs, 2-3 batteries versus a 40k ICE that will do 260,000+km. Doesn't add up.
@@wazza33racer 40l/100km on new Scanias
The best thing for climate would be if the new car industry shutdown for 10-25 years and everyone just drove and maintained old cars.
But money.
My wife and I say “sheeple” each time we see an EV on the road.
It's a shame that LPG cars didn't become fully mainstream. My bicycle is my choice for commuting to work. My LPG car is great at long country drives and towing.
It's starting to make a come back. Noticing that they are looking at LPG, CNG and Natural gas options for running trucks here in the UK. Passed a DAF truck the other day and noticed that the diesel fuel tank had been replaced with CNG gas tanks.
@bentullett6068 I had a triumph 2500TC that had been converted to CNG.... lols what an adventure that was!
@@kenwilliams3279 You say that like it wasn't an adventure on petrol.
lpg is dearer than petrol in the regions.. and unfortunately a terrible long distance option unless yyou have multiple tanks, not all service stations sell gas and the pumps have issues in some weather conditions (you get a lot less gas for your money in hot weather and the pumps freeze in winter
My 33 year old Landcruiser has been on lpg for 31 years and still going like it was when new, its not very fuel efficient but I can guarantee you its better for the environment than any new ev
One aspect of EVs which I never see covered is the fact that gasoline is a byproduct of producing heavier hydrocarbons. You have to drive off the natural gasoline portion of the oil to get to the kerosene, diesel, bunker fuel etc. Depending on where the oil was produced, the fraction that is natural gasoline can be very high. So as long as we need the heavier fractions of the oil to be refined, we will get gasoline. This gasoline will be burned whether or not we ourselves burn it or export it to some other country.
Great point
@@ZREXER1250 This is exactly what happened with all the LPG that was coming out of the North Sea. It was flared off. It would have made sense to power cars with it (despite cylinder-head issues in some cases) but, thanks to lobbying from the European car manufacturers that had invested heavily in diesel engine development Gordon Brown was persuaded to bump up the tax on LPG and in so doing killed off the LPG initiative.
did you know when you are refining gasoline, the byproducts are kerosene, diesel and bunker oil. yeah, i need bunker oil, oh wow look at all the gasoline left over. we dont make ships with motors to burn bunker oil, me make bunker oil burn in ships. kerosene and diesel might not fit this example perfectly but i hope you see my point.
like all chemical reaction these can be studied both ways.
@@ColinMill1 we have virtually unlimited LPG in Ireland but our WEF guys in charge recon its best environmentally to leave it and import oil and litter the country with the white elephant windy things
@@finalmckinney4680 Yes, it makes you wonder who is passing how much cash to who and in what sized envelopes.
Recently did the calculations with my home solar panels. I have 18 panels and export 40 kWh per week when there is nobody at home. If I had a top model Tesla 3 with a flat battery and wanted to run the thing on purely renewable power (ie: that which I currently export to the grid) it would take 2 weeks to charge the thing up (assuming it was at home from 8am to 3pm when I am currently exporting to the grid). Given that most of my driving is during daylight hours, the only way I could give that "green electricity" to the car would be if it was stored in a battery, which costs $20,000 to install. Even with all that extra infrastructure cost (and fire risk), the best I could expect is to get 300km/week out of the car. I have concluded I am far more environmentally friendly if I continue to drive my 10 year old V8 Jaguar than to commission the building of a new electric car (with all the carbon footprint that entails) .... the Jag is also lighter on the tarmac than a new BEV.
$20,000?? I have a 33kw solar array and 8kwh battrey for £8600.
@@vannicrider7953 that’s about the same in AUD. A powerwall alone costs $12500AUD, let alone installation here.
@@vannicrider7953which in Australia would equate to$20000
I’ll stay with my early model Mark2 Jaguar, the ‘chick magnet’ my better half calls it.😅
Spot on, John. The fundamental issue is energy over consumption, regardless of the source of said energy. We are being sold a bill of goods, to the joy of car manufacturers who are salivating over the once in a generation opportunity to replace the entire fleet. In 20 years, people will be wondering why it didn't fix the problem.
Wrong! It absolutely will NOT take 20 years; 1931 should do it. Europe will hopefully be even quicker to come to their senses.
@@ehb403 hmmm, well think about how long it took Europe to admit its massive blunder on diesels.....
@@bobmcl2406 _True, they were a bit slow on that, but to be fair it was somewhat harder for average joe to see the scope of that blunder at first. We have friends in europe wondering why politicians weren't reacting to diesel pollution at the end, when it was obvious people were dying. I'm thinking THAT history will pressure a quicker response. IDK why otherwise seemingly intelligent U.S. politicians (like A.O.C. and president Biden) are pushing this idiotic E.V. craze; money? Remember, V.W. had the gall to complain that they weren't getting enough U.S. fuel mileage credit for cleaning up the air and money kept that idea afloat even though it was a blatant lie!
2031 I believe you meant.
I don't understand what you mean by "energy over consumption".
Still working on my first ex wife John, 25 years of trying to convince her there are better options out there for her. Not only a poor husband but apparently a poor salesperson too.
😂😂. God bless!
I too have my future first ex-wife. After 30 years, she just won't leave.
LOL, you are just learning at only 30yrs, 49yrs for me with the same wife I married in 1974🙂@@dxbmick
I tried farting in bed, she still wont leave. Women are wierd.
EV's should all have a sticker on the rear window stating...I am powered by Aussie Coal ...
I'm in the UK and was talking to an Australian recently. When I brought up the Australian electricity production from coal, he corrected me saying that it's mostly renewable.
He genuinely believes this, so someone is doing a very good greenwashing job down there.
Oh by the way, he lives in Canberra!
Well, sure. Australia wide our grid is largely fed by coal still, but the ACT (and Tasmania) are completely fed by renewables. ACT is the home territory of Canberra.
Again, admittedly, the ACT is a bit of accounting spin (they buy renewable energy generated elsewhere on the eastern grid, not necessarily generated within the ACT) but it's absolutely true that they are paying for renewable energy.
That's probably what they were thinking.
At one point... It was cheaper to import coal to the UK from Australia than it was digging out of the ground at Kellingley colliery, UK
50% of electricity in Australia comes from coal. 29% from renewables and that percentage is increasing.
@@hargeaux " but the ACT (and Tasmania) are completely fed by renewables."
You left out the "on average" part. plenty of time there is coal being burnt to keep the lights on in ACT.
Well the ACT is 100% renewable energy driven unlike other states and territories.
I live in a city where it seems every second car is new twin cab ute, SUV etc. with one passenger. If people cared there would be less of these and more 2nd hand Corollas. Love your work, but we are screwed.
What about the ability of the electrical grid to charge all these EV's????
Superb essay John. *Remote combustion vehicle* - nail on the head! It will never be efficient to burn fuel remotely from where you need it. The EV has a place, but not in the the recyclable product bin. My fear is EV batteries will become the new asbestos in about 10 years when ICE cars are banned. So ordinary people are effectively imprisoned in their 15 minute cities. As we won’t have cars. At all.
Correction. 15 minute GULAGS.
Mate you are bang on , that is exactly the plan these evil twats have for us shitkickers .
And maybe that's the plan come to think of it.
EV batteries are required to be recyclable by law, the components are valuable. CO2, NOX, CO are our new asbestos and these come from shitty inefficient toxic internal combustion vehicles
External Combustion Engines vs ICE. One requires extra long wires.
Thanks for speaking out! I’ve been saying just this for the last couple of years!
This was actually not as bad as the headline indicated. Luxury cars, oversized cars, EV or not, is of course never resourceful. Normal sized medium range EV with nickel and cobalt free batteries IS a win. Btw, all essential materials in all types of lithium batteries are 97% recyclable. Process is scaling as we speak.
Nothing shouts, “efficiency“, quite like ~3000kg of SUV moving ~150kg of humans, and their gear, to school…
Must be primary school aged. Mine walk or cycle
FACTS: Electirc is 77 percent efficient vs 20 percent efficient. It takes about 4 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of energy to produce 1 gallon of gasoline. The same energy moves a tesla about 16 miles down the road. Australia's renewable energy isn't close to many EU nations but it's on a strong growth curve, with about 33% coming from renewable sources in 2022. I have both an EV and a truck for traveling long distances and hauling things, it's a starting point, but once swappable energy sources and battery density increases I will go fully electric.
The greenest car maker is the one who perfects vehicle to grid technology to allow the EV to soak up the surplus renewable energy around the middle of the day and allow it to go back into the grid at peak time at night. It may even provide more cash flow for the EV owner. There is an opportunity here for govt, electricity grids and car manufacturers to work together to allow the battery to be used for transport as well as to take houses off the grid. You don’t need to split the battery into 6, just allow it to discharge the battery into the grid at peak time.
I've been a software developer for logistic companies in the EU for a very long time and can tell you that they are VERY concerned about the amount of fuel used. Not because of CO2 (unofficially) but rather the massive fuel cost savings they can make on educating drivers in a fuel-efficient driving style. I have implemented a bunch of such software just for that reason. There are even scoring boards for companies where the winning company each year has a lot to gain by saying they are the most fuel efficient company.
A good idea should be teaching that to the general public as well. I see non green stupidity every day binary stop / start driving with no in between. I read the traffic ahead and roll to a stop whenever possible or at least to a safe speed without holding people up. Does wonders driving a commodore large car (2013 vf sv6) with long term fuel averaging slightly less than 10 litres per hundred with a 2/3 mix of suburban and freeway driving using 98 ULP plus at 180,000 km I’ve only done one set of brake pads and still on factory rotors hope to crack 250,000 km at least. Surely keeping my car maintained and not scrapping it for a Tesla I’m doing what I can for my carbon footprint.
Fix roads for max flow and less stop/idle time, synchronize traffic lights, encourage online work, sales and education. that would take more cars off the road than anything else. This EV thing is crap.
If you have a fleet & want to save money run some fuel efficient driver training AND competitions with prizes for most fuel efficient drivers. If you can get depots competeing it gets better, we all like to be on a winning team...
@@thomasclayton169Please, Miles and Gallons make more sense to the bulk of viewers on here who are in the USA and UK.
@@partymanau In my city of Warsaw, in Poland those governing idiots do exactly the opposite. They remake streets to be narrower hoping to force people to switch to a public transport. However its ultimate result is never-ending, barely moving, air polluting traffic jam.
Bro you're seriously underrated and need more subs. Consider it an honour! Very eloquently put and this needs to be seen by those crazy environmental nutcases.
One might be as eloquent as possible and one might be as sincere as possible, but one can be sincerely and still sincerely wrong, consider the below of where John get his argument fatally flawed wrong = intellectual suicide;
*"What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition, of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2 the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison."* ~ Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. is an _[Alfred P. Sloan]_ Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
It leave me astounded almost to full silence how Ozzie John missed how CO2 is required for life on this earth, CO2 is part of photosynthesis. It's a miracle molecule taking up only 0.04% of the atmosphere. It's plant food, they take in CO2, then convert to O2/Oxygen we need to live also, it's called a reciprocal relationship with plants. We carbon based life.. Please consider the above quote, and the below also, the quote above is a decades truthful, forthright, honourable experientially, quality well learned scientist. I share this with you so that you might see it is indisputable overt science misinformation or in competence to feed one's viewers that CO2 is supposedly a pollutant and to believe it is proves immensely that such people who would believe that failed basic science class or they are huge liars getting super-rich off a super world scam.
Here's more for you;
*"Nevertheless, there is another threat on the horizon. I see this threat in environmentalism which is becoming a new dominant ideology, if not a religion. Its main weapon is raising the alarm and predicting the human life endangering climate change based on man-made global warming."* ---- *"The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity, is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."* ---- *"I'm convinced that after years of studying the phenomenon, global warming is not the real issue of temperature. That is the issue of a new ideology or a new religion. A religion of climate change or a religion of global warming. This is a religion which tells us that the people are responsible for the current, very small increase in temperatures. And they should be punished."* --- *"The attempts to command the climate and decide about the temperature on our planet are wrong and arrogant. I wrote a book about it which was published in English under the title 'Blue Planet in Green Shackles."* --- *"The climate change debate is basically not about science; it is about ideology. It is not about global temperature; it is about the concept of human society. It is not about nature or scientific ecology; it is about environmentalism, about one - recently born - dirigistic and collectivistic ideology, which goes against freedom and free markets."* ---- *"Environmentalism is a dangerous ideology endangering human freedom."* ~ Václav Klaus, Czech economist and politician, served as the second president of the Czech Republic from 2003 to 2013. From July 1992 until the dissolution of Czechoslovakia in January 1993, he served as the second and last prime minister of the Czech Republic while it was a federal subject of the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic, and then as the first prime minister of the newly independent Czech Republic from 1993 to 1998.
*"The oceans that surround the world produce 185 billion tons of CO2 per annum. *Man per annum only produces six billion tons, so what could possibly be the concern? One volcano puts out more toxix gases-one volcano-than man makes in a whole year.* And when you look at this "climate change," and when you look at the regular climate change that we all have in the world, we have warm and we have cooling spells."* ~ John Raese, American Businessman
*"CO2 is not a pollutant in any normal definition of the term."* ~ Joe Barton, _[R-Texas]_ GOP Congressman
If I fart whilst driving an EV, is that a zero emission trip?
Probably not… Next thing, they’ll have Red Seaweed dispensers attached to EV chargers!!😂😂
The stuff they give to cattle to reduce methane.
Maybe if you have a carbon filter fitted.
If nobody hears, no emissions take place.
I still want to know what is going to be done about limiting the environmental damage of dead lithium batteries, once the virtue signallers have finished with them. Product life cycle is about from the ground and back to it, and from a climate impact perspective I am not convinced about any of this.
As an early EV owner and believer, I agree, I love the performance, no smell comes out of tailpipe (no tailpipe), fewer parts to break down, and quiet operation.
Since then I have done the research. Super expensive, current battery tech not good, range inadequate, charging time too long, AC/heating drains bettery, fire concern always worries me.
The argument of C02, is stupid. C02 is not pollution. It is not what is causing warming. The sun is far more of a factor. C02 is at a historic low. In the past with much higher Co2 levels, it did not cause run away greenhouse effect. The science actually shows that warming drives C02 not the other way around. C02 is plant food. Plants thrive in more CO2
The whole idea of burning fuel remotely is better for the environment is also ridculous. They tried to ban gas stoves here, so you use natural gas to turn it into electricity, then transmit that electricity to the house, then convert it back into heat. That is pure insanity. The losses in conversion twice, the losses in transmitting it over electrical lines is not helpful.
The grid can not handle all these cars charging. They haven't upgraded it in decades.
I know this has been said before, quite possibly by myself, but having a small EV for day to day running around (even an early Nissan LEAF @24kWh) doing short runs like most of us acutally do, and another car for 'other' driving jobs is going go work out better. A PHEV is like two cars at the same time while only actually having one. One purchase, one insurance, one rego, one Warrant of Fitness (WoF-NZ) or what you might call it, one parking space, one place to keep all the crap you keep in your car, etc. And the 12 to 20 kWh battery is going to allow many more of them to be built than the 100plus kWh monsters currently being pushed on the range anxious wankers with too much money to burn
Though one might have to deal with pricing at the bowser like they would with variable bank loan interest rates every time…
Here in the UK there is certainly a breed of pure EVangelist who treats the PHEV owner like a bad smell, as if they are some kind of traitor to the cause. Pointing out that the PHEV owner is probably making better use of the available battery capacity than the pure EV owner does not go down well with them.
If you have the charging facilities - many units don't - then maybe a good idea, but very heavy and very expensive to buy. Mild hybrids seem to be the way to go - electric assist. Nissan E power, Alfa Tonale and Haval H6
If an EV could fully charge in 5 minutes, I maybe interested in one.
or you could just charge it at night when electricity is cheap and you are sleeping
Depends on the circumstances, I spend far less time "refueling" my EV than I ever did with liquid fuel simply because it's at home, get home and push a plug in takes all of 5 seconds I don't care after that because I am already at home.
No longer do I need to detour every week and stand there for 5 mins waiting when I can be at home already.
Microcars and subcompact EVs are great if your major travel is limited range and limited speed applications. Smaller batteries that charge more quickly, cost less , and require less maintenance than ICE engines, and have no exhaust or noise. I would buy one at a reasonable price and use it for around town errand running. It would probably be cheaper to put the mileage on it than my larger ICE vehicle. I would keep my ICE vehicle for my main vehicle. I am under no illusion that I am going to "save the planet" by going EV nor do I want to virtue signal.
Or complete the 400 mile journey I do several times a year without the need to charge up - and do the first half of it in a Scottish winter (lights on, heater and wipers on max!)
@@dabrab Unfortunately 400 miles is not going to cut it in Australia. 3 or 4 times a year I drive out of Sydney & do around 1,300 klm in a day just by myself. I no people who drive upto 2,000 klm in a day when they share the driving. With limited fast charging infestructure outside big cities, these trips are impossible to do.
Rule of thumb - WHENEVER politicians or the government push an agenda, something is wrong and it needs to be quesrioned.
Totally. Its the Bovine Equalization Law. The level of bullshit is equal to the amount of political involvement.
My 10-year old Nissan Micra self-identifies as an EV, and it parks itself in EV parking slots at the local supermarket. So there is a bigger issue here, which is the discrimination against cars that self-identify as EVs but rude, ignorant and evil people say horrible things. What is the government doing about this?
I should generate a QR code link to this. Print it, and hand it to all the Tesla and various other EV owners I get up here in Babylon by the sea. (Byron Bay, catch up).
I was astounded at how ordinary the EQA 250 was that I towed on the weekend. $90k odd. Seems to be a $30k whack on top of a GLA for slightly less convenience.
Or you could get an EV6 for less.
Not only will EVs wipe out hundreds of thousands of jobs in the automobile manufacturing industry but they will decimate local economies too by wiping out many jobs in fuel transportation, gasoline and diesel sales, repair shops and almost all auto parts stores. Just imagine when there is no more demand for a mechanic because there are no more bad engine mounts, radiators, radiator hoses, heater hoses, engine coolant, mufflers, exhaust systems, drive shafts and U joints or CV joints, fan belts, serpentine belts, oil changes, transmission repairs, etc. What will all those mechanics do for a living? Will they all get jobs changing tires on EVs? Gas/petrol station jobs...gone! Automobile repair shops.....gone! Auto parts stores....gone! What will all those people do for a living?
that is the goal
Thanks John for confirming my thoughts on those vehicles. Even though the mines give out methane there are the machines that move and remove the overburden. One large bulldozer would most likely burn 600 or so liters, add in the dump trucks and the co2 gets stacked against electricity further, and I am not a fan of those dumb wind turbines that seem to have a short life. I have more of a tendency toward nuclear as the power stations presently using steam driven turbines are already there, all thats needed is a reactor to make steam, and bingo, away we go, but that won't work because there wouldn't be enough tax money wasted. Oh and someone will bring up Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, well things are very different now and don't say anything about Fukushima, all that area is on a fault line, Australia is in the middle of the plate. If they were serious this would not be an issue, but rockets keep flying to space, if they don't explode first, and bombs in Ukraine keep falling. It's all become a brainwashing exercise to the point of laughter.
I've never clicked on a video and liked it so bloody fast! Thank god someone has said it! I've always felt EV's were just a big con, for wealthy people to brag to their wealthy mates that they care about the environment.
Thank God? Thank John.
@@phoenixrising7047 Same person aren't they ;)
No, it is simple economics. I have never heard any EV driver bragging about how green they are. You never buy any petrol. Some EV's require almost no servicing. They cost peanuts to run if you use low cost electricity to charge overnight. Purchase costs are coming down, an MG4 is about the same as a base model VW Golf (all cars are expensive these days). Range around 300 miles now common. 20x less likely to catch fire than an ICE car per 100K miles driven, 10 yrs+ data supports this. Latest battery chemistries have no cobalt (as if you ever cared about that when it was being used to refine petrol and diesel). Batteries now expected to outlive the life of the car and even then they retain about 70% of capacity when new so starting to be used as grid storage. Electricity will eventually be really cheap so everything will move in this direction due to simple economics. Your feelings are irrelevant, economics drive everything. Also very useful not to be dependent on oil from very dodgy countries who can hold you to ransom at any time. Less city pollution highly desirable too. 1 in 8 people with lung cancer have never smoked.
EVs are mainly suitable for short journeys and light weight vehicles
Think you may deserve a noble award for this enlightening conversation. Taking houses of the grid is far easier and effective and convenient than stupid BEVs that no one really wants.
I just see EV's as soulless appliances. Plus judging by the depreciation values here in the UK if you have a battery fault its just like a appliance throw it away and buy another.
That is exactly what the manufactures are counting on, throw it away and buy another one...how green it that huh!
@@machinehead6892 plus some will throw them away quicker as they won't have the latest fashion accessory car with the new gizmos to show off to their friends.
I have a ten year old EV and let me assure you it has bags of character. I smile whenever I look at it.
It's a somewhat quirky Peugeot Ion, which is a Peugeot branded Mitsubishi i-MiEV - a Japanese Kei Car, designed for crowded Japanese cities, so it is tall, narrow and long. It is equally suitable for the narrow, twisty and hilly roads in this part of Scotland.
I'll concede that many EVs seem soulless, because they've been designed in a wind tunnel, because aerodynamics determine range more than almost anything else. However, as battery technology advances the range constraint will cease to be relevant and so aerodynamics will become less important. The Nio ES6 launching soon will have solid state batteries that give a range of 930 km, which is more than almost anyone will need. It's only a matter of time before these solid state batteries give rise to a whole generation of funky new designs.
No doubt you think that the noise made by an internal combustion engine is important to the soul of the car, but I found that it was amazing how quickly I stopped missing the noise. I think soul is whatever we want it to be. Kids learning to drive in modern electric cars will see soul very differently to our generation.
have they found a way to 100& recycle the batteries yet? @@sailingoctopus1
Always love your commentary! I live in a small town in Kentucky and the only charging stations are for teslas. Anything else you have to drive 100 KM to Louisville for a fill up. If you have the “three pronged suppository “ you have to take it to the dealer for a charge. At least in this part of the world EVs are expensive and inconvenient.
Thanks but I won't have battery in my home if it caught fire and I lived I could become head in the bed because cobalt made me a crippled gimp for life😮
I own a TPS BEV and every time I go to the dealer in the Portland OR area 22:56 the dealer is using the EV and handicapped parking stalls for their vehicles. I complain and they say they will fix it, but it never happened in the eight years of Mercedes BEV ownership.
@@shiningirisheyes well being a retired teacher I will NEVER be able to afford one anyway
Every household multiple power points capable of charging an EV. Even with the USAs 120 volts you can still get 60 miles of range overnight which more than covers the average 30 miles per day.
@@phillipbanes5484 I am not saying that EVs are suitable for everyone but they are a good solution for a large proportion of people who have off street parking & do the average commute of 40 miles per day (your number). Of course there are exceptions like someone who wants to tow a 5 ton van 500 miles uphill every day but that's a very small proportion. I do uber & happily charge my car at home & do on average 200 miles per day.
In the 90's we saw Lindsay Fox do a deal with the govt which phased out rail transport of goods, favouring trucks to become the main method of transport. They even removed the rails on key transport links and turned them into bike paths, ensuring future govts could not afford to re instate the rail transport network. We now have the most expensive, inefficient and carbon heavy method of goods transport in Australia.
I think that was done in the States too. I remember my grandfather told me, for we were working in a city where most of the train tracks were abandoned, that the railroads weren't needed anymore because the freight that they carried was transported by semi. Also, we used to have many railroad companies. Some were large corporations, like Union Pacific, and others were small and localized, like the Soo Line. In the 90's however, a few large companies merged into mega corporations (Burlington Northern and Santa Fe became BNSF, while Norfolk and Western and the Southern railroad became Norfolk Southern) and the preexisting major corporations, together with the newly merged BNSF and Norfolk Southern, bought out all of the smaller companies.
So now the American railway systems are owned by no less than four corporations: UP, BNSF, NS, and CSX. I'm convinced that it was another move by the powers that be to consolidate all businesses under the control of the federal government. The railroad corporations are quite corrupt too. The tracks and equipment are not maintained the way they once were, and when an accident happens, like the recent Palestine, Ohio derailment, the corporations bribe the city and the press lie about the damage, while they use the most expedient methods to "clean up" the mess.
One of your better rants on the topic, thank you! Lots of good facts as always, but I especially like that you have a good solution. On a topic I have been wondering about to. Related to that, what are your thoughts of the emerging V2H (vehicle-to-home) and V2G (vehicle-to-grid) features turning up a bit? Is that a genuine option (and potentially blend of best of both worlds, have your car and off-grid house too), or just a really great way to rapidly kill the chemistry inside the battery?
Love your channel John and the content. Thinking on this video makes me ask what will happen to these EV's when their batteries expire and need replacing. Tesla are charging $20,000 for a new battery and I'd say that other EV manufacturers would be charging similar prices. My thoughts on this are at about 8 to 10 years and the batteries would need replacing at the cost mentioned earlier. The average person would not be able to afford to replace these batteries. These batteries would represent maybe 50% of the value of the car. Most people would not replace these batteries so what would happen to these cars, of to the wreckers? I'll stick to my petrol engine that can be rebuilt. Another thought on costs would be with all this extra weight from the batteries in these EV's is how often would you need to replace suspension bushes and components ?
This idea that people will change batteries is just fake news. An EV, even with todays technology will do 200,000 miles and still have 90% capacity left. What is the drop in a petrol engines mpg figure after 200,000 miles and do people replace their petrol engines after 200,000 miles. Off course they don't. High mileage electric cars will retain their batteries in the state they are and go onto the second hand market in the same way as a worn out petrol engine car does.
also the cost of the batteries is coming down by the time they need replacing...more than 10 years the cost will be a lot less and the battery will be better again!
Just replaced the engine in my gas car. Glad the dealer had to pay. 22K
Everything you're saying is 100% on point. The real issue is that we aren't questioning the primary assumption: that CO2 is any kind of issue. All we argue is that the plans the governments of the world dont reduce it. We just dont argue enough about why we even need to.
Well lifeforms are carbon-based. We exhale carbon dioxide while plants inhale it and exhale oxygen. I guess that stopped being taught in schools because climate people either don't know that, or they don't like people, animals, or trees very much. They probably envision a world that looks like Mordor.
When will someone state the obvious!
Consumerism is the issue.
Why does everyone need a new car ,phone every year .
Correct and value chains that are carbon intensive. For example, not many people think about the carbon to get bananas grown in Panama to a supermarket in Germany.
Exactly. We don't need so many new cars. The green option is to buy used and drive em into the ground.
"Planned Obsolescence"?
@@CA999 Not a thing in the vast majority of cases. While many brands are boneheaded about making their products repairable, the "products built to last" back in the day were huge expenditures that required family savings, while nowadays people demand cheaper prices but also stylish design.
If people were willing to pay more for clunkier and more expensive products brands wouldn't have switched to efficient production with minimum viable product.
One thing not taken into account is all the charging stations being installed around the places, these use resources and produce emissions to manufacture. Some will also have solar/battery storage systems installed for that extra green tick.
What a great combo to have next to each other - petrol station and a battery storage system charging an EV. What could ever go bad in that situation.
Once a gas station closes the land is useless due to soil contamination, for ever. Can recycle a battery
Can't recycle gas
As an atmospheric chemist I can tell you not all greenhouse emissions are equivalent. This is due to residence time. This is the time from birth to death (emission to sequestration) of a greenhouse gas. Water, the most prevalent greenhouse gas has a residence time of several days to several weeks in most instances. Carbon dioxide has a residence time of around 100 YEARS and methane has a residence time of around a decade. Methane emission from leaky land fills, old oil fields, and coal seams need to be sealed.
The EV Chevy Hummer is an abomination at 5 tons. However, we can make light cars like a Tesla Model 3 that are very efficient (approx. 1Kw-hr for 8 km of travel). Using solar electricity at home can run your home electrical needs and change your EV. Your EV also becomes a battery for the grid. Also note that Nickel-Cobalt-Lithium batteries are on the way out. Lithium-Iron-Phosphate batteries are the most current large scale battery technology. Sodium batteries are just coming out and not based on Lithium. Tesla for instance is working on a iron-nitrogen magnet that is many times more powerful magnet than a rare earth magnet for their electrical motors.
John your arguments are about Hollywood type influencers greenwashing their habits. For me having an energy efficient home, using solar, and in my instance wind energy as well, charging an EV overnight is the right thing to do.
I think you are dead wrong on EVs and hopefully you will come around.
Thanks for another great clip John. Please keep up your great work.
On a daily average our 11KWH solar panels generate 50KWH. We use 8 KWH and export 42KWH into the grid (we get fuck all for them). We are more than doing our bit for Climate Change.
I am not planning to buy an EV anytime soon. Lithium fires , inferior range, long charge time and scarce charging stations are all BIG EV NEGATIVES
11kW panels, I think you'll find.
Hey John, the answer isn’t to cut up the EV9 battery into six bits. The answer (as you’ve previously noted) is to make V2L (vehicle to load) and V2G (vehicle to grid) technologies ubiquitous so that EVs are incentivized to take surplus renewable energy off the grid between 10am and 2pm and then supply it back into the grid at night. That way, the battery is used both for transportation and the grid. You don’t need to cut up the battery into six to supply six houses. You just need better V2G and V2L infrastructure. You can have your cake and eat it!
Sorry, but any "plan" that begins by assuming perpetual motion machines are a "thing" is a fail. You can't use the battery for transportation and THEN use it to supply the grid (with the energy you just used for transportation); AOC (U.S. representative) has embarrassed herself with this line of reasoning as well.
@@CaptainProton1because of time-of-use differences in electricity cost you would actually be making money
not a bad idea. but you still get loses charging and discharging.
@-IE_it_yourself yeah I guess the only question is would you make enough money off of doing it to pay for the loss of capacity of your battery and eventually a new one
@@elijahlgreen yeah. in our current world that is the variable. the problem is we dont have infinite resources so we cant afford waist.
Thanks for this John. Appreciated the construction of the argument. Absolutely love seeing intelligence at work. As a retired nurse with solar on the roof, battery storage, and a smaller EV I would agree with your condemnation of the huge battery EV offerings. Having read the comments here there are some who I am sure who did not grasp the nuance of the facts laid out and instead somehow stopped at "EVs are a fraud..." We need to do all the things and it bothers me too that some of the most consequential changes are not politically easy and keep being avoided or deferred. Thanks for calling out the bullshit m8!
Dude, this is by far my favourite video of yours 👍
Somehow we need it to go viral.
Here's a start. Climate change is 0.2 deg C of global Cooling since 900AD. Choosing the end of the little ice age which is one of the coldest periods in the holicene as normal is just a political agenda.
I’m going to disappoint you: I totally agree with you :-). Let’s hope at least a few people will understand the EV scam
The uniquely Australian problem is also a uniquely New Zealand problem... EV's here are delivered to the retail store by diesel trucks after arriving in NZ on car carrier boats which burn Boiler Fuel (even dirtier and cheaper than Diesel)... Great presentation mate...
What is your point? How are your gasoline and diesel cars delivered to the retail store? Likely be diesel truck too. Stupid argument you are making. Don't most your vehicles arrive in country by carrier boats burning boiler fuel (bunker fuel)? as does all your imported goods by large shipping vessels uses the same dirty fuel? The difference is the EV doesn't pollute while it is operation (Ozone, Particulate Soot, etc.)
Mr John if there was an Academy Award for a UA-cam video I think you would earn it today straight away. EPIC my good man!👏
All superlatives aside, our mutual governments are ripe for a redo. The apathy and bullshit are a bit too much and the stakes are too high. Cheers, Señor Juan🤠🤙
Academy award yes...because he likes to entertain.. Noble science prize... no... why? Because to claim CO2 is bad for the earth, either one has been put into a seriously deep mind-control delusion by the powers that be due to one's own failure to pay attention correctly in elementary science class in school, or they are a wicked liar taking advantage of the former ones mentioned. It is mind-boggling how many on this page are congratulating John on a supposedly flawless irrefutable episode when actually to claim such a thing shows how Dunning-Kruger Effected infected those claiming that are, to not even know basic level nature science to know that CO2 is required for PHOTOSYNTHESIS = if we have no CO2, we have no plants/trees etc. So i leave you with this;
*"What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition, of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2 the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison."* ~ Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. is an _[Alfred P. Sloan]_ Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
CO2 is w/o a shadow of doubt to factual operational scientists: a miracle molecule that only takes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, it is required for life on this earth = it's plant food for the love of truth! Without CO2 there is no life on earth! We are carbon based life! So seriously consider the above quote from a decades experientially and eruditely gallant, straightforward, quality, truthful scientist in truthful weather science so that you might learn how to discern indisputable science misinformation about CO2 that is being propagated by so many either incompetently or if deliberately to feed people obviously false science to them who clearly failed elementary science class that supposedly CO2 is our enemy and an enemy to the earth. What lunacy to think such or to even be led too believe that, man is our society becoming deliberately so Antichrist.
I agree. He should get an award!
Great work John I love your rant's and I 100% agree with what you had to say, getting solar & home battery are a no brainer, not because it saves on co2 but because it saves you money. In the UK and I'm sure in many other country's you can get time of day tariffs, meaning you can buy electricity cheap ( mostly at night) and then sell it back at peak times. This can means owning an EV can make perfect sense. Zero cost for petrol and net zero cost for electric. I can't be the only one that does this as I see more and more people getting both solar & ev's. It's nothing to do with co2.
What makes all these items you've stated is fossil fuels😮
Yep. But I was just pointing out it can save you a sh*t load of money.
One minor point which never gets mentioned, probably because it is a minor factor, is that ICE vehicles get their power from a consumable. My car has a 60 litre fuel tank and so, when the tank is nearly empty, the car is almost 60 kg lighter, which very slightly reduces fuel consumption. EVs on the other hand, are stuck with their battery weight whether they are fully charged or almost empty. It makes little difference but it could be the difference between reaching a refueling point and stopping a mile short.
The extra weight also means they tend to be involved in bigger accidents. US has some interesting stats on this, typically the EV is 30% heavier for the same class of vehicle.
A litre of gasoline is approximately 0.75 of a litre of water.
And you can't just carry an "electron can" that mile to rapidly refill it, walk back to your vehicle either. Gasoline or Diesel, no problem. Not that I want to walk two miles round trip, but maybe some passerby might assist to or fro.
An EV battery weighs around 600Kg or more depending on size of vehicle. That's over 10x as much. That 540 Kg + extra requires a considerable amount of power to move it. The more range you give EVs, the bigger the batteries the less efficient they are, more wear on tyres, bearings, brakes etc. and the less space available for passengers and luggage.
This is certainly a factor not lost on those working on electric flight. Like it or not such aircraft will have to have undercarriages capable of routinely handling landing at full take-off weight.
Brilliant John, loved it … no beating around the bush like always 👍😉
Facts and Stats talk, but BS seems to get the most amount of traction. For most people sadly, they ain't going to learn these truths, but find out the hard painful expensive way whether it be through inconvenient charge range anxiety and lengthy wait times, expensive lengthy repairs, poor winter performance and the worst of them, run-away fire destroying possibly their house. You work incredibly hard in all your fact finding and calculations. Another true asset to the automotive world not getting what you deserve, but giving to the many others that are interested in the Auto World. ps, me ole camry wagon 5 spd 4 banger now on 454k km's and still going strong..... yes!!!
I would pay thousands to sit at a dinner table with you and Jeff Buys Cars, and listen to the banter❤😂
For 'thousands' I'm in.
That could be epic, because I'm sure Jeff doesn't buy into the 'climate catastrophe' lies, like John does.
@@alihenderson5910 Buy-in is irrelevant. The scientific community says it's a fact.
@@ScottMurrayBestFamilyCars
The "scientific community" also once told us the earth was the centre of the universe...
@@ScottMurrayBestFamilyCars The 'scientific community' says whatever it's paymasters tell it to say. Keep boosting, you know it makes sense.
Don’t worry about it, John. We’re all going to die anyway, so nothing really matters.
And we exist in a simulation only.
"Remote combustion is still combustion" is technically correct, but "remote combustion" at combined cycle plants is about twice as efficient as the average internal combustion engine. That difference matters, and it's something you should have mentioned, because people just stupidly assume that there's no difference between burning fossil fuels in a vehicle, and burning them at a power plant.
The EV can still take those houses off the grid! You just need vehicle to grid technology and incentives to encourage EVs to take surplus renewables energy at midday, then allow discharge at peak times from 6pm and 10pm. The battery can be used for both transportation and to take those six houses off the grid. You can have your cake and eat it!
EV Utopia has always been a lie. Well said John.
Another GREAT episode. Many thanks. You're really on top of your game today.
Battery-electric cars suffer from one, and only one problem: *Batteries store no electricity whatsoever.*
Love my Diesel V6 turbo . It has a spare tyre and i can drive from the Gold Coast to Sydney without having to recharge on the way.
It is sad but we are all doomed because what needs to be done is not palatable to the people that need to act
There are several reasons why I am not sold on EV’s. 1) The cost. At $60k it put the affordability for the vehicle out of the range of most middle and lower class citizens. 2) The time it takes to recharge the battery. With an average recharging time of 20 minutes and not enough recharging stations in popular or isolated areas. You could be awhile waiting your turn. 3) Replacing the battery is very expensive. Probably costing more than market value of used EV. 4) There is the lack of available electricity during the summer months because of lack of investment into utilities infrastructure. 5) Lithium batteries do work well in very cold or very hot climates.
One of your best! Thankyou for providing evidence for the ( EV as Messiah) skeptics amongst us! I'm confused about the maths- if you use smaller batteries ( 6x smaller in your example), don't you have to charge the big one 6x less based on capacity? The actual electrons required would be the same wouldn't it?
Charging is only 60% effective, for every consumed 10 KW*h only 6 KW*h goes into battery charge that will be available for your car, 4KW*h just goes into heat. Isn't it a good idea to charge your car underneath your house, in order for heat not to go to waste :)
67" VEINY BLACK KOCK glistening in the moonlight. Beads of sweat drip down the shaft. VEINY KOCK forces its way into the BUT WHOLE
@@user-mc7ez6lm4x Absolutely, until it catches fire in the middle of the night and kills everyone while they are sleeping with toxic gasses as it burns the house down with an unkillable fire. (sarc)
@@user-mc7ez6lm4x That is such a comical load of horseshit. Lithium Ion battery losses are near 0% at 60% of capacity. The total charging losses including converting AC to DC is like 12% to 15%, not 40%.
It is like this entire board is overrun with idiots with zero actual science or math skills.
@@deltavee2 While in the real world, EV battery fires are exceptionally rare, and much less common than in combustion engine cars.
'Effing excellent content in this vid. John. Please maintain the rage and give-it-to 'em. Thank you. I love your work.
Well said.
Most people still haven't grasped the purpose of EVs and "renewables".
That purpose isn't to save our climate from collapse. The purpose is to save the prime directive from any potential harm coming from any actions that might result from our concerns about our climate collapsing. The prime directive is of course "thou shalt maintain eternal economic growth". EVs and "renewables" are devices for diverting any will we might have to address climate collapse into tangible symbols of our virtue which, rather than posing any threat to the prime directive, create new impetus for industrial growth.
The extra financial upfront cost, if spent on solar, would do more for the planet and have a longer useful lifespan. Add in the insurance company automatic write offs and the shortened lifespan (Australian vehicle suppliers only have to make parts available for 10 years - best of luck getting that dashboard repaired)
Spot on.
Essentially the car becomes another gadget with expedited obsolescence!
What a solution, hey!! That very idea would also have helped Labours green energy plans… but not in the way they want.
Labour don’t want Australian owned green energy, they’d rather give away 10,000 plus useless refrigerators to businesses (refrigerators that can’t hold temps within food safety guidelines), push EV vehicles and offer free heat pump hot water upgrades, before offering solar installation subsidies…
They’re doing anything to “minimise” household power consumption, but nothing to help households generate or store power! All whilst allowing huge solar and wind farms to pop up all over our landscape… 100% of which are all foreign owned and the majority owned by foreign companies that have never had any interest in Australia’s energy generation prior.
EV’s are just a way of ensuring the energy companies will still be required after dark. Not even 2 Tesla power walls could store enough energy to charge an EV and run a household when the sun goes down.
Homes generally last longer than 10 years too, all these new sales cars won't be around when a green energy home is still inhabited.
@@lukeclifton4392labour have been offering solar install incentives for years in Victoria (highest rooftop solar ratio in Australia). You might want to rethink home batteries being at all better for the environment. They're absolutely not and only serve to provide the owners with something to brag about.
Simply one of the best episodes you have ever done John, and I've watched a lot 🤟🤟🤟🤟🤟🤟
I kindly disagree, seriously disagree due to a serious mistake he makes in this episode regarding factual basement level operational science in the area of CO2. So i will share this with you; *"What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition, of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2 the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison."* ~ Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. is an _[Alfred P. Sloan]_ Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Therefore: it is quite sad man...seriously... that he got such basic science wrong, why? Well firstly because the quote above shows you are exactly who the quote is referring and also, because the fact Ozzie John knows all he does seemingly more accurate and correct than not as he presents, but yet after all that display of what he knows which again would seem to be all accurate, yet he STILL gets an enormous fact of rudimentaary factual operational science incontrovertibly fatally wrong that inescapably then causes his argument to be quite dead on arrival wrong in key parts, thus, to simply have a fatal error/malfunction due to fatally flawed first stage inputs for part of his argument which means then he will have to reassess his argument and thus he will have to go back to the drawing board to rebuild his argument because of this indisputable fatal error he makes regarding basic operational factual science about CO2.
My issue with EVs are not that they are inherently bad, per se. It's the fact that not only have people been misled about not only the batteries, but also about the infrastructure needed to get these battery charging places to work in extreme weather changes, such as the heat of summer and the cold of winter. In Colorado, for example, during the winter, a man with a Rivian truck went out in the middle of the night, in the middle of winter, and found that more than 15 chargers had issues where they intermittently worked, or not at all. And this was sampling of over 20 chargers by different manufacturers. The main issue? The power cables would become stiff, and the actual charging connectors wouldn't connect electrically to his Rivian.
The other thing is lithium itself. We only have about 50-80 years' worth of raw lithium left, globally. That being said, I still don't understand why fossil fuels are so denigrated, when both fracking and carbon capture, along with synthesizing fuels, has become a lot more common. Even algae eating garbage produces pure diesel fuel.
Regardless, the only way EV costs will come down is not because of manufacturing processes, but rather will come down when much more common materials are used for battery packs in cars. Two of the most common materials on Earth is zinc and chlorine -- and Gulf & Western Industries in the 1970s was creating then battery packs for cars (three classes of vehicles), as well as power sub-station locations. While not producing all that many units, they did demonstrate proof of concept, using a battery pack in a 1970s Volkswagen Rabbit. The point is, unless battery packs are using common materials, with power produced from nuclear power plants or hydro plants, EVs will continue to be a novelty, as they were in the early 1900s. Retired American late-night TV show host Jay Leno has examples from all three power sources in the early 1900s: Gas, steam (Stanley Steemer), and EVs (he has a 1908 EV). Gas-powered cars won the Car War back then, because of its convenience coupled with energy density.
But at the same time, enivironmentalists have to realize: Energy, like anything else in life, requires a trade-off. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. And no matter how you get it, you'll always have losses. These things are facts, and are irrefutable. Because you cannot get out of a system more energy than you put in. The most you can get out of a system is what you put in. And in order to have an EV society, these things must be taken into account, no different than Power-to-Weight Ratio (PWR) is for fuel efficiency now.
Love your work, particularly your attachment to the facts - thank you mate. Dropping in ordinary language while articulating the science is top shelf, please know you are appreciated mate. Could you please highlight the threat of the facts and the possible ‘deconstruction’ of the internet as we know it, posed by AI. What does this mean and are we watching the value of information evaporate before our eyes? Will the internet be forever irrelevant when it comes to the facts as AI accelerates irrelevance. Thanks again. Andrew
JC …I’m a long time follower but rarely comment but this EV perspective is gold! Shared it far and wide. People need to know this stuff…the previous video about greenwashing (no surprise Dan’s lot were front and centre!) was also enlightening! Keep up the good, nay great work and have you thought about politics? And for the record, on wife V2 and I think she’s a keeper! Keith M.
💯 is a brilliant review
Search for this article title on the net: *"Carbon dioxide isn’t a “pollutant” causing global warming, it’s the elixir of life itself"* Here's an excerpt;
Without CO2, all plant life would die - which means all humans and animals would also die. CO2 is _plant food,_ after all, facilitating photosynthesis and the life cycle itself.
Removing CO2 from the planet like the climate cultists are demanding would render the entire world _barren of life._ It would quickly become a wasteland marked with death and destruction - and would certainly not be a paradise.
For the past several years, the corporate-controlled media, Leftist politicians, and members of the Church of Global Warming have been telling us all that CO2 is a "pollutant." Nothing could be further from the truth. _[Related: CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with global temperatures.]_
*"CO2 emissions from industrial processes of the last two centuries have been highly beneficial to plant growth,"* writes Vijay Jayaraj.
*"Scientific studies show that CO2 has played a significant role in the re-greening of the earth after abnormally low CO2 levels had limited much of the planet's vegetation due to CO2 starvation."*
The massive increase in food production over the past century, which allows for the feeding of eight billion people worldwide, would also not have been possible without CO2 - not to mention slightly warmer temperatures in some areas that are more suited for agriculture.
Ironically enough, CO2 is also responsible for keeping the planet green, as in rich and lush with trees, fauna, and other plant life. Without CO2, the entire planet would be brown and barren.
For all of their talk about embracing a "green" agenda, the greenies are fighting against the very things that actually keep the planet green in color. Talk about insanity.
According to Scientific American, CO2 acts as a fertilizer to keep natural ecosystems intact. Forests, jungles, savannahs, tundra, and everything in between all rely on CO2 to thrive, keeping animals and humans alive as part of the food chain.
Amazingly, increases in CO2 from the pre-industrial age until now have allowed for "increased trees" productivity of around 23 percent. This means that CO2 is actively greening the planet and making it more livable.
"For most of the other plants humans eat - including wheat, rice and soybeans - having higher CO2 will help them directly ... Doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels does boost the productivity of crops like wheat by some 11.5 percent and of those such as corn by around 8.4 percent," says Francis Moore, a professor at the UC Davis.
_[end of excerpt]._
So if climate is an issue why do countries fight citizens to import immigrants that need houses cars electricity gas etc Guess you never thought about this
Dont park your EV fire-trap in my condominium.....or else!
The numbers are somewhat different here in New Zealand where we have > 85% renewable generation. Old EV batteries with solar is pretty popular, that's a great way to get another decade out of them. Even so, I'm not parting with my 20 year old Jag V8 any time soon!
F Aotearoastan