The cars that ate Australia

Where is all the electricity going to come from to supply all these electric cars? This is a major flaw in the thinking.
(See The cars that ate Australia, March 12).
We could put in a few dozen coal fire stations. Or use the oil that is not being supplied to cars to power stations instead thereby loosing the advantage anyway.
But already we are headed for major under supply of electricity as every household puts in cheap air conditioning units. I suppose you could choose to sweat or drive, but ultimately people will do both with the consequence of shutting down the grid completely.

To be a competitive manufacturing industry, you need to have either high tech or low cost. Australia lacks both of them. So it is not a surprise to see more and more factories closed here.
(See The cars that ate Australia, March 12).
This is the outcome of globalisation. Apparently Australia did not work out good enough policies to face the challenge.
Now if you again try to avoid short term pain, you will eventually feel the big pain of the long term.
The Australian manufacturing industry is facing a revolution. To ride the wave, rather than be drowned by it, Australia needs revolutionary thinking. Actually, not only for the manufacturing, but the whole economy.

You said the other day that petrol engine cars turn about 35 per cent of their chemical energy into mechanical energy, but electric engines use about 85 per cent of their energy. (See The cars that ate Australia, March 12).
If the electricity comes from coal, then the power station turns about 35 per cent of the coal's chemical energy into electrical energy, of which at least 15 per cent would be lost in transmission lines, battery chargers, batteries, and the motor. So in the end, coal powered electrical cars use less of the chemical energy than petrol powered cars.

That 'unstoppable tsunami' of electric cars is what we Australians are waiting for: Then the oil producers will have to deal with the few hydrocarbon vehicles left and reduce the prices of fuel to a bargain level.
All power to you Alan.

Also noteworthy is the fact the hydrogen cars are also a reality, and quicker to 're-fuel' than conventional electric cars. For example, the Honda Clarity.

This raises the question of whether the energy currently consumed by cars will be available over the electricity grid during the period that we wish to make the transition. (See The cars that ate Australia, March 12).
Do we have the power to run these cars?

I fail to see how electric cars will be greener. (See The cars that ate Australia, March 12).
Surely we will just be substituting one fossil fuel for another and this will no doubt drive up the price of electricity.
People think it is greener as they will no longer see their direct contribution to pollution.

Electric cars are coming. What I can't understand is why we aren't running trains and heavy trucks including mining fleet on LNG.
(See The cars that ate Australia, March 12).
We export it at a few cents per litre and then import diesel at 61c per litre leading to massive BOP problem. LNG as a fuel is very well established in numerous countries now, the government should be mandating its use by trucking firms, etc.
I did a study for Origin Energy four years ago, capital cost plus running cost were equivalent to getting diesel at 35c per litre. ORG decided to go for export LNG plant instead (because cash from Conoco saved them from BG takeover). Doesn't change the argument for domestic LNG use though.

Alan,
It is really no big deal! Just get the car manufacturers and engineers to put some effort into efficient batteries, interface them to electric engines and into electric cars. (See The cars that ate Australia, March 12).
By now they already know how to design car bodies (see local Australian cars). The problem in Australia (and elsewhere) is similar to the case of the EV1 - Big Oil indirectly controls local governments affairs.

Alan,
For those of us who are in this electric space you are stating the obvious and I'm very pleased that at least some people in Australia are tuned in to the inevitability of electric transport.
(See The cars that ate Australia, March 12).
I have created an information website for the community (non-commercial) called MyElectricCar.com.au that provides information on the current global trends and compelling arguments why the benefits of electric transport will ensure it's rapid take up over the coming decade.
The governments funding of now outdated Toyota Camry hybrid technology is a waste of tax payers dollars that would have been better spent on developing an Australian Electric Vehicle.
Looks like we've missed another opportunity to revamp our sick car industry.

Alan,
I did the numbers on the Blade Hyundai Getz.
The extra price is such that you can buy petrol for at least 20,000km a year on the interest on that money.
My calculations are that it currently costs three times as much per kilometre as a petrol car to run.
We all love the idea but as of now, electric cars are a hobby for enthusiasts. Lithium batteries also still have safety problems.

Is the government using some complicated form of charging system so ordinary household power points cannot be used to charge these vehicles?
This of course would be so as the 'fuel tax' wont be avoided by people using electric cars as the government will of course be metering and taxing the charging stations.
I have used electric fork-lifts for many years and they can be charged by any normal 3-pin household power point.
(See The cars that ate Australia, March 12).
So why the need for complicated charging stations unless the government is looking to keep on taxing the poor vulnerable motorist once again?
Electric cars will work a treat until the owners want air conditioning and power steering along with a boom-box and a back seat DVD.

Australian electricity infrastructure is already at capacity. The cost of electricity is going up, so where will we get the extra power from? Nuclear is the most eco-friendly power source, producing the most power for the least carbon footprint, but we'll never use it because people think with their emotions.

It would make more sense to push plug-in hybrids than pure electric cars (see The cars that ate Australia, March 12).
They can give large fuel savings for normal urban travel patterns, don't require new infrastructure and don't stop the car from being used to drive to Darwin.
They have the added advantage of developing experience in all the areas required for pure electrics.

Why are you pushing wind power? (See The cars that ate Australia, March 12.)
It is extremely inefficient and building and maintaining a wind-powered generator is very costly. When the wind doesn't blow, or blows too strongly, the power doesn't flow.
Look at how much it is costing European nations such as Denmark, Germany and Spain to provide this 'feel-good' power. The money would be better spent on research in to electric vehicles and safer (than it already is) nuclear generation.

Don't think so – the Australian Government will just throw another $1.1 billion dollar subsidiary at the industry...

Okay, and what about hydrogen fuel cells? What about large family cars? What about industrial vehicles? What about market adjustments for more competitive oil pricing? I am unconvinced by your article, Alan (see The cars that ate Australia, March 12).
To my mind, the electric car is not the technology of the future because batteries will always be a hindrance for the user. And they require base load power for recharging, something we are about to run short of in Australia even without that extra burden.
Ironically, this shortage will be precisely because of the current procrastination in decision making which has been caused by over-zealous pseudo-environmentalism.
The future of cars is just not that simple, but I am prepared to make one prediction: the electric car will turn out to be a white elephant.

The sentiments expressed in this article are very disappointing. (The cars that ate Australia, March 12) The Australian government has wasted billions of dollars over the years on subsidising a conventional car industry, either directly or through indirect means such as tariffs and quotas. That is, billions of dollars of taxpayers money. (The economic argument that the vast majority of it has been well and truly wasted money and a drag on Australia's economic well-being is well and truly watertight.)
Are you now suggesting that we now similarly waste billions of dollars on developing an electric car industry?
Finally, let me note that throwaway lines such as "manufacturing rests on the car industry" are not worthy of you, Alan. Such a statement in this modern age is simply ludicrous – if indeed there was ever any substance to it.

The assumption that the electric car will significantly threaten the Australian automotive industry is unlikely. (See The cars that ate Australia, March 12).
There is significant potential for electric vehicles, but there is not much potential with the foreseeable future for the electric car to dominate and if a 10 per cent market share is electric within the next 15-20 years it would represent a success for the electric car.
The potential for relatively simple technology, low mass cars that use new generation ICEs and operate efficiently on a diversity of renewable gaseous fuels will make up a much larger sector of the market.
The Pivotal engine in light weight cars similar to the Aptera example will provide viable transport with low emission and little life cycle impact on the environment.
Australia will manufacture electric vehicles as they become a viable market but the greater potential is in the manufacture of vehicles that provide the range, utility and convenience that is demanded by the mass market.