JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Holden Volt $2.50 to fill? But it costs more to run than a big SUV

The Holden Volt

The Holden Volt is an electric hybrid car that, according to advertisements, costs only $2.50 to fill. Thanks to a polished ad campaign, there are probably people out there who think it might be cheap to run.

The ads don’t mention that if you are an average driver, doing about 40 km a day, you’ll need to fill it every day. It still only has a 60-80km range on electric power, before it has to switch to petrol. (The charge will take about four hours from a home socket). Even so, it almost sounds useful, except that it costs $60,000. (And don’t even think about the network grid infrastructure we’d have to build if everyone drove one).

When RACQ (Royal Automobile Club of Queensland) looked at the average running costs of different models the five year total costs of a Volt were $74,000 – $78,000.  The five year cost of running, say, a 2 ton Ford Territory (medium SUV) came in at $63,000.

So it’s cheaper to run an SUV for five years than it is to run a Volt

If you commute 60km a day, and can pick up one of these second hand, and drive it for years, you might end up saving money. Though at the moment it’s still $50k for a used one, and there are not many around. Annual Volt sales were projected to be in the “hundreds”.

Perhaps these total costs come out better over ten years?

Share the cost? We all pay more for a Holden Volt, even if we don’t own one

The Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) released a warning in December that electric cars will cost a lot more than just the purchase price and the electricity:

Electric vehicles in particular are another new “appliance” which is set to place new demands on Australia’s power system. This review has found that each electric vehicle could impose additional network and generation costs from $7500 up to $10,000 per vehicle over the 5 years from 2015 to 2020 in the absence of appropriate pricing signals and efficient charging decisions.

Who pays that extra $7k – $10k per car? It is shared by all consumers… lets just hope not too many people buy a Volt.

Don’t take this the wrong way, I want everyone to be able to afford to drive across as much of Australia as I have, and if one day an electric hybrid makes that happen, I’ll be delighted.

Compare your car to the rest

Vehicle running costs for medium cars

  • Ford Mondeo LX 2.3L 6sp Auto 5dr hatch, |   Avg cents per km 77c |  5 year cost   $57,754.84
  • Holden Volt EV 1.4L/Electric CVT 5dr hatch  |   Avg cents per km 98c    5 year cost  $73,888 – $79,887

Vehicle running costs for small cars

  • Mazda3 Neo 2.0L 5sp Auto 5dr hatch |   Avg cents per km 62c  | 5 year cost  $45,880.39

Vehicle running costs for light cars

  • Mitsubishi i-MiEV Electric CVT 4dr Sedan  |   Avg cents per km 84 -90c |  5 year cost $63,026 – $67,906
  • Mazda2 Neo 1.5L 5sp Manual 5dr hatch   |   Avg cents per km 50c  | 5 year cost  $37,599.64

Vehicle running costs for SUV medium cars

  • Ford SZ Territory TX (RWD) 4.0L 6sp Auto 4dr wagon | Avg cents per km 83c |  5 year cost $62,351.56

There are many more cars on the RACQ page.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.7/10 (79 votes cast)
Holden Volt $2.50 to fill? But it costs more to run than a big SUV, 7.7 out of 10 based on 79 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/owjblu7

174 comments to Holden Volt $2.50 to fill? But it costs more to run than a big SUV

  • #
    Colin Henderson

    Hopefully electric cars will only be allowed to recharge using green power and not coal!

    326

    • #
      LevelGaze

      Umm….
      Green power is much more expensive than conventional power. And we ALL bear the cost.

      37

      • #
        Olaf Koenders

        Aww.. ya piker ;)

        10

      • #
        Nick

        Actually it doesn’t require extra cost per vehicle as a lot less electricity is used during off peek hours when electric vehicles are recharged. The report is misleading to favor the oil companies. Wheres our solar power you pack of …….

        131

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Off peak power is cheaper, because less is being used, at that time, and some generating plant can be shut down. But as more cars start charging at night, the power usage will go up, and the less off-peak the power becomes, with a result that the price will go up.

          That is commercial reality. So when comparing costs, over the longer term, you have to assume standard pricing in order to avoid future embarrassment.

          00

  • #
    DJ in da USA

    One thing that will come of EVs is a mileage tax, simply because electrics don’t buy fuel, so they don’t pay taxes that support road construction or maintenance. At some point those who do pay thru fuel taxes will be screaming about the disparity, and politicians will invariably recognize the opportunity to implement a new tax.
    Initially, politicians won’t want to advertise a new tax because there’s too much to be made from subsidizing EV development, so the new tax will wait till there’s enough sales momentum and ownership that they’ll figure they’re beyond the economic/political crossover.

    So given that EVs don’t pay any real road use taxes now, but likely will in the future, their actual projected cost isn’t known and must be higher than the base costs now estimated.

    197

    • #
      Manfred

      Dead right! See my post #13.
      The reduction / absence of government liquid fuel taxes and duties (for example UK +70% per litre, NZ +50% per litre) would represent an unsustainable short fall in revenue (and carbon taxes). The switch to staggeringly high road user charges or ridiculous power for recharge prices would ensure cost and revenue parity and result in electric cars being seeing as the absurd atavism (like windmills) that they are.

      85

    • #
      Tinny

      OT probably but isn’t about time someone started to talk about the relative cost of large road transport vehicles compared to sedan cars in terms of road maintenance. Seems to me that large semis cause huge amounts of road repair costs which are not recovered in registration or fuel excise charges.

      Encouraging long distance haulage by rail transport is what I believe in.

      51

    • #

      Manfred–I think of that every time they run that cute little “Prius for everyone” commercial. Who pays for the roads? Plus, the clear message is you can drive even more now that you aren’t buying gasoline, so you are to use the roads more and pay far less to maintain them. So then someone has to put a surcharge on the “economy” vehicles, or raise everyone’s taxes, etc. Someone will pay for roads and if more people shift to electric cars, the tax will shift to a new source. Until we have cars that fly, there are going to be road taxes. The other option would be toll roads, which makes a lot of sense but people will probably resist.

      Tinny-Large vehicles use large quantity of fuels and they do pay an extra tax for being heavy, thought it’s not much. I do agree that rail transport makes more sense. For some reason, though, society went with trucking. Maybe they have a better lobby? One factor may be the number employed by trucking versus railroad. I really don’t know–it’s a good question.

      12

      • #
        ghl

        To state the obvious.
        Trucking is door to door.
        Rail is actually Rail plus two short truck trips plus triple handling.

        34

        • #

          Yes, that is obvious now that you mention it! Railroads work if you can load directly, then off-load from a spur. Our lumberyards would get freight that way.

          00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Personally, I feel bad for people who drive greenie electric cars like these, or Kruddmobiles, or similar – Such people have extremely low self-esteem, and for some reason they feel compelled to advertise the fact

    3018

  • #

    Practical and economic electric cars to be used for real world commuting have been going to happen “real soon now” for a very long time. As in the world of software release, “real soon now” means not now because we really can’t make it work well enough, safely enough, and cheaply enough for normal people to use it for any real world function.

    Electric cars have been promised since the time of Edison. They have been little more than glorified golf carts since the get go. They will work for daily commuting if you don’t commute much further than you can go by bicycle and don’t use it for much anything else. Yet, all the while they are really going to be really good and cheap to drive – sometime in the undefined and likely distant future.

    The motivation behind the electric car hype is the same as for the alternative energy will replace fossil fuels hype. It is the elimination of an industrial quantity and quality of energy necessary to be used to sustain a good and flourishing life by ordinary people. Only the politically correct political elite are allowed such things. It is one set of rules for them and another set for us. After all, “its for the children”. Gack!

    257

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      As a result of an unfortunate lack of evidence, that’s about the only argument left in the Greenie bag – “Doing it for ‘The Children.’”

      Childish thinking doesn’t do a damned thing for “Children” or anybody else

      2614

  • #
    P Joe Manning

    http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/companies/2013/July/companies_July30.xml&section=companies

    The “de-carbonisation” of the developed world is NOT going to happen. It just isn`t. End of.
    Why? Because the “BRICS” countries, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, composing 40% (soon to be way more than this), of World GDP, are not in the least interested, (if truth be told), in AGW, CAGW, MMGW, or any other kind of “W” you care to name. They just aren`t. Period. As they say.
    And money talks.
    Nissan, the car manufacturer, are rolling out small budget petrol cars, for the millions of aspiring socially aspiring people in those countries.
    Nissan are massive, and they know about these things. As they say.

    111

  • #
    janama

    The hybrid electric car is a great idea that works well.

    Why are the majority of cabs Toyota Prius? because of fuel efficiency and great driving in city traffic. The electric motor provides maximum torque when engaged which is great for city driving.

    An electric motor requires less maintenance than a petrol or diesel engine. An engine in a hybrid runs more efficiently than an engine in a normal car because it runs at constant revs to charge the batteries as opposed to revving up and down to the driver’s demand and therefore lasts longer and requires less maintenance.

    1527

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      Sorry, no sale. Battery packs on these are the weak link, and the costs to replace are typically half the value or more of the depreciated car.

      There is no more efficient engine for the lifetime of its use than a small diesel, and just under that, the petrol (benzene) internal combustion engine.

      Any other arguments are just whitewash of the facts (or “greenwash”)

      3211

      • #
        janama

        then why is it a very popular taxi world wide??

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_taxi

        72

        • #
          crakar24

          Well to begin with all purchases came with a government handout and secondly they only ran them for 300 to 400K before they were “retired”. This is less than half what a diesel powered taxi will do and most probably befor the batteries went kaput.

          Half of the story talks about how companies resisted the forceable use of such vehicles!!!!!!!!!!

          I just love the way warmists view everything with the glassy eyed stare of a gulible child.

          95

          • #
            old44

            You left out the Head of Line privileges and the waiver on Airport fees.

            10

          • #
            JH

            I’m a taxi owner/operator and received no subsidy for my Camry Hybrid, nor do I get any other perks for running it. The gas savings in combination with extra income from my drivers (we split their gas savings)pays for the financing. Essentially, the car cost me nothing, and has required no repairs with more than 240,000 Km to date. By the way, I don’t believe in CAGW – it was purely a business decision. I wouldn’t buy one as a personal vehicle, unless I did an extraordinary amount of city driving.

            111

        • #
          Bryn

          The Prius is a hybrid, using petrol intermittently; the Volt is intended to be completely electric, unless the battery dies. Cabs are on the road all the time. The debate is about costs of private ownership, about vehicles typically largely used only at rush hour. Apples and oranges.

          41

      • #
        Greebo

        Sorry, no sale. Battery packs on these are the weak link, and the costs to replace are typically half the value or more of the depreciated car.

        There is far more to the battery pack issue than just financial cost. The environmental impact of mining, transporting and processing ( until recently, this took place in four different countries, beginning in Canada, moving on to France, then China and finally Japan. This may still be the case, but I haven’t looked lately ) has to be considered. Then there are the Govt. subsidies, which cost us all, and, at least in the case of the Prius, the manufacturers subsidies of the purchase price of the car, and the eventual removal and recycling of the battery packs. If Toyota charged the individual consumer these costs, and Governments butted out, they wouldn’t sell ONE of the things.
        A VW BlueMotion diesel Golf costs far less to purchase, uses half as much fuel, performs as well and is far better to drive ( consider the effect the extra weight of all those batteries on braking, cornering and ride. My daughter has a PriusV, and I hate it so much I refuse to drive it) and has the same recycling cost as a Corolla, which is effectively a non hybrid Prius.

        Honda have a better idea, but infrastructure costs are again a problem. The car is available in California, because they have mandated supply points.

        Here.

        If BMW continue development of their own fuel cell car, then infrastructure may follow.

        41

    • #

      That may be OK for cabs but for the mass marked normal car user? No way!

      The battery pack has to be replaced more often than a gasoline engine needs a tune up. It will cost from $8K to $12K or more depending. The hybrid car costs a lot more than an equivalent gasoline car. Since normal people do not usually use their cars for exclusive stop and go heavy traffic in a city, even the apparent fuel economy breaks down and the cost of ownership skyrockets. There is no there yet – not even close. Especially not when you include the costs of all the tax breaks and “free” charging stations that the rest of us pay and don’t get any benefit from.

      In case you argue that there is a reduction in emissions. You are not including the manufacturing and recycling of the batteries. The toxic waste from that is humungous likely only exceeded by the toxic waste generated from windmill and solar cell manufacture and use. I will give you one thing though, the hybrid cars don’t kill massive numbers of eagles, bats, and the like by the tens of thousands as do windmills.

      If hybrid cars are so damn good, let the buyer and owner pay the full cost of ownership. That way he can justly claim all the benefit. Including for safe disposal of all the toxic waste from manufacture and recycling.

      241

      • #
        Bulldust

        I am waiting for the day when someone brings an electric car into our apartment block and starts siphoning juice from the common power points. Not sure what the appropriate action would be (I am on the council of owners). Perhaps hedge clippers to the charging cable (after switching off the power)?

        64

        • #

          Talk to a sparky about fitting one of those timer switches where you have to press the button every 15 minutes or so to keep getting juice out of the outlet.

          Negligible inconvenience for legit users.

          40

        • #
          Greebo

          I wonder if one could come up with a device that reversed the flow, so that the thief would wind up with no juice at all, and you could claim some sort of feed in tariff? That would seem to fit the current ( not sure if I should claim intent on the pun or not…) models adequately.

          00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Why are the majority of cabs Toyota Prius?

      Because of the “bulk purchase” deals offered by Toyota.

      Toyota, like all Japanese companies, takes a multi-decade view in its’ strategic planning processes. The company is quite prepared to take significant losses now, in order to get a sufficient number of cars on the street to reach an “acceptance tipping-point”, in the mind of the consumer.

      A few people will want to be early adopters for the “street-cred” value. But the vast majority of consumers will wait to see what everybody else does, and this is especially true with big-ticket items, like a car.

      Giving these vehicles away to taxi companies, to flood the city centre taxi stands, creates exactly the impression that you seem to have.

      But it isn’t a level playing field, and so it is not a valid comparison, especially when viewed against the way that the average motorist tends to use their vehicle(s).

      213

    • #
      Grant (NZ)

      What I dislike about hybrid electrics is that the demand a change to driving style that in itself is the cause of snarl ups in traffic. These vehicles “recover energy” from braking. However, if one drives in a more efficient manner in traffic, one should not be using the brakes as much as so many drivers do. Too few drivers, select a low gear and let the engine do the braking. As a result in heavy traffic you get a line of traffic going on/off the brakes. The first guy plants his foot on the middle pedal and creates a ripple effect of vehicles coming to a stop, all of which then need to use a heap more energy to get moving again. If motorists would engage a lower gear and keep moving and use engine braking they would a) use less energy and b) probably get to their destination faster. The prevalence of brain-dead drivers in automatics contributes to this. Most slushbox drivers shove it into D and leave it there, when they should have it in 1, or 2 for heavy traffic driving. Manual or slushbox, I have driven in ‘rush hour’ traffic without having to touch the brakes and the wheels never stop revolving. (Fortunately I don’t live in a major metropolis where this is my everyday grind.)

      96

      • #

        Recouperating energy during braking is severely limited by the ability of the battery to accept the energy. Typically, such “braking” is limited to no more than that provided by an internal combustion engine with manual transmission (no torque converter).

        Fuel-injected cars have for decades cut off the fuel supply to the engine on trailing throttle; when the driver takes the foot off the accelerator with the engine still “driving” the car. A recent “cheat” has been to increase the engine load by making the alternator work harder at that time, to charge up the battery more than “average”. That saves on fuel consumption… about 0.1 litres/100km, depending on how the car is being driven and what electrical accessories are switched on. It looks good on paper for those without a sense of proportion.

        If ALL the braking energy were to be stored in the battery, then the batteries would have to cope with the equivalent of 200kW or more of “generator”; sustained for about 5 seconds as the car is “panic braked” from high speed.

        20

      • #
        Aztecbill

        You don’t need to brake to charge the battery. Whenever you don’t press the gas in a Prius 2 things happen:

        1. The engine turns off.
        2. The battery gets charged.

        No braking required.

        01

        • #
          Olaf Koenders

          Constant restarting must be like a kind of hell to a starter motor, unless they beefed that up, including the contact points.

          00

          • #
            Aztecbill

            No. The way the Prius restarts is the same as “popping the clutch”. They place the car in a gearing (they have continous gearing) to seemless start the gas engine based upon the current speed when it is engaged with the “clutch”. No starter involved and it is so smooth that without the diplay window on the screen you wouldn’t know the engine had re-started. I think AGW is a farce but I have been driving a Prius since 2004 and just bought a new one.

            10

            • #

              Aztecbill: Interesting. I am curious if you would mind paying an extra tax for using the roads. I’m just curious. I have no problem with people driving whatever car they like–I like Subarus. They fit my lifestyle. So if a Prius fits yours, that’s great. I’m just trying to figure out what people are wiling to accept to pay for the roads while saving money on gas. (Yes, I would pay more to be able to drive my Subaru with its 27 mpg, if need be.)

              00

              • #
                Aztecbill

                If everyone drove a car that got 48 miles per gallon the price of gasoline would be significantly lower than it is today. That would reduce demand causing prices to decrease. So I feel no qualms about those with gas intense cars paying more.

                10

              • #
                Mark D.

                Whoa there Bill, she means that YOU should pay more. You Prius drivers still cause the same wear and tear on the roadway you need to pay more because you don’t get dinged with the gasoline taxes on account of your efficiency. I already pay more of these taxes at the tune of 14MPG

                By the way, a great deal of road miles is commercial in nature. They can’t get 48 MPG in anything hauling materials and for those in trades their tools etc. It is a dream to think so.

                T

                11

              • #

                Mark is correct–I meant you pay more. I am curious where you got the belief that supply and demand control the price of gas? As far as I can tell the politics in foreign countries, refineries hit by storms, refineries down for maintenance, road taxes, and just about anything else you can think of figures into the price of gas. I do think that trying to model gas pricing would be at least as difficult as modeling climate change, and we see how well that has worked out. Every time the price goes up, there’s a different excuse. The lamest one is “unrest in the middle east”–from which we get less than 20% of our oil. It’s just the “fear of losing middle east oil” that plays into the cost. Oil is now found all over the world and there is more than enough. Refining is part of what determines supply–we might get lower gas prices if we had more refineries. However, since we are not really building new refineries much, there’s not much chance. Then there’s ethanol and the cost of growing, distilling and blending. All very complex. And completely unaffected by demand

                12

              • #
                Aztecbill

                I said I have no qualms about those that use gas instense cars paying more. I don’t know how the two of you thought that meant Prius owners.

                Demand at a macro level would effect the price of gas. If oil usage in the US was cut in half, suppliers would fight for the market via price. Those that create supply at the upper margins of price would cease business.

                You say supply and demand doesn’t effect price but then give 3 examples of how it does:

                1. Politics in foreign countries
                2. Refineries hit by storms
                3. Refineries down for maintenance

                It is like you are arguing with yourself ;>

                30

              • #

                I meant Prius owners–you were answering “no way” if I understand your answer. So you want to drive on the road and not pay for it, right? Very charitable of you.

                One supposes that if all freight were moved to railroads and the price of gas rose to $10/gallon, maybe there would be so much surplus that the price would go down. Maybe–or maybe it would just keep going higher and higher while selling less and less. Consider you only have to sell half as many gallons at $10/ gallon as you do at $5/gallon to make the same amount of money. Also, decreases in the US might be offset by China’s need for oil. If oil companies can sell to China for $100 per barrel, and make up for any reduction in sales in the US, they’re going to do that.

                Politics in foreign countries is based on fear, not reality. Refineries hit by storms and maintenance are what the media says effect the gas price. My point was there does not seem to be any connection with reality and these statements–pick any one of them and toss it out as the reason at any time. Actual supply is irrelevant. Gas price is going up and up, yet there seems to be plenty of gasoline available. Have any gas stations closed down or temporarily suspended sales due to lack of gasoline? Are there gas lines like in the 70′s? No–there’s plenty of gasoline and at really, really high price.

                20

              • #
                Aztecbill

                Equilibrium means the price should be stable, right?

                No. You must have slept through that part of your economics class.

                Prices change therebye maintaining Equilibrium.

                Price too high and you have a surplus.
                Price too low and you have a shortage.

                00

            • #
              Aztecbill

              I don’t mind our country incentivising good gas milage. When we import so much oil, it is a good thing to get better gas milage. The raods have to be paid for in some manner, why not use that fact to encourage better gas milage. It is much better than CAFE standards. When we bought our vechiles the price of that tax was part of our decision. Retroactively changing it is somewhat unfair too.

              If there was only one supplier your sceniaro would be true. But selling at $9 a gallon and selling your entire stock because the other guy decides to sell at $10 a gallon, is a good economic plan.

              Plenty of gas? There is an equilibrium. We can thank oil futures for a lot of that.

              00

              • #

                Better gas mileage means LESS road money, unless your plan is to charge huge taxes on gasoline to cover your driving for free. Somehow I don’t think most people are going to see that as fair. Besides, we could just outlaw low mileage cars to force people to not waste gas and then skip the gas tax and go with road tolls. So much more fair and honest. As for your buying your vehicle so you could make everyone else pay for your roads, lots of laws change. Especially when the money runs out. If we all follow your lead, it’s toll roads or no roads.

                Equilibrium means the price should be stable, right? If there’s no shortage and no excess?

                Your $9 versus $10 would only work if the stations were reasonably close. Unlike buying stereo equipment, you can’t buy gas over the internet and if you drive enough miles for the $9 per gallon gas, you burn up the savings driving there. Gasoline has to be purchased close to where your tank runs low–and you can only buy a limited amount. So once the $9 gas is gone, you have to go to the $10 gas or run out. Or, if you just filled the tank yesterday, you may only be able to buy a gallon or two of the cheaper gas.

                00

            • #
              Olaf Koenders

              And when you’re not moving you can’t pop the clutch to restart, such as at intersections and stop-go traffic?

              00

              • #
                Aztecbill

                That is why the car starts moving with the battery only until it is going fast enough to engage the engine. My new Prius has a button which causes the engine to start right away…it really flies off the line in that mode.

                00

        • #
          Greebo

          Because of the “bulk purchase” deals offered by Toyota.

          Pretty much the argument I’ve made many times. Toyota can bleed the losses over a huge range and market share. I wonder how many proud owners of shiny new HiLuxes are aware that they are built in Thailand? Nothing against the Thais, BTW. Lovely folk who deserve a chance at first world life as much as anyone, but why do Toyota build there? Low labour costs, of course. So, the people who happily pay $60+ k for a Hilux with fancy paint subsidise the Japanese built Prius as well, so Japanese jobs are propped up by the Thais. These same people wouldn’t prop up Australian jobs, by buying a Falcon, if you held a gun to their head.

          Giving these vehicles away to taxi companies, to flood the city centre taxi stands, creates exactly the impression that you seem to have.

          Very good example of your point that Japanese companies take the long view. From the 60′s through to the 90′s,( I need to point out that I’m talking Australia here. I sometimes forget the international flavour of Jo’s wonderful blog) Ford and GMH fought the ‘cab wars’. Chrysler ( remember them? ) were in there too. Holden were the cab kings, until the VB Commodore was introduced.This was seen as being too small, and the Falcon, particularly after the debut of the XD, grabbed the crown, holding it until the Commodore went back to full size with the VN. I don’t want to bore you all with a potted history of the cab industry; suffice to say Holden missed the boat second time around, so they took a different tack. They announced that the whole cab image was tawdry, and refused to build ‘taxi specials’, saying that their brand was being ‘devalued”. Ford continued to offer special build taxis, and companies like Kia and Hyundai were eager to take up the slack. So, within less than four decades, the whole thing has been turned on it’s head, with the Koreans marching on, and Toyota making Camrys and Aurions for the Taxi industry, Ford is ceasing local production, as will Holden, although the Ford decision will give them an artificial lifeline. ( Note: Janama, come to Melbourne and count the hybrid taxis. )
          Meanwhile, in half of Europe, diesel powered E Class Benzes do stirling service as taxis, without doing Mercedes’ image any harm at all. The Germans have always struck me as ‘long view’ people as well.

          10

        • #
          Greebo

          You don’t need to brake to charge the battery. Whenever you don’t press the gas in a Prius 2 things happen:

          1. The engine turns off.
          2. The battery gets charged.

          No braking required.

          So, Toyota has created perpetual motion. Where are the headlines?

          00

    • #
      Scott

      Hi Janama,

      I have spoken to a few cabbies that drive them and being a company they dont pay GST it gets claimed straight back (same as a business friend using solar to generate a 20% return on investment with my tax money) also they get monetry incentives to use them I just cant remember the exact method off the top of my head.

      90

      • #
        janama

        Scott – surely being a company they can GST off any model of car.

        Here’s what wiki has to say about the Hybrid Taxi

        Hybrid taxi or hybrid electric taxi is a taxicab service provided with a hybrid electric car (HEV), which combines a conventional internal combustion engine propulsion system with an electric propulsion system.
        In 2000 North America’s first hybrid taxi was put into service in Vancouver, British Columbia, operating a 2001 Toyota Prius which traveled over 332,000 kilometres (206,000 mi) before being retired.[1][2] Several major cities in the world are adding hybrid taxis to their taxicab fleets, led by San Francisco where hybrid represent almost 50% of its taxicab fleet by March 2010,[3] and New York City where hybrids taxis represent 45% of the city’s total fleet by September 2012.[4] Unlike conventional gasoline cars, hybrids get better fuel economy, do well at slow speeds or idling, and have cleaner emissions.[5

        Paris
        Hybrid taxi from G7 Green Cab in Paris

        The taxi company Verture began operations in Paris in September 2007 with a hybrid only fleet made of Toyota Prius. The company Taxis G7 introduced in October 2007 its first hybrid taxis in Paris, and by early 2012 G7 had 500 hybrid taxis in operation in the city.[31][32] Taxis Bleus introduced 30 hybrid taxis in September 2008.[33]

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_taxi

        basically what I said in my first post that so far has 16 thumbs down.

        20

        • #
          Scott

          Hi Janama,

          You are correct they can claim GST from any car but the more expensive the base cost the higher the GST which makes it more expensive for the average person rather than a Taxi. Secondly here in Aus they get incentives to buy them, in the cabbies words without it they would not have touched them because of the long term cost over a car on LPG. As for other countries I cannot say as I have no direct experience.

          10

    • #
      Peter C

      The most popular taxi is the Ford Falcon (on lpg), which I think says something about running costs. The best taxi from the passenger point of view is the Ford Fairlane, which is unfortunately becoming uncommon, due to age.

      81

      • #
        Bulldust

        The gas tanks are annoying when you are bringing lugage to and from the airport.

        10

        • #
          Greebo

          The gas tanks are annoying when you are bringing lugage to and from the airport.

          Look for the true cabbie..he’s the one with the okky straps.

          00

    • #
      Dennis

      Don’t forget the very expensive battery pack replacement planned maintenance expense

      61

  • #
    Reed Coray

    Jo, I absolutely agree with your sentiments. Two years ago I read a General Motors (GM) advertisement claiming the Chevy Volt gets 230 miles per gallon. At that time, our glorious Federal government was for all practical purposes taking over GM. I was so irate I sent GM the following Email.

    Gentlemen:

    In the past, I’ve owned and been pleased with GM automobiles. However, when the government acquired a prominent role in GM, I became disinclined to buy a GM automobile. With GM’s misleading claim that the Chevrolet Volt gets 230 miles per gallon of gasoline, I became adamant. Although your mileage claim may be (a) technically accurate in that for every gallon of gasoline “pumped into the Volt gas tank”, the Volt may travel 230 miles (depending on how many “home recharges” are performed per gallon of gas “pumped into the gas tank”), and (b) consistent with EPA rules for computing operating efficiency, your claim is misleading–and I believe deliberately so. The energy needed to charge the battery from a home electrical outlet must come from somewhere and should be included in your computation of gas mileage. Electric energy comes from a variety of sources (coal, hydro, nuclear, oil, geothermal, etc.). If, as would be consistent with ethical behavior, when computing the gas mileage of the Volt you assume gasoline is the source of the electrical energy used to charge the battery, I believe the fuel efficiency of the Volt would be considerably reduced. Your blatant attempt to misrepresent reality and thus mislead the public is deplorable. The next automobile I buy will definitely NOT be a GM product.

    Reed Coray

    I haven’t purchased a new car since I sent the Email; but when I do, I’m going to resend my Email to General Motors just so they’ll be reminded why I didn’t by a GM automobile.

    171

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I doubt that you have them shaking in their stock options, but if enough like-minded people did the same thing …. well it would be interesting, to say the least.

      Good on ya, mate.

      60

  • #
    blackadderthe4th

    ‘The ads don’t mention that if you are an average driver, doing about 40 km a day, you’ll need to fill it every day’, but the internal combustion engine was invented some 100 years plus and only the super rich could afford horseless carriages. And their weren’t even allowed to go faster than a man could walk, their range was limited, reliability was dubious and the technology was crude! However due to improvements to the designs it became obvious that the horse had, had it’s day. But now a days the electric car is a more viable option for the average person and with the advancements in technology will become more so!

    631

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Your argument has a few flaws in it.

      For a start, 100 years ago, only the rich could afford a horse and carriage, and the staff required to tend to the said horse and carriage, and the buildings necessary to stable the horse and garage the carriage.

      And surprisingly enough, owning a horse and carriage still requires an income considerably above average, today, because owning a working horse, requires it to be fed every day, and sometime more than once a day.

      Also an electric car needs to be fed every day, and that requires somewhere to plug it in, so you can’t just leave it outside your house or flat. It too needs somewhere it can be safely “stabled and fed”.

      Secondly, the early horseless carriages weren’t allowed to go faster than a man could walk, because the vast majority of the populace had to walk everywhere, because they had no other option, and so were in danger of being run down by those with horseless carriages.

      Electric vehicles come into their own over relatively short distance, with lots of stops and starts, as you would expect to find in a CBD environment. But on the other hand, it is quicker to walk in the CBD of most of the world’s major cities, than it is to drive. So that hasn’t changed much either.

      So what is this “advancement”, of which you speak? It seems to me that the social utility of this new technology will just shift society back to an earlier base-point.

      153

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        ‘only the rich could afford a horse and carriage’ I’m not so sure about that! Considering the old photographs I’ve seen! Anyhow were they not the first ‘hackney’ cabs!

        ‘So what is this “advancement”, of which you speak?’ well for instance, I just heard ,in the last week, that the manufactures are going to consider setting up ‘battery stations’. Where the battery in the car is leased and the station changes the battery to a fully charged one! I don’t know why this wasn’t a foremost priority, no doubt because of ‘free market’ pressures! And there will be advances in battery technology, eventually!

        16

        • #
          Heywood

          “no doubt because of ‘free market’ pressures!”

          Damn that pesky free market allowing demand to determine what we buy. Nah.. Much better to be told what’s good for us by the government.

          41

          • #
            blackadderthe4th

            ‘Damn that pesky free market allowing demand to determine what we buy’, so the free market is the 100% answer to everything then? Nothing is 100% guaranteed, except death and taxes!

            06

    • #
      Dennis

      The electric car was invented at around the same time, New York US taxi cabs were a customer and there were recharge points at many locations. But the internal combustion engine was far more practical and popular and still is.

      91

    • #
      Mark D.

      and with the advancements in technology will become more so!

      Sure it won’t. No advancement in electric storage will compete with the energy contained within any number of hydrocarbon fuels. Of course that isn’t the goal of your average warmist though. They could give a rats ass whether you walk or bicycle but you don’t get hydrocarbons.

      121

  • #

    Brian, you’ve been away … we’ve missed you.

    43

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Whaaa? It “costs only $2.50 to fill.” ?
    How do they figure that? That’s the cost of 1L of petrol plus 2kWh in the batteries. eh?

    Since it takes 4 hours to recharge, I’m wondering if a cyclist could actually beat this car in a race of 120km. A decent cyclist could probably manage 25km/h for 5h hours. It would be close but only if the car isn’t allowed to drink hydrocarbons.

    The 40km is enough for most commuting, I guess, and unlike the bicycle at least you arrive in comfort. However on a cold day in the southern states you can choose to arrive frozen or else stay warm until you run out of fuel halfway home from work. You didn’t think you could go 40km AND have the heater on too, did you? This is something most people don’t think about, but it’s a big deal. Lucky those evil petrol stations are everywhere eh!

    It’s not fully electric so you can’t get maximum grin smugness for out-smugging the other hipsters at the café. There’s no recharge sockets at the café for extra smug points. Really a bad deal all round.

    131

    • #
      ghl

      Do you remember when demisting the windscreen meant wiping on a thin film of soap? Could make a comeback?

      00

  • #
    Ace

    My aunt Lou and uncle Jack crossed the Nullarbor Plain in a Studebaker Hawk towing a caravan.

    Fecking mental.

    What if they’d broken down?

    20

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      In that case, there would junk left on the side of the road.

      (My father had one of these, owned it 1958-1961)

      30

      • #
        Ace

        It was in the Fifties. I gather there weren’t proper roads there then but that its kind of commonplace to drive across it today.

        20

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      Ace, you’re showing your youthfulness.

      Studebaker Hawks never broke down. Ever.

      They, as the British say, may have failed to proceed but you could always fix it with a length of 8 gauge wire. Even on the Nullarbor.

      00

  • #
  • #
    Peter Crawford

    Electric powered vehicles are dangerous due to their quietness. Years ago I worked in a high-alloy steel foundry as a ladleman and one of my colleagues was killed by a battery powered buggy with 2.5 tonnes of metal on it. He never heard it coming.

    This is not a trivial point. An urban environment filled with such vehicles will cause a major increase in road accidents.

    111

    • #
      Ian Hill

      I agree Peter. A few years ago I was about to walk across the road in a quiet suburban street and an electric scooter nearly clobbered me. I had no idea it was even there.

      20

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Perhaps we should pass a law, requiring a man with a red flag and a bell, to walk in front of these vehicles?

      Alternatively, perhaps they should all be equipped with boom boxes, playing Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy”. That would not only make them noticeable, it would severely limit their operating range.

      111

    • #
      Joe V.

      “Electric powered vehicles are dangerous due to their quietness.”

      Agreed. I’m just back from a small carless town in Switzerland where the only motorised vehicles allowed are electric. They all look like milk floats.
      I was almost run over by the chimney sweep’s ‘milk float’ as I didn’t appreciate what was the low whine behind me.
      It keeps noise & exhaust out of thr town, confining it to the carparks on the outskirts.

      20

    • #
      David

      Was on an Asian Development Bank in Shenyang, China, a few years ago and they have an extensive electric trolley bus system which was a real muncher of pedestrians. More so at night as the street lighting is poor and the bus drivers didn’t use their headlights so the globes wouldn’t wear out [I kid you not]. They were, and probably still are, bloody dangerous. Compensated by the city having the best Dumpling Restaurant I have ever been to.

      20

      • #

        Your story ties together well as you’ve not only described the dumplings but the source of the meat in them.

        40

        • #
          David

          Thanks GA. Don’t speak Mandarin so not sure what the translation of Long Pig is so you may just be right. Should have been a “Project” in between “Bank” and “in” with the original post.

          00

  • #

    May I recommend a much cheaper alternative to the Chevrolet Volt? Behold the Sinclair C5. One hundredth of the cost, and when you ran out of electricity you can pedal it home.

    40

    • #
      Carbon500

      Regarding the Sinclair C5 – any cyclist could very easily show one of these the way home. It came as no surprise when it flopped.
      Electrically assisted bicycles which are currently in vogue aren’t much better. Any self-respecting cyclist will leave one of these cumbersome contraptions behind.
      Going back to the car theme, I met and got talking to one of Toyota’s senior European executives in late 2007.
      I asked him why the motor industry didn’t hire a few scientists to counter the CO2 hysteria.
      He shrugged his shoulders and said words to the effect of ‘We just have to do as governments say’ – which explains a lot, doesn’t it?
      Beep beep.

      21

      • #
        Ace

        Ever hear of the Gee-Whizz?

        You dont need riving licence for one in the UK.

        20

      • #
        bananabender

        I asked him why the motor industry didn’t hire a few scientists to counter the CO2 hysteria.

        The car industry obeys the government to get massive subsidies. The government pays these subsidies to create jobs. Both sides are happy with this corrupt arrangement.

        21

    • #
      Mark D.

      I think the Sinclair Institute gets more mileage per recharge than this.

      10

  • #
    Manfred

    People, people. THE overlooked (avoided? ignored?) fact attached to this issue is the very substantial tax revenues associated with road use, and in particular fuels consumption. Pfffffffff. All gone. Everyone (in the idealised Green totalitarian wunder Reich) driving their souped up electric milk carts consuming no fossil fuels and plugging in to hydro and wind for their battery or magic- capacitor replenishment.

    You have to be kidding! The gigantic loss in liquid fuel sales tax, duties, carbon taxes, road building taxes, government convenience tax and tax-it-because -its-an-easy-hit will have to come from somewhere else. In this case, perhaps it’ll be attached to a per mile/km road charge or as a tax on the purchase of the vehicle itself. Who knows. What is certain is that the confounded contraptions will be taxed and WILL cost at least as much to run as the current fleet of combustion engined vehicles. Souped up electric milk carts will simply NEVER be less expensive to run.

    This absurd electric milk cart wooing period will not turn into a honey moon anytime soon. In fact, I rather hope someone sticks a gag and restraint order on the whole issue until a suitable modern technology comes along. Electric cars are like windmills – old technology dressed up in drag. They’re both over priced star features in the Green Nightmare.

    111

  • #
    edwina

    I saw a Volt being test run at on a proving ground. It poked along at a mild pace but very soon ran out of electric puff. The gasoline engine took a while to take over much to the driver’s annoyance. Such a lag could be dangerous like the VW engines failing mid stream.

    41

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Electric vehicles can be fast like this giant drill on two wheels http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHtAkM3CYLA
    but it’s always a question of recharging and time it takes.
    How’s this for an alternate power source http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABVYdVY_r0s seen one in the flesh amazing!

    30

  • #
    pattoh

    I imagine the current draw to recharge batteries of the size necessary to accelerate a vehicle ~ 1200kg+ would be quite large. ( Over to you Tony)

    These vehicles would probably be most popular with inner city weekend earth mother types who live in older “heritage” type suburbs. The after (private)school & after work plug in may result in enough brown-outs & overloads to require a whole lot of new inner city (gold plated of course!) infrastructure.

    Now that we will have smart meters to allow the reticulators to rape us for cooking our dinner or having a shower, I hope they also distribute the infrastructure costs on those who require upgrades.
    /sarc.

    10

  • #
    handjive

    Clean energy companies shift to remain relevant

    Clean energy companies have moved quickly to protect themselves against a carbon tax related sell down today, with one company even spruiking a possible shift into fossil fuels.

    Petratherm has long sought to establish a geothermal business in South Australia, where energy captured from underground heat sources is converted into electricity.

    The small number of people who invest in the minnow appeared to anticipate changes to carbon legislation, with the stock being sold down to just below one cent for the first time ever on the day Kevin Rudd regained his Prime Ministership.

    30

    • #
      edwina

      Yes, this was one of Flim Flannery’s pet projects. Al Gore said if you drill down enough the temp’s are millions of degrees. Poor Gore. The only place where such temp’s are found are in the core of the Sun. That’s why it heats up the earth every day.

      10

  • #
    Incunabulum

    “If you commute 60km a day, and can pick up one of these second hand, and drive it for years, you might end up saving money.”

    You should have added that you can save a lot more money just by buying a regular used diesel SUV. And you get that savings up front rather than over 10 years (by which time the sort of people who can afford to drop $60k on a vehicle will have long since traded theirs in for a new model).

    20

  • #
    Streetcred

    REQUIEM FOR THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE

    The reasoning behind the EV’s fall from grace is simple—though the vehicle emits no pollution on its own, the energy that its battery was charged with did. The most often heard assertion is that an EV charged with power from a coal plant is a worse net emitter than a regular petrol burning one. But the fix for that is easy, build more clean energy plants, plants that run on natural gas or nuclear.

    Even that, however, is not enough to assuage green consciences. Natural gas produces CO2 and it can require environmentally problematic methods to release it from the ground (in other words, fracking). Nuclear power yields hard-to-store wastes as well as proliferation risks. Indeed, most EV advocates fail to consider the environmental impact over a vehicle’s life cycle, during construction, daily operation and its eventual retirement at the junkyard. Ignoring life cycle damage, and even assuming 2030 vehicle technology and grid enhancements, the U.S. National Academies of Science concluded that the health and nonclimate change damage from electric cars will still exceed the damage from conventional fueling options. What’s a green to do?

    … my bold

    52

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    What’s a green to do?

    The same thing they do to everybody else: Label the Academies of Science “denialists” or “facists”

    00

  • #
    Dennis

    Earlier this year I purchased an SUV AWD with a 2.2 litre turbo diesel and 6-speed manual gearbox and it has so far travelled 11,000 Km. At last refueling the consumption average on computer was 16.2 Km/Litre. Not bad for an 1800 Kg 7 seat vehicle.

    There are several small diesel cars that achieve at least one third better.

    00

  • #

    I’m totally in favour of electric cars – the kind which need to be re-fueled every 20 years.

    http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/nuclear-powered-car.htm

    60

  • #
    AndyG55

    Electric operated automobiles are best suited to mobile help for the old or disabled.

    Or as golf carts

    31

  • #
    MadJak

    If my power bills end up subsidising electric car, I will provide any electric car I see with a set of Keys

    Along the side of it.

    31

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    If the sales of the Prius are anything to go by Govt. Depts will be buying them hand over fist.

    00

    • #
      Dennis

      Imported Prius and semi-imported Camry cars, meanwhile the local motor car manufacturing taxpayer subsidised industry is collapsing, vehicle sales too low and other related reasons.

      And when Australia produces more LPG than can be sold, stored or exported. And this government has been dismantling to Howard Coalition installation subsidy scheme for LPG conversion.

      While petrol and diesel imports increase.

      Vote Green Labor, the climate change and economic experts.

      01

  • #

    Note that the TV ad mentions the recharge cost at being $2.50, or as the very carefully worded ad says …… “costs as little as $2.50″.

    A full recharge from flat takes 10 hours, and in fact any charge will take that full 10 hours, as is the nature of batteries.

    The batteries are capable of supplying 16.5KWH, so that means the batteries will require that 16.5KWH of power to recharge them.

    So, “costs as little as $2.50″ translates to 15 cents/KWH for a recharge.

    Hmm! Odd! The average power costs for most places here in Australia is currently around 25 cents/KWH, so a full recharge costs in the vicinity of $4.20.

    The average residential power consumption comes in at around 20KWH (and again, that’s me telling it perhaps on the low side) so that makes the average power bill around $5 per day.

    So, assuming that you use the Holden Volt as a daily commuter and charge it overnight, every night, then your 90 day power bill rises from $450 to $810.

    Not a Hybrid, Holden says, but, umm, an extended range vehicle. The first 80KM is all from the battery, and if your trip is longer than that, then the 1.4 litre petrol engine cuts in to drive the car for the range of the small fuel tank, and the batteries are charged via the usual generator battery charging device.

    Note also that the car has a battery bank, and I don’t care how long the Company says their batteries will last. Seven years is the best case, so selling the car second hand after even 5 years or so will see a significant loss, as the purchasing body understands it will probably need a new battery pack, $5K+.

    Hey, that’s odd, recharge the car’s batteries overnight. Recharge the mobile phones while we sleep. Recharge Laptops, Notebooks, NotePads, etc overnight.

    Funny, the only plants operational during those sleeping hours are large scale coal fired power plants that we are being exhorted to shut down, and now here we are dumping all our battery recharging time into that sector, increasing their workload, not decreasing it.

    Sometimes you just have to wonder.

    Tony.

    210

    • #
      Manfred

      Nice analysis Tony – thank you! And all this before ‘they’ve’ even began to think of ways of recovering the lost revenue from the declining sales of liquid fuels.

      More of the same ‘road to hell paved with good intentions’.

      Surely someone is going to apply the brakes of reason to this before we descend into a new Agrarian Age whose hall mark will be large teams of human drawn ploughs?

      30

    • #
      Bulldust

      I wonder how much electric power is lost in the charging process… $4.20 assumes almost 100% charging efficiency, yes?

      20

    • #
      Bulldust

      As an afterthought … maybe the $2.50 implies some sort of electric car usage subsidy? Are we getting carbon credits to take fossil fuels off the road?

      00

    • #
      ianl8888

      As I noted some months ago, the power demand for Victoria (mostly Melbourne) as constantly measured in the LaTrobe Valley brown coal generators, drops only a few % at 3am compared with 3pm on normal Monday-Friday times. This is why these generators need a constant feed of coal fuel, guaranteed in both tonnage and quality

      So adding 3-4 million cars every night at 17kWH each will just even this out some – unless the generators or mines themselves are shut, or the aluminium smelters are closed, or people stop using electric blankets in winter, or …

      10

    • #

      Dammit Tony; I was looking for the punch-line after reading about how everything has to be charged at night.

      Perhaps they could recharge using PV from the back-radiation of atmospheric CO2? There’s supposed to be a lot of that. ;-)

      20

  • #
    RoHa

    I like the idea of the hydrogen fuel cell car. They seem to have the range and ease of filling of petrol cars, and current petrol stations could be adapted to provide hydrogen as well. I’m sure a way can be found to bring the price down, too.

    http://www.technologyreview.com/news/516711/why-toyota-and-gm-are-pushing-fuel-cell-cars-to-market/

    The problem is getting hold of the hydrogen. For Australia, we could find a chunk of the country that no-one does anything with and set up an enormous solar-powered plant there. I would suggest Maralinga. (I know, it might still be radioactive, but, as long as all the workers are Aborigines, no-one will care.)

    21

    • #
      Manfred

      ‘Fuel cell’ powered vehicles yes, maybe, hydrogen powered vehicles less convincing
      http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1083046_hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-not-viable-says-volkswagen-ceo

      30

      • #

        There are some commercial fuel cells available for domestic and business electricity and heating uses. They run on natural gas (methane). The life of a cell is apparently 2 years. I think there was a thread on Wattsupwiththat recently.

        FAIL.

        Fuel cells have been around for 150 years. Heaps of money was spent on them 50 years ago for spacecraft use(Gemini, Apollo. Damn things kept giving trouble. I have serious doubts about any technology that has been around for 150 years, had lots spent on it and still isn’t commercially viable.

        21

        • #
          RoHa

          “They run on natural gas (methane).”

          A collection system in the car’s seats would enable the driver and passengers to top up the tank.

          “I have serious doubts about any technology that has been around for 150 years, had lots spent on it and still isn’t commercially viable.”

          Does sound dubious. So if we aren’t going to stick with petrol, do we go back to steam, forward to nuclear, or (best of all) this:

          http://imgur.com/r/thesimpsons/amLiu6v

          00

      • #
        RoHa

        I’m not sure what is supposed to the difficulty with establishing the refuelling stations. It seemed pretty easy to put an LPG pump next to the petrol pumps. Why not a hydrogen pump?

        As I said, the problem is getting the hydrogen. If we can’t run a pipeline to the sun (plenty there, I’m told, as I would like to, maybe the rust and sunshine method will work.

        http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1085438_is-rust-the-key-to-cleaner-solar-generated-hydrogen

        Or we might be able to get the bugs to do it cheaply.

        http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/09/bacteria-water-hydrogen-fuel

        00

        • #

          I thought the sun was iron?

          00

          • #
            Heywood

            You thought wrong. You may be confused with the earths core.

            Sun
            “Chemically, about three quarters of the Sun’s mass consists of hydrogen, while the rest is mostly helium. The remainder (1.69%, which nonetheless equals 5,628 times the mass of Earth) consists of heavier elements, including oxygen, carbon, neon and iron, among others.”

            Earth
            ” The planet’s interior remains active, with a solid iron inner core, a liquid outer core that generates the magnetic field, and a thick layer of relatively solid mantle.”

            00

            • #

              It was a joke Heywood but don’t tell Oliver

              11

              • #
                Heywood

                Gee Aye, not only that but maybe admitting you are wrong as well. I’d like to see how your comment was a joke especially since you were implying a serious response to someone you disagreed with. A joke does not fit with your response but maybe you have a way of explaining it away? I think you are writing crap here.
                ;)

                00

              • #

                Who do I disagree with? I was making a joke about a serial pest on this and other fora. If you don’t get it, that is not my problem. i only wish it was funnier.

                01

              • #
                Heywood

                Obviously missed the link in my post…

                What’s good for the goose etc etc…

                00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Heywood’s right. It is easy to remember.

            Hydrogen floats gently on the breeze until such time as it encounters a flame, whereupon it gently explodes and creates rain, which then falls to earth.

            Iron on the other hand, bypasses all that poetic rubbish, and goes directly to falling on your foot.

            20

  • #
    pat

    as the thread is discussing misleading advertising, this is not too O/T.

    ***find the “climate experts” & “industry” whatevers in the following Canberra Times article:

    16 July: Canberra Times: Heath Aston/Mark Kenny: Abbott hit by backlash
    Tony Abbott’s insistence that Labor’s emissions trading scheme is an expensive exercise in buying and selling an ”invisible substance” has drawn derision from ***climate experts and industry…
    Professor Richard Dennis, an economist at the Australian National University, said Mr Abbott should make it clear whether he thinks radiation was harmful or not…
    ”If Tony Abbott is concerned about people paying for invisible things, then anyone who owns intellectual property should be very concerned, likewise people in the futures and financial derivatives market.”
    Martijn Wilder, a climate change lawyer at global law firm Baker & McKenzie, said: ”You might not be able to see carbon dioxide but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t regulate it.
    ”An emissions trading scheme is a market for trading permits to pollute. It’s no different to trading water licences…
    Finance Minister Penny Wong said Mr Abbott’s comment built on his previously expressed view that climate change was “absolute crap”.
    ”He’s now mocked John Howard’s design of an emissions trading scheme,” she said. ”Imagine Tony Abbott at an international meeting talking to Barack Obama and David Cameron – both of whom believe in action on climate change – and telling them that, ‘Look, this is just about the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one.”’…
    http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-hit-by-backlash-20130715-2q0dw.html?google_editors_picks=true

    16 July: Age: Jonathan Swan: $4b of cuts to ‘terminate’ carbon tax
    They include:
    Tightening the car fringe benefits tax with savings of $1.8 billion over the forward estimates;
    Ending the Energy Security Fund two years early with savings of $770 million over the forward estimates;
    Trimming the Coal Sector Jobs package allocation in 2014/15 ($186 million in savings);
    A deferral of $200 million of funding from the Carbon Capture and Storage program and the return of $24 million to the budget;
    Return of unallocated funding from the Biodiversity Fund to the budget ($213 million over the forward estimates);
    Return of $143 million of unallocated funding from the Carbon Farming Futures program to the budget;
    Savings of $200 million of funding from the Clean Technology Program and return of $162 million of unallocated funding to the budget; and
    Reforms to APS management structure and more efficient procurement of agency software ($248 million).
    http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/4b-of-cuts-to-terminate-carbon-tax-20130716-2q0xq.html

    LOL:

    16 July: Australian: John Rolfe: Rich win most from carbon tax axing, exclusive research shows
    The analyst who produced the Deutsche research – Tim Jordan, an adviser to Penny Wong when she was Climate Change Minister – said Mr Rudd’s move “does improve the political outlook for the carbon price”.
    “It makes it more likely there will be a carbon price after the election,” Mr Jordan said
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/rich-win-most-from-carbon-tax-axing-exclusive-research-shows/story-e6frg6n6-1226679826040

    10

    • #
      AndyG55

      Wong, with her gender bias, will always be wong !

      00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      > The Deutsche Bank analyst who produced the Deutsche research – Tim Jordan, an adviser to Penny Wong when she was Climate Change Minister – said Mr Rudd’s move “does improve the political outlook for the carbon price”.

      Oh? Nowwww the truth comes out. Yeah I’m sure the Deutsche Bank improved the political outlook of their cash flows no end.

      And “the Rich win the most”…crikey on a bikey! The rich were not compensated! A household on 35000/year wins back 35% of one week’s salary and the household on 120000/year wins back 22% of one week’s salary. The rich win the most, hahahaa. Yeah the rich do win the most… the rich carbon brokers win the most.

      > NATSEM estimates switching to an ETS from July next year.. would cost the 2014-15 Budget $3.4 billion. While that is a high price for a Government already way in the red, it is potentially worth it for the political benefit it will bring Mr Rudd.

      Yep, Kevin4Kevin.

      10

  • #
    pat

    this is O/T, however it’s so crazy, it needs to get posted:

    16 July: Bloomberg: Alex Morales: Each Degree Celsius of Warming May Raise Seas 2 Meters
    Sea levels may rise by more than 2 meters (6.6 feet) for each degree Celsius of global warming the planet experiences over the next 2,000 years, according to a study by researchers in five nations.
    The research, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, attempts to iron out the impact of short-term fluctuations in sea levels, examining changes over a longer term for which forecasts are more certain…
    “Continuous sea-level rise is something we cannot avoid unless global temperatures go down,” Anders Levermann, the lead author of the study, said by e-mail from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, where he is based…
    Researchers from Germany, the U.S., Canada, Spain and Austria also contributed to the study. They used computer models and analysis of past trends in sea levels derived from sediments and raised ancient shorelines to make their predictions…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-15/each-degree-celsius-of-warming-may-raise-seas-2-meters.html

    00

  • #
    Dave

    Holden has had enough of our money already.

    Are we going to keep on paying in the future, so these Dolts can get new batteries?

    Holden so far:
    From the Federal Government

    1. $1.5bn – Automotive Assistance 2001 to 2010 Automotive Competitive and Investment Scheme
    2. $12.5m – 2001 Strategic Investment Incentive for the training of automotive industry employees and the development of industry relevant technology (Engine Plant)
    3.$6.7m – 2006 Safety Enhancement Project
    4. $150m – 2011 to 2012 Automotive Transformation Scheme
    5. $189m – 2008 to 2012 Green Car Innovation Fund Grants
    6. $3m – 2010 to 2011 Automotive Supply Chain Development Program
    7. $1,864,107,018 – Subtotal automotive programs assistance
    8. $215m – Not yet paid. 2012 New Generation Co-Investment Grant.
    9. $2,079,107,018 – Total Automotive Programs Assistance
    10.$78,640,619 – General assistance 2001 to 2012 under Tradex scheme where importers gain exemption on customs duties and GST on goods to be re-exported.
    11.$17,199,894 – Vocational education training programs.
    12.$2,174,947,53 – Total of benefits paid, gained or pledged January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2012.

    From the South Australian Government

    1. $30 million – Attracting production of Holden Cruze to Elizabeth.
    2. $5 million – Labour adjustment following the downsizing of vehicle operations (closure of third shift).
    3. $1 million – GM Holden secondary employment activity to assist workers to find employment while on reduced shifts.
    4. $2.2 million – Safety enhancement project.
    5. $38.2m – Total grants paid
    6. $50 million – pledged but not paid for the new generation vehicle. Due in 2016-17 and 2017-18 financial years.

    And this doesn’t include extra money promised this year.

    Nearly $2 billion of our money wasted and then they bring this heap of EVcrap out.

    30

  • #
    crakar24

    Hey Sonny i got one for you.

    Remember TWA 800? You know the one that exploded in mid air from centre tank fuel vapours and from a missile strike like the hundreds of eyewitnesses claimed?

    well just the other day 3 of the original NTSB investigators decided to come clean and stated for the record that their investigation was hijacked by FBI/CIA or whoever and their report was bullshit.

    On cue the US government has now declared that they are right the report was bullshit, the real culprit was Al Qeada (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

    We know this to be true because all the information came from the son of a mafia boss who was serving time in prison with a couple of towel heads and they told him everything and in return the son of the mafia boss would get a lighter sentance.

    So there you have it acknowledgement of government cover up to protect a terrorist organisation.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2362820/9-11-World-Trade-Center-bomber-Ramzi-Yousef-revealed-secrets-TWA-800-crash-mafia-capo-jail-cell.html

    21

    • #
      crakar24

      Oh i forgot this is from http://www.whatreallyhappened.com

      So let me see if I have this latest pile of bovine excrement right. Al Qaeda, whoever that really is, sails a tiny boat into the middle of an ongoing US Navy live-fire test of Aegis-CEC, fires off the missile that hundreds of eyewitnesses saw strike TWA 800, and which is incidentally the very type of missile Aegis-CEC is designed to detect and intercept, then sailed right back out without so much as a single US Navy ship detecting them or giving chase, and the US Government, which never hesitated to blame Al Qaeda for everything from 9-11 to receding hairlines, decided to keep this one incident top secret until right this moment, just as three NTSB whistle-blowers pull a “Snowden” and go public that they were ordered by the government to lie about exploding center fuel tanks?
      That about sum it up?

      21

  • #
    Konrad

    Worried about the promotion of useless electric hybrids? Concerned about the pollution involved in producing battery packs or neodymium magnets? Upset that vehicles are being switched from petrol to coal?

    Worry no more! His exulted Kruddulence has ruled that the the revenue shortfall from changing the fraudulent carbon tax to a fraudulent ETS will be covered by adjusting the fringe benefit rule for company cars. As 80% of locally manufactured cars go to fleet sales, this should finally destroy both Holden and Toyota Australia. No more coal powered Volt! No more coal powered Pious! All hail dear leader Komrade Krudd!

    20

  • #
    Dennis

    A challenge, electric car Sydney to Brisbane, I am driving a turbo diesel.

    21

  • #
    pat

    interesting to see two BBC/David Shukman pieces on BBC World today which were relatively CAGW-free. the first link does not include the broadcast piece as yet of Shukman in Texas:

    16 July: BBC: David Shukman: US to begin exporting ‘fracked’ gas
    But for the moment, a shale gas boom, made possible by fracking, is under way in the US with every prospect of it growing for decades to come.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23317370

    this piece does include the broadcast video, but Shukman sneaks a little CAGW into the text:

    14 July: BBC: David Shukman: The receding threat from ‘peak oil’
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23280894

    i’ve definitely noticed less ENTHUSIASM at Reuters Point Carbon:

    16 July: GWPF: New Direction: Reuters Downgrades Climate Change Coverage
    Winds of change are blowing through Reuters’ environmental coverage. One of its three regional environment correspondents “is no longer with the company” and the other two have been ordered to switch focus, people inside the agency say.
    A perceptible shift in Reuters’ approach to the global climate change story has attracted international attention. Scientists and climatologists as well as non-governmental and international environment bodies have detected a move from the agency’s straight coverage towards scepticism on the view held by a vast majority of scientists that climate change is the result of human pollution of the atmosphere and environment. They see generally fewer stories on the issue…
    The three regional environment correspondents – one each reporting on the Americas, Asia, and Europe, the Middle East and Africa – typically covered climate policy, climate science, carbon markets and energy policies and impacts on energy firms, international climate negotiations, deforestation, and climate change impacts on agriculture.
    The specialist correspondent for Asia was Singapore-based David Fogarty, who was transferred to more general news reporting before he left earlier this year after two decades with the company including four years on the Asia climate change beat. His opposite numbers in the other two regions are Alister Doyle, based in Oslo from where he has written about the environment for a decade, and Deborah Zabarenko, based in Washington from where she has reported on the environment and climate change since 2006…

    http://www.thegwpf.org/global-cooling-reuters-downgrades-climate-coverage/

    10

  • #
    Numberwang

    GM has a huge backlog of unsold (Chevrolet) Volts in North America. Dealers don’t want to take them because they sell so poorly and steal floor space from more popular models. And yes, we all pay for them thanks to government subsidies to purchasers of electric cars.

    And as far as lessening our dependence on “dirty” oil, gas or coal, the plastics, rubber, lubricants and synthetic fibres in the Volt have to come from somewhere, as does the electricity to power them. Ask the Greens how much the demand for electricity will increase if 20% of our cars were replaced with electric models by 2020. How many new lithium mines are they prepared to accept to meet the increased demand for batteries, or rare earth mines for the motors?

    “Oh, but the newer cars will be made out of lightweight materials and be much more efficient.” OK, how much more electricity will we need to meet the increased demand for aluminium and magnesium?

    30

  • #
    george

    Due to lack of interest the Volt was cancelled

    01

  • #
    MemoryVault

    “Oh, but the newer cars will be made out of lightweight materials and be much more efficient.”

    Sorry, Numberwang, but you just don’t understand.

    Modern “green” products are manufactured from Angel’s breath and moonbeams, and so require neither electricity nor mining.
    And they are lovingly assembled by Green Godettes, who are wholly sustained on dewdrops and organic vegan pixie dust, which negates the need for dams and agriculture as well.

    .
    Ask any Greens voter.

    21

  • #
    Streetcred

    Here’s some more on the bogus claims of economy …

    Inaccurate EPA Mileage Tests Mislead Consumers

    Consumer Reports, the widely respected consumer product testing magazine, set out to determine whether those fuel mileage stickers the government requires on all cars are realistic.
    So it tested 315 cars against their official EPA ratings and came up with an interesting finding.
    While most cars came close to the government’s fuel economy rating, two categories didn’t — hybrids and cars with small, turbocharged engines. Both, mind you, advertise big mpg numbers. Yet the average hybrid in the test did 10% worse than the EPA estimate.

    This isn’t the first time we’ve seen overhyped mileage claims about so-called green cars. In 2009, GM bragged that EPA tests would show its Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid gets the equivalent of 230 miles per gallon.

    This isn’t the first time we’ve seen overhyped mileage claims about so-called green cars. In 2009, GM bragged that EPA tests would show its Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid gets the equivalent of 230 miles per gallon.

    The EPA’s actual rating on that car is 98 mpg — when running on batteries. Once the Volt switches to gasoline, which it has to do after 38 miles, it gets just 37 mpg.
    So if you drive a Volt 380 miles — the farthest it can go on a single charge and a full tank of gas — you end up with an overall average of 43 mpg. Good, but hardly great.

    00

    • #

      YMMV

      Testing is done to published international and national Standards which have little bearing on the reality of driving in this century. Manufacturers “fiddling at the edges” can make fuel consumption look a litttle better, but the difference between being done to the spirit vs done to the letter is generally less than half a litre per 100 km. The main reason why the range of variability of conditions is exploited is the very same reason why people employ accountants to minimise the tax that they have to pay.

      The standards at best only give a comparison of fuel consumption between models tested to the same standard. Manufacturers, if they aren’t stupid, will all push the test conditions to the allowable limits.

      Real-world driving cycles for consumers vary considerably. Many people cannot drive economically … because they have no appreciation of how stuff works and they don’t observe the traffic situation well enough to plan ahead. There are also people who go by “fuel saving” rules of the 1950′s and 1960′s; which mostly don’t work at all in modern cars; you recognize them by their tardy acceleration and often dangerous coasting in neutral.

      00

  • #
    pat

    15 July: Governing.com: Ryan Holeywell: Oregon to Charge Drivers by the Mile — Not the Gallon
    Oregon is poised to become the first state to charge drivers based on how many miles they drive — as opposed to how many gallons of gas they purchase — in a move that could foreshadow the future of how transportation infrastructure gets funded.
    The bill, passed by the legislature and awaiting Gov. John Kitzhaber’s signature, would allow up to 5,000 drivers to voluntarily enlist in a new program in which they’d pay a tax of 1.5 cents for every mile they drive in lieu of the 30 cents-per-gallon tax that drivers pay in the Beaver State…
    http://www.governing.com/blogs/fedwatch/Oregon-Bill-Awaiting-Governors-Signature-Would-Be-Transportation-Milestone.html

    00

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    Costs as little as $2.50 to charge eh? Maybe they mean that’ll take you to the milk bar and back..

    00

  • #
    Graham Richards

    The Chevrolet Volt in USA has been an unmitigated sales disaater. The Holden Volt will have the same unhappy history.

    The $200 m tax bailout to GM Holden was granted on condition that the Volt be produced to save the planet….pity it won’t save our tax $$. Guarantee the Greens would only agree to the bailout if GM Holden produced the electric shocker which all taxpayers will now be subsidising.

    Holden will rue the day it puts this expensive money [not petrol] guzzler on the market.

    00

  • #
    Nice One

    Telsa produce the electricity from their solar panels and allow their owners to charge for free; for ever.

    52

    • #
      Streetcred

      That’s real smart, NO … they must have fantastic solar panels that work at night when these vehicles are mostly garaged for charging ! Twit !!

      Stupidity is “for ever”.

      23

  • #
    Jan

    Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the Australian government to subsidize the purchase of alternate fuel cars by Australians as part of our greenhouse gas emission reductions – they could use the billions of dollars in blood money I mean export tax from CO2 producing coal and gas.
    Anyway why is it that many people only see solar ethanol and other oil fuels as the answer. Surely hydro electricity can be adapted for cars, like a car’s battery the hydro engine would need the battery to get it going but once on the move the hydro would be regenerating the power rain hail or shine.
    Likewise we can sink oil platforms into the ocean why can’t we use the ocean to generate hydro electricity.
    Hello, hello is anyone there?

    00

  • #
    dave mathews

    the one thing that most people seem to forget when they look at or talk about the electric cars like in the add for the volt says $2.50 to fill up ,BUT what happens when the battery wont charge any more or wont hold a charge .The lithium-Ion batteries that are used only have a useable life span of approx. 1000 charges sound like a lot? Not if you only get 60-100 klm from a charge and have to recharge it every day, you would only get approx. 3 years of life from the battery before it needs replacing and the car companies don’t tell you that or the cost of replacing the battery which is in the thousands ($1000-$15000 depending on make and model)ouch!!!! seems like a big added cost to me on top of a expensive car to start with the Holden volt is approx. $60000

    00

  • #
    Warwick

    When Euro5 emission standards mandated lower levels of NOX & particulates for Diesel engines there were two technologies. EGR & SCR. EGR requires no infrastructure, but is unable to support higher power engines. SCR requires urea (AD Blue) for post treatment, but gives better fuel economy and more horsepower.

    Many pundits claimed the infrastructure would prevent SCR from taking off. They were wrong. SCR is the leading Euro 5 technology for heavy vehicles. Truck buyers voted with their best interest at heart (lower fuel cost & high HP = profitable vehicle). Servos added AD blue to maintain their relevance (AD blue = high volume diesel sales).

    As fuel prices increase the appeal of electric vehicles increases = reduced manufacturing cost. This will drive infrastructure and improvements in charging technologies (already happening), and battery reconditioning / servicing (around for ages).

    00

    • #
      crakar24

      Warwick thanks for the info on EGR and SCR very interesting, however the topic is electric cars (not that i am in a position to lecture on off topic statements LOL).

      Seriously, lets say the price of fuel goes up and the price of batteries goes down the point at which battery cars becomes cheaper is still decades away.

      What are improvements to charging technologies?

      Battery reconditioning?

      The problem with electric cars are many

      1, They are very expensive to buy
      2, They are very expensive to run (cost of electricty to power them)
      3, They are very expensive to maintain
      4, They could not pull the skin off a rice pudding so yeah maybe a few Green voters will drive them from latte shop to hair stylists and home but they are not much use for anything else.

      Another utopian green dream that will die a slow and painful death.

      13

  • #
    Aztecbill

    Exclusively electric cars have a lot of problems but hybrids solve all those problems. The ultimate hybrids will use one engine and two sources of power. The current hybrids use two engines and two sources of power. The pefect way to power an electric engine without batteries is fuel cell. It will take time but hybrid battery/fuel cell hybrids make too much sense to not happen. A lot of infrastructure need sto happen for that to come to reality. Fuel cell/battery power source enables very low profile drive system. That along with drive by wire tecnology will allow drive systems and car bodies to be manufactured separately. That increases choices and competition. All good things.

    00

  • #
    loopy

    A smaller car with a smaller motor is the only option to be a greener option.whats wrong with a reverse trike car as an alternative .alot lighter and small motor will save petrol prices. Maybe the peel50.lol ok too small!

    00