ABC Lateline

News, Press Release, Insider info & EV Promotion Related
Mark T
Groupie
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri, 04 Jan 2008, 03:56
Real Name: Mark Taylor
Location: Sydney

ABC Lateline

Post by Mark T » Fri, 02 Apr 2010, 01:26

ABC Lateline should have a story about EVs going to air on Monday 5th at 10:30 pm.

antiscab
Senior Member
Posts: 2362
Joined: Mon, 26 Nov 2007, 05:39
Real Name: Matthew Lacey
Location: Perth, WA

ABC Lateline

Post by antiscab » Fri, 02 Apr 2010, 11:01

thanks for the headsup,
penciled in
Matt
2017 Renault zoe - 25'000km
2007 vectrix - 156'000km
1998 prius - needs Batt
1999 Prius - needs batt
2000 prius - has 200 x headway 38120 cells

User avatar
Simon
Senior Member
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun, 19 Aug 2007, 19:38
Real Name: Simon
Location: Perth WA
Contact:

ABC Lateline

Post by Simon » Wed, 07 Apr 2010, 02:24

You can download it here if you missed it.. http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/lateline/vi ... 166489.wmv

Richo
Senior Member
Posts: 3602
Joined: Mon, 16 Jun 2008, 00:19
Real Name: Richard
Location: Perth, WA

ABC Lateline

Post by Richo » Wed, 07 Apr 2010, 05:48

Image Mitsubishi produced 2,000 eV's last year and 10,000 this year!
He forgot to mention that there was 1 in Australia - the demo.

Ah good ol Clive.
How is grid locked eV's worse than grid locked petrol cars?
1. It's quieter.
2. Energy is not lost waiting.
3. Your not sucking in fumes from the car in front.
4. Night charging gives more even power loading for energy producers.
5. Marginal improvement in CO2 emmissions if "powered by current power mix"
6. Offsettable by renewable energy, which on my roof is bigger than his thumb nail.

Nice to see a couple of WA conversions on the end Image
Help prevent road rage - get outta my way! Blasphemy is a swear word. Magnetic North is a south Pole.

EVNoob
Noobie
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed, 17 Mar 2010, 01:50

ABC Lateline

Post by EVNoob » Wed, 07 Apr 2010, 16:20

Oh Clive, how can you have any credibility with mutton chops!

I still don't understand his logic, why would you think that digging up oil from reefs around Australia is a good idea?

He says reduction in energy consumption, well sorry to tell you but it is envitable that it will go up, there isn't much you can do.


User avatar
woody
Senior Member
Posts: 1712
Joined: Sat, 21 Jun 2008, 02:03
Real Name: Anthony Wood
Location: Mt Colah

ABC Lateline

Post by woody » Thu, 08 Apr 2010, 22:27

Richo wrote: Nice to see a couple of WA conversions on the end Image
I guess the Video from the WA parliament house thing mentioned in EV News #198?

Who's Blue MG is that in WA?
Planned EV: '63 Cortina using AC and LiFePO4 Battery Pack

antiscab
Senior Member
Posts: 2362
Joined: Mon, 26 Nov 2007, 05:39
Real Name: Matthew Lacey
Location: Perth, WA

ABC Lateline

Post by antiscab » Thu, 08 Apr 2010, 23:57

its glen georges IIRC.

that thing really hammers (45 x 160Ah cells + zilla 1k + adc 9" direct drive).

does 0-100 in 7 sec.

Matt
Matt
2017 Renault zoe - 25'000km
2007 vectrix - 156'000km
1998 prius - needs Batt
1999 Prius - needs batt
2000 prius - has 200 x headway 38120 cells

User avatar
markrmarkr
Groupie
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue, 03 Jun 2008, 13:57
Real Name: Mark Roberts
Location: Earlwood (Syd

ABC Lateline

Post by markrmarkr » Mon, 12 Apr 2010, 05:00

I found a marketing statement from Nissan for their Leaf in the US, shown here:

Image

This sort of shoots Clive's argument to pieces I think.

Leave the oil in the ground and use the electricity which would have been used to refine it, to drive an electric car further, than you could on the petrol.

It doesn't matter how you make the electricity, you are still way ahead of were you would be using oil.

I found plenty of validation of this too.

Turns out that oil refineries use a lot of Natural gas too. In energy terms around twice as much as the electricity.   If this was used to make electricity as well (at say 50% efficiency) we would be able to put twice as many EVs on the road using less energy and producing less CO2. Clive would love that. Image

Did ayone check out clives website "dog and lemon guide" here is a link to the site: dog and lemon report I checked it out - it has more holes than swiss cheese. Why isn't anyone talking about the costs of drilling, refining, storing, and distributing oil and fuel?

The other point to get is the fact that oil refineries opperate 24/7 so they contribute to peak electricity problems. Electric car owners try to charge in off-peak periods and are part of the solution to peak electricity problems.

I know I'm preaching to the converted. But would it be worth trying to educate John Stewart or Leigh Sales?

Cheers,

Markr
MarkR

Driving a 2012 Nissan Leaf, Red - they go faster.
Autumn

Squiggles
Senior Member
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed, 22 Apr 2009, 03:19
Real Name: Neil
Location: Newcastle NSW

ABC Lateline

Post by Squiggles » Mon, 12 Apr 2010, 14:07

markrmarkr wrote: I found a marketing statement from Nissan for their Leaf in the US, shown here:

Image

This sort of shoots Clive's argument to pieces I think.
Markr


This one statement if true is the most compelling fact for converting to electric cars I have seen.

Squiggles
Senior Member
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed, 22 Apr 2009, 03:19
Real Name: Neil
Location: Newcastle NSW

ABC Lateline

Post by Squiggles » Mon, 12 Apr 2010, 14:10

It basically says that we are using petrol as a means to convert electrical energy to mechanical energy...

marcopolo
Groupie
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat, 27 Feb 2010, 20:57

ABC Lateline

Post by marcopolo » Mon, 12 Apr 2010, 16:17

Squiggles wrote: This one statement if true is the most compelling fact for converting to electric cars I have seen.


I'm not sure that this isn't one of those very selective statistics, for which the actual basis is very hard to ascertain. I mean, is this an industry wide statistic? Or which oil refinery? Where? how where the figures arrived at?

Clive could respond by arguing the amount of energy and pollution created by the mining of and processing of rare earths, etc.. He could also argue that the gas was a by product and was used to fire the oil refinery generators, rather that waste .. etc etc.. ad nuseum!

But does it all really matter?

Is there any real need to disprove such idiots as Clive?

Clive's pronouncements are not even supported by the Oil Companies! Some years ago, Lord Brown, while Chairman of BP, (the worlds third largest oil company, and the world largest solar energy corporation) stated, "the proposition of wasting so much energy to produce automotive fuels from such a precious and dwindling resource as oil, must be considered irresponsible to future generations, both morally and economically..".

Alternatives can be found to fossil fuel fired power stations, but nothing can replace the benefits to mankind of the vast array of non-fuel, oil based products.    

Troglodytes like Clive, would waste the planets precious oil resources on maintaining out-dated petroleum based transport technology, that possesses no redeeming social or economic benefits.





User avatar
markrmarkr
Groupie
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue, 03 Jun 2008, 13:57
Real Name: Mark Roberts
Location: Earlwood (Syd

ABC Lateline

Post by markrmarkr » Mon, 12 Apr 2010, 20:42

LOL. Yes petrol is like a disposable battery, used to transport electric power from the grid to your wheels. Even higher energy density than Lithium! Image

I think the thing in the photo was at a Leaf roadshow in the US. Similar to the one they had at Bondi Junction a couple of months ago. Did anyone go to that?

here is some confirmation -
evtv it's the 28 October 2009 episode. You only have to sit through 3 minutes or so before it gets good. It's pretty much over at nine minutes. It actually quotes an article here by Doug Korthof. Using Doug's data they arrive at a figure of 7.18kWh which is pretty close to the Nissan figure. Doug bases his figures on California Refinery data. I have no idea where the Nissan data comes from.
MarkR

Driving a 2012 Nissan Leaf, Red - they go faster.
Autumn

antiscab
Senior Member
Posts: 2362
Joined: Mon, 26 Nov 2007, 05:39
Real Name: Matthew Lacey
Location: Perth, WA

ABC Lateline

Post by antiscab » Mon, 12 Apr 2010, 23:11

marcopolo wrote:
I'm not sure that this isn't one of those very selective statistics, for which the actual basis is very hard to ascertain. I mean, is this an industry wide statistic? Or which oil refinery? Where? how where the figures arrived at?


yeh that number made me fall off my chair aswell.....

kinda makes the coal vs oil debate redundant.

electricity is an expensive high quality energy source (or rather store?).
The only advantage is being able to use it far from generation.

if a refinery really used that much energy, they would generate on site, and skip the electricity step.

having said that, i have had a hard time gettting real data on energy used to refine, as alot of it comes "in process" rather than from external gas or electricity.

more digging....
Matt
2017 Renault zoe - 25'000km
2007 vectrix - 156'000km
1998 prius - needs Batt
1999 Prius - needs batt
2000 prius - has 200 x headway 38120 cells

User avatar
markrmarkr
Groupie
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue, 03 Jun 2008, 13:57
Real Name: Mark Roberts
Location: Earlwood (Syd

ABC Lateline

Post by markrmarkr » Tue, 13 Apr 2010, 00:17

antiscab wrote:
marcopolo wrote:


if a refinery really used that much energy, they would generate on site, and skip the electricity step.

having said that, i have had a hard time gettting real data on energy used to refine, as alot of it comes "in process" rather than from external gas or electricity.

more digging....


Apparently a lot of them DO generate their own.

Also, refineries produce other things too, but fuel is definitely their dominant product.

Good luck with the digging.   Your right there isn't much hard data to be had.   Most of it has to be teased out indirectly.   At the end of Doug's article, in the comments section, he goes into detail where he gets his numbers from. That might be a good place to start.
MarkR

Driving a 2012 Nissan Leaf, Red - they go faster.
Autumn

marcopolo
Groupie
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat, 27 Feb 2010, 20:57

ABC Lateline

Post by marcopolo » Tue, 13 Apr 2010, 04:50

Guys, is it really important? The simple fact is that Oil is a far too valuable resource to waste powering personal transport.

Once this easily established proposition is accepted, the next step is to develop a more effective alternatives.

Ok, if we rule out such dead ends as hydrogen etc, that leaves two major contenders. Bio fuels and EV technology! Bio fuels still lack the logistical capacity to replace fossil fuel, but Ev's also have an Achilles heel with a dependence on the mining of increasingly scarce Rare Earths for battery production.

Of the two, it is fairly evident that EV technology has the more advanced capacity to evolve beyond rare earth dependency.

User avatar
markrmarkr
Groupie
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue, 03 Jun 2008, 13:57
Real Name: Mark Roberts
Location: Earlwood (Syd

ABC Lateline

Post by markrmarkr » Tue, 13 Apr 2010, 05:43

marcopolo wrote: Guys, is it really important?


Yes I think it is really important.   The title of the lateline piece was "Jury still out on electric car revolution"   It may be obvious to us that EVs are the way to go, but there are people out there who aren't convinced.   We need a really powerful easy to understand argument to convince them. I think this could be the argument we need.

I've spent quite a bit of time on this already and have found two independent sources that say the same thing. But I'm still not sure that it's water tight.

Lets face it most of these interviews are just fluff and filler. But the ABC takes themselves seriously, and like to show two sides of the story. So they have to go pretty far out into the lunatic fringe and find somebody like Clive M-W.   But the average viewer doesn't know what a nutter he is, and takes his line seriously.   We need something which is compelling, and simple to understand to win the argument.   This could be it.

I'd like all the people who get interviewed to have this line ready to go. People like Mark Talor and Nathan Bolton.   So next interview the title will be something more like: "The verdict is in - Electric cars are the way to go"
MarkR

Driving a 2012 Nissan Leaf, Red - they go faster.
Autumn

marcopolo
Groupie
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat, 27 Feb 2010, 20:57

ABC Lateline

Post by marcopolo » Tue, 13 Apr 2010, 10:49

markrmarkr wrote: Yes I think it is really important.   The title of the lateline piece was "Jury still out on electric car revolution"   It may be obvious to us that EVs are the way to go, but there are people out there who aren't convinced. We need a really powerful easy to understand argument to convince them. I think this could be the argument we need.


Yes, I see your point. But is it really necessary to win an argument with people like Clive? After all, once the major car makers committed to mass manufacturing EV's, the argument is already won!

You are quite right, the fact that ABC had produce a person of so little credibility to make the program controversial, is evidence of how quickly EV's are gaining acceptance.

The programme also said that the days of the amateur EV builder were numbered once mass manufacture began. This statement ignores the fact that 100 years after ICE mass production, there is still a thriving customising, hot rod, and small engineering industry.

User avatar
markrmarkr
Groupie
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue, 03 Jun 2008, 13:57
Real Name: Mark Roberts
Location: Earlwood (Syd

ABC Lateline

Post by markrmarkr » Tue, 13 Apr 2010, 13:03

I'm not so much interested in winning an argument with Clive as convincing the interviewer that our position is untouchable and the whole focus will change to something more sensible like:

1. Why don't people who convert their cars get a tax break or reduced registration fees.

2. How employers can be responsible by providing power to workers with EVs.

3. How hybrids are just a silly compromise.

4. etc.

I know that the change over to EVs is inevitable, but I'd like it to be a motivated, coordinated change not a long drawn out process involving lots of FUD.
MarkR

Driving a 2012 Nissan Leaf, Red - they go faster.
Autumn

marcopolo
Groupie
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat, 27 Feb 2010, 20:57

ABC Lateline

Post by marcopolo » Tue, 13 Apr 2010, 16:27

markrmarkr wrote: I'm not so much interested in winning an argument with Clive as convincing the interviewer that our position is untouchable and the whole focus will change to something more sensible like:

1. Why don't people who convert their cars get a tax break or reduced registration fees.

2. How employers can be responsible by providing power to workers with EVs.

3. How hybrids are just a silly compromise.

I know that the change over to EVs is inevitable, but I'd like it to be a motivated, coordinated change not a long drawn out process involving lots of FUD.


I like your idea of employers providing a power outlet (if possible) for employees. This would certainly be a very low cost gesture and show leadership!

However, I'm not sure that it is either desirable or even helpful to be too purist about hybrids. Hybrids, especially Toyota and Hino hybrids have been very useful in conditioning the market to accept reliable EV technology. Sort of the sugar to make the medicine go down! If you insist upon marketing a vehicle that appeals to only a narrow segment of the public, you end up with Vectrix!

It's important that Joe Public is easily convinced of the value of non-threatening EV technology. Hybrids are doing just that. Companies like Ford are already by-passing the Hybrid phase and concentrating of vehicles that are either pure EV or primarily EV with non-pollutant range extenders.

As to Australia (and States) following the US and European examples of tax concessions, this is unlikely to happen with the current Government, until the major car companies demand it.

Incredibly, the Rudd government is even more hostile to EV concessions than the previous government. The Howard government was focused on LPG, but still had some programs for EV development. Rudd government EV policies are only ineffectual, token gestures, and the states are either disinterested, or at the best involve the same publicity driven, token gestures only.

Government policies are driven by the mistaken belief that this will avoid upsetting the existing Australian ICE manufacturing industry.

Prior to the last election, Peter Garrett expressed great interest in assisting to clear the various obstacles (insurance etc..) for BP, and a major fast food outlet, to provide EV charging bays powered by solar roof top installations. Once in office, these proposals were placed in the too hard basket, and forgotten.

Once the major manufacturers are ready to market en mass, in Australia, these projects will be reintroduced as wonderful government incentives, just prior to an election!

Or maybe I am too cynical?
    

juk
Groupie
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun, 02 Mar 2008, 02:53
Real Name: Craig
Location: Perth

ABC Lateline

Post by juk » Tue, 13 Apr 2010, 19:49

marcopolo wrote: Ev's also have an Achilles heel with a dependence on the mining of increasingly scarce Rare Earths for battery production.

Of the two, it is fairly evident that EV technology has the more advanced capacity to evolve beyond rare earth dependency.


Actually, Rare earths are not rare, they're popping up all over the place, Olympic dam has about 1% of them and prominent hill a little less. There's Mt Weld, Nolans Bore, Dubbo, Cummins Range, John Galt, Browns Range and that's just in australia. A large new deposit was just announced in tanzania, there's several in canada, a couple of massive deposits in greenland, then there's australia's monazite deposits, india's too, and mountain pass. Then a couple in the kola peninsula, and the fact that china currently produces 97% of the worlds rare earths.

Add to that that rare earths aren't used in any EV batteries, since they're all either lithium or lead, and it turns out you only need rare earth for the permanent magnets in the motors.

Currently 99% Neodymium carbonate runs at about 35USD a kilo, so there's nothing to fear with regards to either rare earth availability or prices as compared to your batteries prices in the short to medium term.

Squiggles
Senior Member
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed, 22 Apr 2009, 03:19
Real Name: Neil
Location: Newcastle NSW

ABC Lateline

Post by Squiggles » Tue, 13 Apr 2010, 22:58

marcopolo wrote:
However, I'm not sure that it is either desirable or even helpful to be too purist about hybrids. Hybrids, especially Toyota and Hino hybrids have been very useful in conditioning the market to accept reliable EV technology. Sort of the sugar to make the medicine go down!
    


The problem with this is that they are not EV technology, they are an ICE powered vehicle with a mostly useless electric acceleration boost. These things go nowhere without petrol, they are a scam. In terms of the Toyota system they are amazingly complex for something to achieve a simple task.

marcopolo
Groupie
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat, 27 Feb 2010, 20:57

ABC Lateline

Post by marcopolo » Wed, 14 Apr 2010, 06:09

Squiggles wrote:
marcopolo wrote:
However, I'm not sure that it is either desirable or even helpful to be too purist about hybrids. Hybrids, especially Toyota and Hino hybrids have been very useful in conditioning the market to accept reliable EV technology. Sort of the sugar to make the medicine go down!
    


The problem with this is that they are not EV technology, they are an ICE powered vehicle with a mostly useless electric acceleration boost. These things go nowhere without petrol, they are a scam. In terms of the Toyota system they are amazingly complex for something to achieve a simple task.


Oh dear, yeah you are quite right, but is that really the point? So what if it isn't exactly what a purist wants? Why be so bloody precious?

I agree, hybrids are a compromise, but hybrids have been useful in acclimatising the general public to accept EV's as mainstream reliable technology. Every hybrid owner is one step more to accepting the EV concept, and acts as a public relations publicist for EV technology?

Is that a bad thing?

If Vectrix had possessed a reliable range extender,it would have sold 10 times as many units and avoided the debacle.

Squiggles
Senior Member
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed, 22 Apr 2009, 03:19
Real Name: Neil
Location: Newcastle NSW

ABC Lateline

Post by Squiggles » Wed, 14 Apr 2010, 13:12

marcopolo wrote:

If Vectrix had possessed a reliable range extender,it would have sold 10 times as many units and avoided the debacle.


I believe this is where Toyota got it wrong, if the Prius had been an electrically driven vehicle with a range extending ICE/generator set it could have been sensational.

marcopolo
Groupie
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat, 27 Feb 2010, 20:57

ABC Lateline

Post by marcopolo » Wed, 14 Apr 2010, 16:57

Squiggles wrote: I believe this is where Toyota got it wrong, if the Prius had been an electrically driven vehicle with a range extending ICE/generator set it could have been sensational.


Probably, from a technical point of view, but Toyota made a marketing decision based on the technology, and market acceptability available at that time. Major automakers are by nature fairly conservative, given the huge investment involved and the consequences of getting it wrong.
(everyone remembers the Edsel).

EV marketing has been motivated by, spikes in the price of Oil, and government incentives. Both these factors have fluctuated considerably, so the Hybrid path for car makers like Toyota makes a certain commercial, if not technical sense. Remember, Prius was conceived nearly 20 years ago!

In hindsight, Fords decision to pursue commercial PIEV's was wiser, but of far less interest to the general public.

Sadly, no-one seems very excited by the advances in commercial EV's. Probably, because even the ICE versions attract little interest. However, it's in commercial vehicles that the real innovations are being made. Probably because the market for commercial vehicles is more commercially motivated than ideological.






User avatar
Johny
Senior Member
Posts: 3729
Joined: Mon, 23 Jun 2008, 16:26
Real Name: John Wright
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

ABC Lateline

Post by Johny » Wed, 14 Apr 2010, 17:15

I think that Toyota wanted to pursue the US market which would comparing the Prius to the twin cam 6's and V8 that were still prevalent when it was fist released. Many talk/comedy show laughed about the Prius' lack of acceleration. Going parallel hybrid at least gave them better acceleration performance than a series hybrid would have, given the motors and battery pack that price dictated they use.
I would hardly call Prius a "got it wrong".
I'm thinking we (EVers) don't like it because it so close yet so far from being a good plug-in.

Post Reply