Redracn Posted 2August, 2017 Report Share Posted 2August, 2017 Does the LCT even apply to an electric car? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted 2August, 2017 Report Share Posted 2August, 2017 Tax applies to every thing can,t have the grubs from the government not getting their piece of the pie and from what I have noticed the greener it is the more it seems to cost ............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redracn Posted 2August, 2017 Report Share Posted 2August, 2017 Looks like an EV gets the efficient vehicle limit of $75,500 rather than the $65,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coastr Posted 2August, 2017 Report Share Posted 2August, 2017 We need the LCT to protect the domestic motor industry....wait, what?Ive always loved that a luxury car starts at 65k but yachts, planes, racehorses, artwork, holiday homes and every other thing I can't think of are apparently not luxuries. You can buy a solid gold dunny luxury tax free but spec up a 3 series and you'll get taxed on your decadent ways. It's enough to make you despise politicians and governments...especially when they spend it so wisely... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted 2August, 2017 Report Share Posted 2August, 2017 100% Right mate ,,it is an appalling an grossly out dated threshold ,,,,really is not hard to spend that kinda money on a car these days . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazzieman Posted 3August, 2017 Report Share Posted 3August, 2017 Commentary on why it will fail in Australiahttps://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2017/08/tesla-model-3-will-fail-australia/e.g."The Tesla Model 3 will fail here in Australia because why would you bother buying an electric car, when charging it will cost about the same or more as filling it up with petrol?MB Member Myne has done the calculations:At 60kwh and 100% efficiency, that’s still around $13.2 for a “full tank”.If you’re assuming identical range, $70 for a full tank, and a $30k petrol car vs $13 in electricity and $60k for the Tesla Model 3 you have to “fill the Tesla up” 526 times to break even on the purchase price and fuel price difference.An average tank of fuel lasts… let’s say 5 days. So you’re filling up 73 times a year. So the Tesla would take 7.2 years to start to become cheaper than the petrol." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redracn Posted 3August, 2017 Report Share Posted 3August, 2017 Commentary on why it will fail in Australiahttps://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2017/08/tesla-model-3-will-fail-australia/e.g."The Tesla Model 3 will fail here in Australia because why would you bother buying an electric car, when charging it will cost about the same or more as filling it up with petrol?MB Member Myne has done the calculations: More like 751 fills or 10.3 years as asuming 100% effecient is a pipe dream anndway off the mark. Longer still if using the A/C or heater. Will also need a new battery before it breaks even. The other problem for a mass population car is how to steel from the very poor to fund the poor as it seems that if you are not offering incentives then you must be offering disincentives. The logic of the Green zealot at play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coastr Posted 3August, 2017 Report Share Posted 3August, 2017 It's actually worse than that because the price of electricity is headed north.We can top up the petrol supply fairly easily by just tankering in more.Expanding the electricity supply has a very long lead time, and currently the politicians are making it infeasible for anyone to invest in a solution that actually supplies electricity in the sort of quantities that are needed. The only reason it hasn't failed so far is that industry closures are happening faster than generating closures. As the idiotic energy policies are bipartisan the die is cast and the outcome is inevitable.Add to that the amount of tax that actually represents the fill cost of a petrol car and if electricity did take off as large transport energy use, the taxman would have no choice but to either massively increase road use charges or try and implement some type of taxed-outlet for electric car charging. Which would fail but that wouldn't stop them from trying.A tesla 3 would make sense if you have a lot of cash and a lot of spare solar panels though - you'd essentially pay for your mileage upfront and then the rest is low cost. Could work for someone with a business - just get the business it buy the solar panels and the car, and there is no 'personal use' charges for the car after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redracn Posted 3August, 2017 Report Share Posted 3August, 2017 It gets even worse still when the reduction in range due to battery aging is also taken into account. Not sure if purchasing solar pannels to charge while at work helps the economics it may eliminate any payment at the time of the fill but that is only because you have paid up front. If relying only on the pannels you may also need a bed at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coastr Posted 3August, 2017 Report Share Posted 3August, 2017 The point is you can write off the entire cost of fuelling the car on tax rather than having to apportion personal/business use. The business pays the entire up front cost of fuelling as a business expense. There could be significant savings. With the right amount of solar you'd get a lot of the charge from that source. If you were just commuting and not using during the day it would work. Not that it is practical for the 99% of the rest of us.Funny thing is in California now all the office car parks have big signs up 'no electric car charging' because so many plug in hybrids and pure electrics. Usually only a couple of dedicated charging spots so people start running extension leads and using outlets left there decades before anyone imagined people would be trying to nick the electricity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrera28 Posted 3August, 2017 Report Share Posted 3August, 2017 Another thing that may impact electric cars may be different plugs and charging for different motor vehicles. I read recently that Porsche Mission will have its own charging network and won't use the existing charging infrastructure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redracn Posted 3August, 2017 Report Share Posted 3August, 2017 There are a few connectors and car to charge communication standards around and at this stage I doubt anyone would deviate from them. But as usual they can not all agree to agree so you have Japan, Europe, USA. And even then not all cars and stations are compatible even if the plug fits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted 3August, 2017 Report Share Posted 3August, 2017 Hot of the interweb ....... Spy photo,s of Porsche,s new EV SUV testing at a Top secret German test ground .............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thumperson Posted 4August, 2017 Report Share Posted 4August, 2017 A new draft Australian standard has been released 5139, which is about our fancy new Li-Ion power walls / battery packs and the other battery energy storage systems. The systems are banned from being installed inside a domestic structure and also from being mounted to the external wall. And if mounted externally and inside a meter from the dwelling it needs to be in a fire proof enclosure. I wonder when someone will make the link between the similarities in having a power wall (now banned internal tonyiur home) and a tesla in your garage charging away (and in some cases discharging) just like the banned battery installation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazzieman Posted 4August, 2017 Report Share Posted 4August, 2017 Met a guy yesterday who said zinc based batteries are going to be better than lithium ones. No idea about this, is he talking out of his exhaust? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redracn Posted 4August, 2017 Report Share Posted 4August, 2017 A new draft Australian standard has been released 5139, which is about our fancy new Li-Ion power walls / battery packs and the other battery energy storage systems. The systems are banned from being installed inside a domestic structure and also from being mounted to the external wall. And if mounted externally and inside a meter from the dwelling it needs to be in a fire proof enclosure. I wonder when someone will make the link between the similarities in having a power wall (now banned internal tonyiur home) and a tesla in your garage charging away (and in some cases discharging) just like the banned battery installation?Shows Musk and others consider your safety as secondary. But this standard, if it gets up, will be a big kick between their legs. While the standard explicitly excludes cars for now it should include them and will probably have to if they supply power to the house. This will make surviving the futue rationing more difficult for those in apartments etc as nowhere to put their battery. Perhaps a Diesel geneator in the basement instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thumperson Posted 4August, 2017 Report Share Posted 4August, 2017 Met a guy yesterday who said zinc based batteries are going to be better than lithium ones. No idea about this, is he talking out of his exhaust?if they create self sustaining fires and therefore have a fire hazard rating of 1 they will be in the same boat. . Anything with lithium in it appears to be a no no for internal/external attached domestic applications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazzieman Posted 4August, 2017 Report Share Posted 4August, 2017 Zinc air https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc–air_batteryOne advantage of utilizing zinc–air batteries for vehicle propulsion is that earth's supply of zinc metal is 100 times greater than that of lithium, per unit of battery energy. Current yearly global zinc production is sufficient to produce enough zinc-air batteries to power over one billion electric vehicles, whereas current lithium production is only sufficient to produce ten million lithium-ion powered vehicles.[18] Approximately 35% of the world's supply, or 1.8 gigatons of zinc reserves are in the United States,[19] whereas the U.S. holds only 0.38% of known lithium reserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thumperson Posted 4August, 2017 Report Share Posted 4August, 2017 Zinc air https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc–air_battery seems like they produce hydrogen when they corrode which makes for impressive explosions in your sealed garage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redracn Posted 4August, 2017 Report Share Posted 4August, 2017 Probably talking about this type of Zinc based battery.http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/transportation/advanced-cars/zincbased-batteries-can-provide-more-energy-safety-than-liion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazzieman Posted 4August, 2017 Report Share Posted 4August, 2017 Probably talking about this type of Zinc based battery.http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/transportation/advanced-cars/zincbased-batteries-can-provide-more-energy-safety-than-liionSounds very promising. Wonder if Musk will change brands? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redracn Posted 4August, 2017 Report Share Posted 4August, 2017 ^ Not sure they have solved the dendrite issue for deep cycling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coastr Posted 4August, 2017 Report Share Posted 4August, 2017 My chemistry skills are running out here....but anything that has an energy density per kg approaching hydrocarbon fuels is going to be just as volatile as hydrocarbons?I mean, the energy density of plutonium is off the charts and big boom or at least big, unstoppable fire if it goes off, right?So if I come up with a magic material called 'x' that can produce a battery with even half of the energy density of petrol (half would be ok because electric engines are more efficient) then surely that means 'x' can make a big mess if it starts a runaway reaction? So the idea of a safe energy storage is really about trade offs in what makes it runaway and how easy that is to prevent for average joe klutz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazzieman Posted 14August, 2017 Report Share Posted 14August, 2017 Hit the smug hybridists with this http://www.news.com.au/news/report-finds-us-china-and-the-eu-have-higher-standards-for-air-pollution-caused-by-power-stations-than-australia/news-story/1836e563a3c1d251284dea414ccfdc97Environmental Justice Australia (EJA) found Australian power stations are allowed to emit far more pollution than those in the US, China and parts of the European Union, and they are not being regulated well enough to protect human health or the environment.The toxins produced by coal-fired power stations can have a deadly impact on those living nearby. People who live within 50km are about three to four times more likely to die a premature death as those living further away.The report looked at four pollutants that are extremely harmful to health and have been linked to asthma, respiratory problems, stroke, angina, heart attack and cancer.It found coal-fired power stations emitted more than 30 toxic substances and are the biggest sources of fine particles PM2.5, sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen.“The mercury limits for some NSW power stations are 666 times higher than the US limits. This is unacceptable,” the report said.“In almost all cases the emissions limits applied to Australian power stations are significantly less stringent than the standards in the European Union, United States and China.”What controls that are in place are also not well monitored and rarely enforced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.