Toyota's strategy ...

[trobex]

Depends upon the charging station , speed of charger , when you hook up (lower cost after hours) etc
Full fast charge yesterday would have cost about $50
Or I read if you get an sub with Origin energy they are offering "free" electricity for EVs.
But nothing is free.

$50 for approx. 350kms? This is still ahead of an average fuel consumption car for cost / km by a good enough margin. The benefit of these cars is to charge during the day light hours only, at home, on your own solar system.
That $50 is about to spike though, another 26% this month coming with nationwide massive price highs on energy bills. Even with the 26% increase, you will be ahead of fuel users, unless fuel drops back to around the $1.40 mark.
The new home I am building has 8.8kw solar system, 3-phase already pre-wired and offtake charge lines ready to external battery point (battery yet to be purchased because they are simply unaffordable).
When the next credit crunch comes, I intend to secure 20-25kwh of batteries from one of the hundreds of Australia's soon to be defaulting battery/pack suppliers (if not ill just charge 8am to 4pm).

PS: Nothing is free, they even managed to ruin Australia's solar scheme by providing next to no return on feed in tariff, and a fee of course for the privilege of having your own solar system!!! You can generate 4 times as much power BACK to the grind, and still have a bill in the $$$ hundreds each quarter!

 

[Tazzieman]

$50 for approx. 350kms? This is still ahead of an average fuel consumption car for cost / km by a good enough margin. The benefit of these cars is to charge during the day light hours only, at home, on your own solar system.

Sadly at 42 degrees south solar isn't a positive investment , and you need a battery.
But the energy here is green and relatively cheap. And travelling distances to get remote aren't large.

 

[trobex]

Sadly at 42 degrees south solar isn't a positive investment , and you need a battery.
But the energy here is green and relatively cheap. And travelling distances to get remote aren't large.

Taz is probably a good example of where EV would actually work out ok. Come QLD - throw 30-50000kms a year into the mix!

 

[Tazzieman]

Taz is probably a good example of where EV would actually work out ok. Come QLD - throw 30-50000kms a year into the mix!

We won't be using it for longer hauls once the Gren arrives.
With run flats and no wallaby protection + remote travel with no reception = potential for trouble.
For generally buzzing around , an excellent vehicle. Servicing every 2 years should be cheap. 1 pedal drive means you don't really wear your brakes.

 

[globalgregors]

Sadly at 42 degrees south solar isn't a positive investment , and you need a battery.
But the energy here is green and relatively cheap. And travelling distances to get remote aren't large.

You’ll be making Hydrogen there soon enough, I think is the plan…

 

[Tazzieman]

You’ll be making Hydrogen there soon enough, I think is the plan…

Well I'll be using petrol for the rest of my life

 

[trobex]

We won't be using it for longer hauls once the Gren arrives.
With run flats and no wallaby protection + remote travel with no reception = potential for trouble.
For generally buzzing around , an excellent vehicle. Servicing every 2 years should be cheap. 1 pedal drive means you don't really wear your brakes.

Yeah... I can't do it. Doesn't sound right to me!

 

[Tazzieman]

Yeah... I can't do it. Doesn't sound right to me!

If you've never done it you haven't lived.
My wife was a convert once I'd showed her she could "create energy" , or at least not waste it.

 

[trobex]

If you've never done it you haven't lived.
My wife was a convert once I'd showed her she could "create energy" , or at least not waste it.

Nothing wrong with a green lie! Although regeneration is good idea - the balance of the equation fails! The principal is great - we cannot deny!

 

[DesertGecko]

I have read multiple times that 1KWh of generated power, creates roughly 900 grams of CO2... so a 50KWh charges creates 45kg of CO2. That seems excessive... to say the least and lets assume half is renewable generation so 22kgs of CO2. I must be missing the math but for a 50KWh charge and assume that gets you 200KMS travel and 22kgs of CO2.
200km of travel in my ute, for example, would require around 20L of fuel, 20L of fuel cannot possibly create 45KG of CO2. Can someone explain HOW EVs are creating less CO2 than petrol? Is the math made up by these companies?
Please explain.

Not sure what we're comparing here.

A typical Tesla uses around 15 kwh per 100. Some a bit less, some a bit more depending on conditions. That's about 13.5 KG co2 per 100k if charged off the grid as it is now.

My Landrover uses about 12l/100 of diesel which is about 2.7kg per litre. So that's about 32.5 KG co2 per 100k.

My golf uses about 7l per 100k. Petrol is about 2.31 KG co2 per litre. So that's about 16 kg co2 per 100k.

So, even now a large SUV EV produces less CO2 per hundred than an efficient small car even if charged 100% off the grid. A SUV EV uses a lot less than a diesel 4x4. I know they possibly aren't equivalent cars - but a lot of people use large 4x4 for running around the city doing school runs. Anyway..

The key difference with EV's though.. the grid is going to keep getting greener. Plus a recent report in Queensland suggested that at this point 77% of EV owners have solar panels, so they are likely using that for at least part of their charging.

If you want to be responsible for the least amount of CO2 you should not drive anything. Walking, cycling and public transport are pretty negligible. If that doesn't cut it then driving an EV is probably the least emitting option. That said - buying an EV to emit less only makes sense if your current car is worn out or no longer suits your needs...

https://ev-database.org/car/1743/Tesla-Model-Y

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1190081/carbon-intensity-outlook-of-australia/

https://thedriven.io/2023/03/17/ev-owners-happy-to-change-home-charging-times-and-soak-up-solar-pv/

 

[Tazzieman]

If you want to be responsible for the least amount of CO2 you should not drive anything.

And don't eat beef. Or vegetables. Or beer! All those food miles...the poor planet can't take it
Unless you roll your sleeves up and grow/brew your own!
Then you can smugly drive everywhere...a little

 

[DesertGecko]

And don't eat beef. Or vegetables. Or beer! All those food miles...the poor planet can't take it
Unless you roll your sleeves up and grow/brew your own!
Then you can smugly drive everywhere...a little

Yeah I know right. Where do you stop? You end up with the best thing is just to be eliminated Logans run style!.

I do try and drive as little as I can but through a combination of design and good luck I don't really need to drive much anymore. That's a really good thing. If I do need to drive somewhere I do though.

I guess the point I was trying to illustrate is that if you have to drive an EV even charged off our grid is still probably the lowest co2 way of doing it. The thing that I think a lot of people .. lets call them "evangelists" are missing is that you can't make the world cleaner by driving your EV everywhere. Every trip in an EV has some environmental consequence.

Personally my greatest concern is that people don't understand that point, and driven by their exceptionally low operation cost (basically once you've bought them they are free to run) will make life choices that will have them driving far more than they probably could do. And in doing so, emit more CO2 than they would have otherwise.

This is the Jevons Paradox playing out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

 

[cheswick]

Not sure what we're comparing here.

A typical Tesla uses around 15 kwh per 100. Some a bit less, some a bit more depending on conditions. That's about 13.5 KG co2 per 100k if charged off the grid as it is now.

My Landrover uses about 12l/100 of diesel which is about 2.7kg per litre. So that's about 32.5 KG co2 per 100k.

My golf uses about 7l per 100k. Petrol is about 2.31 KG co2 per litre. So that's about 16 kg co2 per 100k.

So, even now a large SUV EV produces less CO2 per hundred than an efficient small car even if charged 100% off the grid. A SUV EV uses a lot less than a diesel 4x4. I know they possibly aren't equivalent cars - but a lot of people use large 4x4 for running around the city doing school runs. Anyway..

The key difference with EV's though.. the grid is going to keep getting greener. Plus a recent report in Queensland suggested that at this point 77% of EV owners have solar panels, so they are likely using that for at least part of their charging.

If you want to be responsible for the least amount of CO2 you should not drive anything. Walking, cycling and public transport are pretty negligible. If that doesn't cut it then driving an EV is probably the least emitting option. That said - buying an EV to emit less only makes sense if your current car is worn out or no longer suits your needs...

https://ev-database.org/car/1743/Tesla-Model-Y

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1190081/carbon-intensity-outlook-of-australia/

https://thedriven.io/2023/03/17/ev-owners-happy-to-change-home-charging-times-and-soak-up-solar-pv/

Let’s say the difference between an EV and an ICE in emissions 20kg per 100km.

The price difference between equivalent vehicles going from ICE to EV in Australia is typically around $25k. At $40 per tonne of c02 abatement (aka carbon credit) you can buy 625 tonnes of abatement which would make you “sin free” for 3,125,000 kilometres of driving.

I know you don’t get the social cachet the way that you do from driving around in a Tesla but if you are genuine in your concern for the environment wouldn’t you want to make a much bigger impact by actually doing what is most effective?

 

[Tazzieman]

My wife got sick of putting fancy food on the table of the local stealership (ICE car service, tyres , brakes etc)
So she bought something different.

 

[trobex]

Not sure what we're comparing here.

A typical Tesla uses around 15 kwh per 100. Some a bit less, some a bit more depending on conditions. That's about 13.5 KG co2 per 100k if charged off the grid as it is now.

My Landrover uses about 12l/100 of diesel which is about 2.7kg per litre. So that's about 32.5 KG co2 per 100k.

My golf uses about 7l per 100k. Petrol is about 2.31 KG co2 per litre. So that's about 16 kg co2 per 100k.

So, even now a large SUV EV produces less CO2 per hundred than an efficient small car even if charged 100% off the grid. A SUV EV uses a lot less than a diesel 4x4. I know they possibly aren't equivalent cars - but a lot of people use large 4x4 for running around the city doing school runs. Anyway..

The key difference with EV's though.. the grid is going to keep getting greener. Plus a recent report in Queensland suggested that at this point 77% of EV owners have solar panels, so they are likely using that for at least part of their charging.

If you want to be responsible for the least amount of CO2 you should not drive anything. Walking, cycling and public transport are pretty negligible. If that doesn't cut it then driving an EV is probably the least emitting option. That said - buying an EV to emit less only makes sense if your current car is worn out or no longer suits your needs...

https://ev-database.org/car/1743/Tesla-Model-Y

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1190081/carbon-intensity-outlook-of-australia/

https://thedriven.io/2023/03/17/ev-owners-happy-to-change-home-charging-times-and-soak-up-solar-pv/

I am trying to understand how much CO2 an EV vs 10L/100KM Diesel would be - as a direct comparison. I have seen MANY varied comparisons on this, and most in particular completely ignore the sheer amount of energy required to create Lithium from ground to completed battery, as well as the other chemicals required to refine and their energy input requirements - which are VERY large by comparison of the components in a standard fuel based vehicile...
What I am trying to understand is how 12L (basically 10.5kg) of Diesel can make 32.5kg of CO2. I know the math says that from a search and using the US conversion on Burnt Fuel > CO2, but how can a density of 800g/L approximately convert to 2.3KG of CO2 metric. Is it me, or is the system used to create this number as the 'end' product weights 5x more than the starting weight. I can't find easily is how this works or an explanation why the created with is 5x the starting weight. If you burn 1L of Diesel, there is no possible way that 2.38kg of C02 metric is created 'capturable' at the end, unless somehow in the burning of fuel is is adding 500% of its density to become CO2 - is that how much is added in the conversion? I had a wine - I'm actually confused!

EDIT: Double O molecule added to C - all good got it!
To understand why the total carbon dioxide produced is heavier than the original litre of fuel, we have to look at the chemistry: diesel and petrol are full of carbon, but carbon is quite light. When the fuel burns, the carbon combines with two oxygen molecules (both of which are heavier than the carbon) to create carbon dioxide. Each oxygen molecule weighs about 25% more than a carbon molecule and there are two of them!

 

[Tazzieman]

I had a wine - I'm actually confused!

Have another one , and you'll forget why

 

[Deleted User Account.]

We have an ev on order not because it's supposedly good for the environment but because where else can you get a truck or 7 seater suv that goes from 0-60 mph in 3 seconds? Face melting fun. Low maintenence and not having to stop and fuel up is a bonus that will help us offset the cost of the vehicle.

 

[Tazzieman]

We have an ev on order not because it's supposedly good for the environment but because where else can you get a truck or 7 seater suv that goes from 0-60 mph in 3 seconds? Face melting fun. Low maintenence and not having to stop and fuel up is a bonus that will help us offset the cost of the vehicle.

I never thought I'd say it but it IS rather fun!
Very easy (therefore safe) to dart out into traffic esp onto a highway from a ramp. My wife loves that feature.
Also very easy to lose your license...
And young hooligans don't stand a chance at the lights. I know I shouldn't...but every now and again

 

[DesertGecko]

I am trying to understand how much CO2 an EV vs 10L/100KM Diesel would be - as a direct comparison. I have seen MANY varied comparisons on this, and most in particular completely ignore the sheer amount of energy required to create Lithium from ground to completed battery, as well as the other chemicals required to refine and their energy input requirements - which are VERY large by comparison of the components in a standard fuel based vehicile...
What I am trying to understand is how 12L (basically 10.5kg) of Diesel can make 32.5kg of CO2. I know the math says that from a search and using the US conversion on Burnt Fuel > CO2, but how can a density of 800g/L approximately convert to 2.3KG of CO2 metric. Is it me, or is the system used to create this number as the 'end' product weights 5x more than the starting weight. I can't find easily is how this works or an explanation why the created with is 5x the starting weight. If you burn 1L of Diesel, there is no possible way that 2.38kg of C02 metric is created 'capturable' at the end, unless somehow in the burning of fuel is is adding 500% of its density to become CO2 - is that how much is added in the conversion? I had a wine - I'm actually confused!

EDIT: Double O molecule added to C - all good got it!
To understand why the total carbon dioxide produced is heavier than the original litre of fuel, we have to look at the chemistry: diesel and petrol are full of carbon, but carbon is quite light. When the fuel burns, the carbon combines with two oxygen molecules (both of which are heavier than the carbon) to create carbon dioxide. Each oxygen molecule weighs about 25% more than a carbon molecule and there are two of them!

Sorry I understand the confusion. It's a bit of a mind bender that one. So is the weight of the gas. A couple of other points.

A lot of enquiry is done on the production of the batteries which is fair. However when we talk about fuel we use that ratio. 1:2.7 kg. But we don't account for all the inputs to getting that fuel to the pump. The exploration, mining, transport, storage, more transport to the station, pumping etc.

The other point which is largely missed is that Lithium batteries are highly recyclable. So yes you're commissioning half a ton of lithium batteries. But at the end of life they will be recycled and will go again. So it's not like every EV you buy will be another bunch of batteries if that makes sense.

 

[Max]

Lithium-ion battery recycling - CSIRO​

CSIRO
https://www.csiro.au › energy-in-the-circular-economy






only 10 per cent of Australia's lithium-ion battery waste was recycled in 2021, compared with 99 per cent of lead acid battery waste · lithium-ion battery waste ...