|
|
Post by Phoebe on Jul 13, 2013 10:30:57 GMT 11
|
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Jul 14, 2013 10:08:30 GMT 11
That is an interesting move. Never underestimate the lack of ethics of a company with deep pockets and threatened interests!
If it did happen it could be resolved very quickly by a legislation change/clarification instead of letting the courts decide, particularly because the risks/dangers of the different types of "fuel" are totally different (very relevant to me since a friends car caught fire at a pump 3 weeks ago and burned to the ground)
|
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Jul 14, 2013 10:10:33 GMT 11
BTW I forgot to add.....why on earth aren't service stations adding quick charge points on some spare space on their forecourts? They are located everywhere, have shops to take our money while it is charging, have plenty of capital available for installs and it would protect them against future loss of customers.
Yes they would have to decide an economic cost to provide the service, but I'd be willing to pay a reasonable fee ($10-20) to fill up on the road occasionally
|
|
|
|
Post by Phoebe on Jul 14, 2013 11:04:12 GMT 11
I think they probably just haven't thought of it! But the ones run by the oil companies won't think of it, 'cos they want people to stick with fossil fuels.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Hare on Jul 14, 2013 12:35:22 GMT 11
Excellent points!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Hare on Jul 14, 2013 12:39:21 GMT 11
Regarding the electricity as fuel argument, my guess is much of the tax has to do with the ridiculous infrastructure required for petrol. They have to truck it around the county, deal with ground contamination around stations, and the whole rigamarole of getting it in the country in the first place.
Electricity is already present and all costs have already been factored into the price.
Can certainly understand petrol companies trying to hold on with an iron fist, but they are ruining the world and the sooner they are gone the better!
Like cigarettes, I think it's good that things that are bad for the world come at a surcharge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian on Jul 15, 2013 21:46:48 GMT 11
I think it is also about volume, time and profit. * Volume - not enough EVs on the road yet to justify the major expenditure required for the installation. Consider the number of EVs vs the number of service stations. * Time - most ICE vehicles are fuelled and gone in under 5 minutes. If every car took 30 minute to ' fuel up ', the forecourt would would soon be choked. * Profit - this has to be as soon as possible and as quick as possible to satisfy the bean-counters / shareholders. At the current rate of uptake of EVs, the return on investment, and then profit, could be slow in coming. Meanwhile, some enlightened Councils provide free charging in their carparks. An EV in Fremantle can park and charge for free, whilst the ICEs have to pay to park . . . I like that  But the sellers of dinosaur juice do not want to see the writing on the wall. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim Hare on Jul 16, 2013 11:25:37 GMT 11
Interesting point about volume since it's chicken and the egg. No infrastructure without cars and why would anyone (other than us) buy cars without infrastructure!
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian on Jul 16, 2013 22:37:33 GMT 11
When considering the purchase, one of the factors was radius of action from our home base charging infrastructure, assuming there were no other charge points available. We were fortunate in that the radius of action met 99% of our anticipated requirements. So every external bit of charge infrastructure that became ( or was ) available, was a bonus that progressively extended our radius of action. But the Nullarbor still presents challenges. |
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Jul 16, 2013 23:05:18 GMT 11
I think it's clear it will be the egg, not the chickens that come first.
Almost all servos are owned by companies oil companies. Why would they help support a type of car that will reduce the customer base of their product?
There was of course a time before there were servos everywhere.....people bought cars and the opportunity to fuel them grew as ownership did. It will need to be the same again for EVs
But if I had a highway servo franchise about 100klm from a major city, I would sure be installing a couple of quick chargers in the carpark.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Hare on Jul 17, 2013 14:24:16 GMT 11
But we don't need Petrol stations to take up the "charge."
Charging stations just require power (lots for quickcharge) and enough space to park a car for 20 minutes. Existing locations like NRMA, car dealers, rest stops and so on would get us a long way until EVs are plentiful.
At that point the public will see they aren't limited to low range, and when there's demand for high capacity charging, because there are 100,000s of EVs on the road, the private sector will come running.
|
|
|
|
Post by David on Jul 19, 2013 10:07:21 GMT 11
Hi all
Just back from Lebanon and I can tell you, the quicker we get out of fossil fuels the better for the world. Much to my dismay, there is a race on to tap newly found oil and gas fields off the coast of Lebanon. I fear for the beautiful Mediterranean sea. One major oil spill would be disastrous.
Not sure where else to post this, but I fully agree that EVs are here to stay, improved battery technology must follow and will resolve any remaining doubt. I have previously stated that we will not be digging up fossil fuels by 2030 and I stick with that. Here's hoping
I have used the fast charger at Strathfield twice in 9 months. Wish there were more
|
|
