When did we stop being the world’s largest exporter?
1 Like
I never said that we stopped being the major world exporter of raw mined lithium products. Australia currently makes up about 43% of the world’s mine production, most of which is exported and used in battery production. Countries which use desert brine water production methods (such as Chile, Bolivia and Argentina) make up about 45% of the world’s mined lithium production. One could say about half of the world’s mine production comes from hard rock lithium mines, with the remainder from desert brine mines.
One could assume (if Wiki is correct) that about 43% of the lithium in imported consumer products (e.g. those containing lithium batteries most likely comes from China which has produces about 73% of the world’s Li-ion battery capacity and the US with about 12% of world capacity) contains on average around 43% Australian sourced/mined lithium. One could also assume that about 45% of the lithium of the same consumer products on average comes from lithium sourced from desert brine lithium.
I am yet to see a consumer product which states the origin (or percentage thereof) of the lithium within the product…products only the place of manufacture. Maybe government could mandate such labelling to allow environmentally conscious consumers to make choices in relation to where the product’s lithium come from.
1 Like
So you concede that we’re a net exporter of lithium. Or are you saying that most batteries are manufactured in South America? Now I’m confused.
We do indeed need to start acting like world, rather than a bunch of self-centred nations. The planet’s too small.
1 Like
A Tesla owner is trapped and burnt to death as the fancy door handles could not be opened in the second such case in the US.
Lithium battreies that won’t catch fire would have also been handy.
2 Likes
When the media gets aboard, the media gets aboard. Sometimes as in politics a partisan outlet can assure their prophesy is fulfilled. In science and technology they could be reporting actual trends and events, or waffling in the wind to get some clicks.
Still, more about hydrogen of late.
2 Likes
What KPMG report was this?
All I can find is this. The article is about a modelling tool.
H2City is the result of a four-way collaboration between KPMG, ATCO, CSIRO, together with Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA). These entities worked together to develop a tool that can be used to assess the costs and benefits of regional town or municipality switching to hydrogen.
Presumably if you went to the conference where it was presented you would get a copy of the report but I can’t find it at KPMG.
Who fed it with the parameters to reach the headline conclusion? What startup pump priming, subsidies and government policies are required to get there? How will hydrogen overtake electric vehicles that are already in the market? What assumptions were made to come to the conclusion? How reliable is the conclusion? No answers and no way that I can see to get answers.
Sloppy, formulaic reporting; where one presents a headline conclusion and a few grabs from an institution’s talking head, adds nothing to this debate.
4 Likes
I imagine they will post it soon on their website (usually they don’t release papers before a conference but in the days/weeks thereafter ) otherwise in the interim, you may be able to get a copy using the contact details at the bottom if this webpage…
As it appears the CSIRO may have been involved/inputs to the modelling, the outputs are likely to have some level of integrity. It will be however interesting reading the research paper when it is nade available.
The costs quotes also seem to be full running cost (energy cost, maintenance, insurance, depreciation etc) and it would be interesting to see if the paper considers eBattery car costs, which are also likely to be high. If the numbers are realistic, it seems to support some of the information/-targets Japan has released and will make fuel cell vehicles competitive, especially for long distance and frequent vehicle uses.
4 Likes
Interesting and head spinning. The politics, and not the science.
I’m still working through the 100 plus page CSIRO ‘National Hydrogen Roadmap’ referenced by KPMG.
Cynicism abounds, although for those who have some feel for the engineering and science, it is full of optimism, others would perhaps suggest speculative desire.
Clearly KPMG are equally hopeful in attaching their fortunes to any government initiatives. Particularly the production of sustainable low-emissions hydrogen from Australian brown coal and natural gas!
2 Likes
Perhaps somebody should tell our government that our ageing coal-fired generators are more opportunity than threat.
Of course, it could just be cover for the fact that they’re privatising the last of Sydney’s bus routes.
1 Like
I’m not at all convinced that range anxiety is rational, but:
3 Likes
Is it just a marketing ploy from those with a vested interested in the status quo? Perhaps if the question had never been asked or the concern raised, every time an EV gets to the press, it’s likely most of us would not even know about it.
Irrespective of the energy source for an EV, perhaps they should be promoted differently. As a counter to the negative and typically erroneous, with a cost per day for fuel or suitable for up to nnn kilometres per day regular use.
200km per day would cover 99% of the journeys we made last year. Even just 100km reliable range at highway speed plus a bit would meet 95%. And with a charging station at the half way point, usually a day out or a shopping centre, 98%.
I’m sure there is a solution for the other 1-2%. We would call that the second car. Most families these days have more than one. Enough of an opportunity to convert up to half the nation to an EV, without the expense of a big fat Tesla battery.
2 Likes
An article regarding why Aussies are not buying more EV’s.
We are looking at an EV with a range of about 240 km for our next car. It will suit our everyday needs perfectly (with travel of no more than 110 km needed) with enough capacity for a longer run to our more distant children. Sure 400, 500 or even 600 km range is great for some and that will be wonderful for them. Battery efficiency that comes from this is perhaps what we should be applauding. If we reduce battery size and/or increase capacity then over time less resources will be needed to produce the EV cars of the future. If it means a cheaper car, faster recharges, more lifetime does it matter that more kms are able to be gained? If it means the hope that even with smaller range cars it only needs a quick recharge at a recharge station to be on your way again if needed, then Go Reseach! I say.
1 Like
Depends on how often the extra range is needed (and whether a recharge stop is truly not an option). For most of us, most of the time, it would be needed so infrequently that renting is more sensible.
3 Likes
I think we would because of the many types of vision impairment problems.
Number 1 today is macular degeneration (wet, dry) which destroys central vision and colour perception and contrast sensitivity
Next is loss of peripheral vision from damage done by glaucoma
Obviously not all vision impairments are age-related - some are present at birth and some are caused by accidents.
Some sort of sound for vehicles moving [slowly hopefully] in spaces shared with pedestrians will always be needed for people with vision impairment.
Europe and USA already require this on all new vehicles and I hope that Australia will soon. Elon Musk reckons Teslas will offer the car owner a choice of sounds.
2 Likes
As an added feature the Tesla shop will sell myriad sounds from the venerable and patented(?) Harley Davidson tump-a-thumpa-thump to a classic MG or Austin Healy 3000 or Lotus Elan to a Ferrari (or similar) to comic sounds such as Porky Pig or Bugs Bunny or any of the Marvel Superheroes announcing their arrival.
Nobody believed the Simpsons Trump Presidency so do not scoff at the predictable future when a dollar in a pocket gets in play.
As with the near free for all automotive lighting we experience today reminiscent of gaming computers, lights, sound, action!
2 Likes
But what use sound for those of us who are deaf and the car approaches from behind. What warning will they require installed? The focus on the sight impaired is important but we often forget there are many other forms of disability that makes walking, running, riding a task for many others in and around traffic.
2 Likes
Vehicles have been required to have reversing lights for decades.
And many modern cars now have “running lights” on all the time (it is no longer just a Volvo thing).
Lights help people, including those with hearing impairment.
Noises help people, including those with vision impairment.
Please don’t come back with something along lines “but what about people who have both vision and hearing impairment” as it won’t be funny
It wasn’t intended to be funny nor trite. The issue we often have is that one section of disability gets some greater airing than another but each comes with difficulties in managing everyday life. If cars were silent then we would likely adapt our behaviour to adjust for that new paradigm, though it may take some time even for sighted and hearing people to do so. What noise will be necessary for a blind person to associate it with a vehicle? If a car plays a tune the person with vision impairment may consider it to be a person playing something on their phone or device. I think there are risks with everything we do and we can’t remove all of them.
3 Likes
