One of Australia’s biggest issues in general is population density. Low population density means all our infrastructure costs are greater per capita.
And this will naturally affect EV adoption, as we need more charging stations spread over a larger area than most countries before many will feel safe to travel outside metro areas.
This mainly true however there are nuclear reactors still in use from the 60/70’s that have poorer design and safety controls.
invest in fusion boiz
I’m thinking more about the materials that are required to make them (EVs especially)
It will be costly, but the targets can be met, or close enough to, in countries that have the will.
I agree, and think it’s amazing that what was complete science fiction a few decades ago might actually be possible within decades.
However, I thought it was interesting to note that Musk specifically mentions nuclear fission as the industry he believes in. And he’s a guy who I believe would speed up that process if he believed in it.
Fusion or fission?
Cause we defs prefer the former
Current, not future
The main difference between producing ICE and EV vehicles are the rare earths, lithium and associated metals/materials for the batteries.
It it’s not batteries it is fossil fuels and additional metals for ICE engines.
Most of the EV battery materials are recyclable and the tech will only improve.
BYD is investing heavily into sodium ion batteries, if they can get the density improved they could be a very good (and safe) replacement for lithium
At least one Chinese EV manufacturer is already using sodium batteries, recently pioneered by Adelaide University, in addition to Lithium batteries.
They’re heavier, and not as energy dense, so probably lend themselves more toward home power use, but hopefully investment will lead to greater power density.
But then you have the tyres, seats, dash etc. etc. I don’t see how we can keep replacing without the fossils. I mean, when I look around my lounge room right now, pretty much everything involves fossil fuels in order for it to be made.
Sounds like a reason to not just burn it once and kill the supply for the other uses?
man whatever happened to graphene batteries, swear I heard 10 years ago all about how they were going to be the next big battery revolution
Graphene and nano tubes.
But it’s not just once, that’s my point. How many billions of tyres need to be replaced every few years. And that it is just one component.
stuff all happened with graphene. I invested in it hoping to get in on the ground floor but so far it’s not progressing:
I remember seeing an article on batteries designed with enormous surface area on the plates, some 10-15 years ago, allowing them to be fully charged in minutes. I thought, that’s the answer for EVs, yet I’ve heard nothing about it ever since that original article.
My point was that ~93% of fossil fuels are burnt and then they’re gone forever (in human terms).
Sure, not all of the 93% can be re-purposed for less-ephemeral needs (and wants) but if we think longer-term supply is an issue this is a bit of an obvious win.