Why is Australia misleading consumers on electric vehicle emissions? | RenewEconomy

Why is Australia misleading consumers on electric vehicle emissions?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Craig Kelly has proved a loose cannon on the subject of EV emissions, but the government is not helping by providing misleading information to consumers.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

It used to be claimed that if you chose to charge your electric vehicle to the old Hazelwood brown coal power generator, then your emissions would likely be more than a comparative petrol or diesel car.

It’s  a dumb idea – EV owners are more inclined to plug into wind farms or solar farms, including their own rooftop arrays, or ensure they source green energy.

Anyway the claim is academic now, because Hazelwood, once Australia’s most polluting power station, is closed. But still, the Australian government is giving emissions data for EVs to consumers as if it was still operating. And consumers are being sold a lie.

Craig Kelly, who doubles as the head of the Coalition’s environment and energy committee, and its technology-troll-in-chief, has been grabbing headlines in the past week with some ridiculous claims about the emissions of electric vehicles, and how they are more polluting than petrol and diesel cars.

“The risk here is you’ll have the rich person in Balmain buying a Tesla, subsidised by a bloke in Penrith who’s driving a Corolla and the Tesla will have more carbon emissions than the Corolla,” Kelly this week told The Australian, and went on to repeat it ad infinitum on radio, TV and in other media.

There’s a whole bunch of issues with this, not least because it’s absurd to compare Corolla with a high performance, and bloody expensive Tesla Model S, and it simply ignores the data.

First let’s look at a fair like-for like comparison. If you compare a Corolla to a comparable car, say a Nissan Leaf, even the federal government’s own Green Vehicle Guide that Kelly cites shows the EV coming out ahead.

And that is even with the dodgy data used for the GVG calculations, which have several glaring errors, and numerous small ones with the way they ascribe emissions to EVs.

Firstly, it uses emissions data from 2015, before the closure of Hazelwood, Northern and other small polluting coal plants. That puts the emissions data well out of date and inflates the counting of emissions for EVs.

What’s more, it doesn’t account for the life of the battery and the huge amount of renewable energy that is and will be added to the grid during that time.

Some 10GW of renewable energy, notes Tristan Edis from Green Energy Markets, will likely be added from the 2015 accounts until 2020, bringing down the emissions intensity of the grid.

Edis suggests the government should do two things: Update the emissions data and provide an estimate, taking into account the influx of renewables on to the grid, of the likely CO2 impact of such a car which will operate for at least another 8 years. It shouldn’t be too hard.

Behyad Jafari, from the Electric Vehicle Council, says adjusting the Co2 calculations just to 2016 data  shows EVs in much better light, at a quarter less emissions than the GVG estimates, and well ahead of petrol cars.

Jafari’s calculations – using NEM-wide grid averages – show a Nissan Leaf at 115 grams of Co2 per kilometre, Tesla Model S at 136g, and a Corolla at 167g (less than the GVG estimates), and an “average petrol car” at 184g. That results in this graph below.

And that doesn’t account for current and future reductions in grid emissions as more renewables are added, or the options for EV owners to source their power from renewables – which would slash those emissions from charging to zero.

Nor does it account for other issues – notably the sometimes dubious manufacturer claims for fuel efficiency on petrol cars, and the assumption that emissions for the deliver of the fuel to the pump are somehow lower in Australia, which relies on imports, than they are in other countries.

Finally, Jafari notes that the claim by Kelly that a government report showed that EVs would be more polluting than petrol cars is also dubious.

The report cited was done for the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development by a consultancy called Abmark.

It is a two year old report that focused on emissions standards for light vehicles, and the only reference to an EV comparison is this one paragraph in the 111-page report:

“A challenge to the uptake of EVs in Australia may be due to the fact that the primary fuel source used in power generation is coal. Coal currently provides around 61% of Australia’s electricity requirements. Power derived from coal is highest in Victoria, NSW and Queensland where approximately 80 to 90% of electricity is produced from coal. Electric vehicles driven in these states, and not using green electricity, have a higher CO2 output than those emitted from the tailpipes of comparative petrol cars.”

There is no source for the claims, no analysis, and no further explanation or comment.

Jafari also says it is extraordinary for Kelly, and the Coalition government, to be talking down the prospects of using the old Holden factory and some of its machinery to develop an EV manufacturing base in Australia – a prospect raised by UK billionaire Sanjeev Gupta.

“Here is a successful businessman saying it might make sense and we have the materials and expertise and talent to do it,” Jafari told Reneweconomy. “How ideologically driven could you be that would seek to talk down such projects and deprive Australians of jobs?”

Environment and energy minister Josh Frydenberg, who is sounding a lot more enthusiastic about EVs than he has been about renewable energy or the Tesla big battery, has sought to play down Kelly’s comments, disputing the Tesla vs Corolla comparison.

But here’s the thing. Kelly is a modern-day denier of anything that might trouble the fossil fuel industry and right wing ideology.

He has fought against climate science, renewables (he claims they can kill pensioners), and now electric vehicles. While it might be easy to dismiss his comments as those of a barking mad technology troglodyte, the views of his camp hold sway over the Coalition government.

Just look at the government’s policies on climate, renewables and efficiency. None of them have yet budged from the hard-line Tony Abbott administration.

EVs provide an opportunity to begin that shift. It would justify and perhaps encourage policies and future plans that encourage more wind and solar.

And they could start by fixing the Green Vehicle Guide – there’s not a lot of choice about EVs at the moment for consumers. But sometime very soon there will be.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

  1. ozmq 2 years ago

    I really don’t understand. Kelly wants us to use imported petroleum forever? Am I missing something here?

    • George Darroch 2 years ago

      You’re not missing anything. You’re almost certainly smarter than the Member for Wop Wop.

    • MrMauricio 2 years ago

      Yes!!They are not governing for the nation-only unprincipled corporates!!

    • Joe 2 years ago

      No, whether it is FF local or imported it is still FF. FF usage must be encouraged no matter what the source, yes.

    • Mike Westerman 2 years ago

      I think that is where Joyce distinguishes himself as the bigger idiot: all this primary produce at the moment carries the weight of imported fuel. If the tractors and trucks and trains used solar and wind, transport of primary produce would be an added export value, not an import loss!

    • Barri Mundee 2 years ago

      A couple of explanations come to mind:

      1.He is in the pocket of the oil and gas industry and that obliges him to shitcan EV’s so that IC vehicles may be favoured by consumers for as long as possible.

      2. He is dog whistling to his core RW constituency which could consider EV’s to be a “Greenie’s wet dream”. Plays well in redneck country.

      3. He is cognitively challenged.

      4. All of the above.

      I may have missed a few other reasons.

      • Joe 2 years ago

        But the Joshie still ain’t having anything to do with installing solar panels on his rooftop so I’d be holding back on any praise just for now at least.

        • Mike Shackleton 2 years ago

          It’s ludicrous that JF doesn’t have solar panels on his roof. But I am also skeptical of that interview. He was asked if he had solar panels, he replied “no” the interviewer said, “shame on you.”

          We have no context or reasons for why he doesn’t. He lives in Kooyong – it’s a leafy suburb – big trees everywhere. His rooftop may be shaded, or there is a heritage template preventing him from installing panels.

          • Joe 2 years ago

            If I recall that interview correctly his answer for NO SOLAR at home was that he / family…” have other priorities.”…and that is where the subject of his NO SOLAR at home ended. Of course it is beyond ludicrous that our Federal Environment and Energy Minister would not install home solar when others in the The COALition, notably Two Tongues Turnbull himself, have home solar installed not to mention the other 1.7 millions, and climbing, homes across Australia that have home solar installed.

  2. George Takacs 2 years ago

    Any discussion about the relative merits of electric vehicles vs internal combustion engine vehicles should also take account of the reduced emissions of pollutants in our cities. Most estimates of the number of premature deaths in Australia attributable to air pollution from motor vehicles are greater than road fatalities. We can eliminate most of those deaths by converting to EVs. If terrorists were covertly releasing into our cities substances which killed a couple of thousand per year we would expect the government to do something about it. We should also expect them to do something to encourage the uptake of EVs.

    • mick 2 years ago

      LOL ive often looked at disasters and accidents compared to terrorists and concluded that they are incompetent

      • neroden 2 years ago

        Terrorists are just an excuse. The real terrorism is committed by right-wing governments which attack civil liberties in the name of “fighting terrorism”. All other forms of terrorism are nothingburgers, smaller than accidents.

    • itdoesntaddup 2 years ago
  3. Charles 2 years ago

    And the really weird thing about Craig K’s comments is … even if electric vehicles *DID* generate more pollution… (which we know they don’t, but if) – he’s a climate change denier! Why does he care? Why is he arguing against something based on pollution when every decision made by his party appears to be the absolute worst one for our atmosphere?

    • Joe 2 years ago

      Just like the Abbott, the Denier in Chief, who contradicted himself by saying that if climate change is real, it is probably a good thing. There are no words for the Kelly and the Abbott.

      • solarguy 2 years ago

        Well there is Joe, F..ked in the head. Sums it up nicely, don’t you think?

        • Joe 2 years ago

          …and the ‘Dolts’ out there in voter land elect them. Who is it that is F,,ked in the head.

          • solarguy 2 years ago

            Abbott, Kelly and co. Who else did you think I was talking about?

  4. George Darroch 2 years ago

    Because the Liberal and National Party (they’re one party with two wings, for practical purposes) is filled with liars.

    They lie about energy and the environment, and any other thing which contains facts inconvenient to their preset ideological positions.

    • John Saint-Smith 2 years ago

      Lying Nasty Party for short.

  5. George Darroch 2 years ago

    Electric vehicle owners in Australia almost all own solar panels, and I’d wager that the majority of them are buying ‘green’ energy from their supplier for the remainder. The arguments put out from the Government’s benches are idiotic.

    • trackdaze 2 years ago

      True, worse though would be the Australian didn’t question or test it?

      • nakedChimp 2 years ago

        Control the media, control the opinion of most of it’s readers/viewers/listeners.. brave new world.

    • Joe 2 years ago

      …well they are ‘idiots’, afterall.

      • nakedChimp 2 years ago

        They are only idiots if they don’t manage to get money from the FF industry for this job.
        Anyone who does this kind of kneecapping to a nation for free is truly an idiot.

        • Scottman 2 years ago

          Do they really need more pay than their federal wages? Greedy lying bastards.

    • itdoesntaddup 2 years ago

      You do know that green energy over the grid is a scam, don’t you? Or does the supply stop on windless nights?

      • Mike Shackleton 2 years ago

        It’s not a scam. Every MWh of certified renewable energy generated gets a certificate attached to it. The energy is sold on the wholesale market indistinguishable from any other source at the time of generation, but the certificate remains. When you opt in to buy 100% renewable electricity, your supplier is required to supply you an equivalent number of certificates to your consumption. If they don’t have enough certificates to meet their customers’ demands, they need to buy them from other generators. Your overall consumption is offset by renewables sources and the REC program lets us audit that this is the case.

        OK, the electrons you consume on a windless night may not be from a renewable generator, but that can be the case even when there are loads of renewables supplying the grid. Physics doesn’t let us distinguish between sources.

        If demand for the certificates exceeds the supply, new renewables generators come into the market to increase supply, and increase the proportion of renewable energy on the grid.

        • itdoesntaddup 2 years ago

          When your smart meter invites you to bid for the available green energy it will stop being a scam. Until then, it’s a scam. Especially if you live in a state where the supply is predominantly from fossil fuel.

        • Joe 2 years ago

          Michael, just ignore this ‘it….’ dude. According to his / her logic then ‘Green Energy’ is a scam until we hit 100% renewable energy in the energy grid. He is either a Fool or a Trolli….maybe the Quinella….he is both.

      • Glynn Palmer 2 years ago

        My understanding is that retailers, that sell the green energy, must purchase that amount of sold green energy from a green energy generator. This is in addition to the green energy purchases required under the RET as a proportion of general electricity sales.
        That’s how I hope it works..
        I sell my PV exports to my retailer at 7 cents/KWh.

        • Gyrogordini 2 years ago

          I sell mine through MojoPower in NSW for 20c

          • Glynn Palmer 2 years ago

            In addition, I also get 44cents/KWh from the Qld government.

          • itdoesntaddup 2 years ago

            Don’t you mean Qld taxpayers? Unless the state government has gone into money printing.

          • Steve 2 years ago

            No they use the dividends from their SOE’s to pay the 44 cents/KWh.

          • Gyrogordini 2 years ago

            Nice. We built after the NSW Solar Bonus Scheme was all filled up.

          • Scottman 2 years ago

            Gyrogordini, that 20c is for the first 2000kWh per year, which is about 5.5kWh/day then 10c for any more feed in. And the charge rates are extreme. Do yourself a favour & check out Enova energy @ 16c for all export.
            If your solar is exporting only 5.5kWh /day your system is too small or you are already consuming lots. If you have an EV you would probably be importing to charge it.
            Regards Scott

          • Gyrogordini 2 years ago

            Scott, thanks for your comments. We have 7kW installed, but are in a coastal area (cloudy) and have a large gum that stuffs the mid afternoon generation. Best we generate is about 34kWh in summer, and about 10-12 units in mid winter. House uses 5-6/day, of which we buy about half (overnight), at 25c. I am about to put some Tigo units on each panel, which should limit the tree shade problem.
            Last year we exported about 5MWh from 6.4 generated.
            We are about to get our first EV, which will soak up anticipated av. of 20 units/day, which means the 2MWh initial allowance should work out ok. We’ll try it and see.
            I am aware of Enova, and quite like its offering.
            I was attracted to Mojo from Powershop (which I was also happy with, as mojo could get me a smart meter (PShop couldn’t) and I like it’s membership/wholesale model – the reason it received ARENA blessing.
            Cheers pete

          • Ian 2 years ago

            Electricity consumption by an EV is about 20 kWh/100km The average commute in Australia is about 40km/day. You might be hard pressed to use all that electricity on your new EV

          • Roger Franklin 2 years ago

            Interested to know which EV are you purchasing and how it goes?

          • Gyrogordini 2 years ago

            Renault Zoe ZE40. 300km range, Type 2 22kW charging. About Clio sized, about $50k, maybe delivery this week.

        • itdoesntaddup 2 years ago

          Hope is one thing. I suspect that the binding constraint is the RET obligation, and even that is not completely binding: don’t they just pay a cashout price if they can’t meet the RET? Who benefits from that?

          But the second to second reality is that you can only be supplied by generators who are generating at the time you use the electricity, and for many using grid power they will in practice be supplied by generators that are local to them (at least when viewed in terms of network connections, so you might be supplied by Tasmanian hydro if you live next to the Basslink connection at Loy Yang, or you may be supplied by Loy Yang. You won’t get anything from a QLD solar farm, whatever your green supplier’s contracts claim.

          • Glynn Palmer 2 years ago

            The future will be an excess of geographically and technologically diverse renewables with sufficient battery or PHES storage to absorb excess generation that would otherwise be curtailed when demand doesn’t require it. The stored energy will be released when renewable resources are too low to meet demand.

            I have read that renewables with storage has an LCOE of about $93/MWh compared to HELE coal with CCS at above $150/MWh. The HELE with CCS still emits about 106kg/MWh instead of 770kg/MWh without CCS.

          • itdoesntaddup 2 years ago

            I suggest you try doing some of your own research on this: it’s not really that difficult. All the research I’ve done or investigated suggests that the further you go towards 100% renewables (with the possible exception of normal hydro, but even there you have to take care against a run of low precipitation years – ask the Tasmanians), the more expensive and gargantuan is the storage you need if you choose no other backup. When you start having to store more than just on an intraday basis, costs start escalating very fast indeed: seasonal storage is effectively 365 times as expensive, and storage against a bad year or unusual continuous unfavourable weather event depends on how bad of a year you want to protect against – 1 in 50 perhaps? But that could mean blackouts next year. S0 if you start with PHES that makes sense at say 20$/MWh margin when operated daily, you end up at 365x50x20$/MWh if you want to keep the lights on.

          • Glynn Palmer 2 years ago

            I have. Here it is by UNU academics. I do trust peer reviewed papers that university academics publish. I acknowledge it is still theoretical, but we have to transition towards this future if we want to insure against the threat of CC.

          • itdoesntaddup 2 years ago

            I’ve looked at Andrew Blakers’ work, and also the AEMO study. I think he is making a lot of assumptions about PHES that do not really stand up – he simply assumes you can build what you need at low cost. Also, he relies on the AEMO study (to which he contributed) for data on wind and solar production. If you go back and look at it via the wayback machine, you will find there is an element of admission that the modelling is probably inadequate. Some statistical testing I did suggested that there was perhaps an element of producing modelling data that had the desired properties (you don’t get zero determinants of correlation matrices by chance very often). Qualitatively, it is immediately obvious that the data when charted do not look like charts of real world data. Preliminary work with real world data suggested he may have underestimated the storage requirement by a factor of 10.

            I have on my to-do list to do more work with real world data, now that I can look at individual locations at 5 minute resolution. June 2017 is a good test – the worst wind month on record, and far less windy than any month in the AEMO data on which Blakers relies.

          • Steve 2 years ago

            Look forward to reading your work, once published.

          • Steve 2 years ago

            The maths suggest something like 0 generation in a bad year. You may like to revisit your maths (again).

          • itdoesntaddup 2 years ago

            Evidently you are unable to distinguish between GWh and TWh. So you are probably a factor of 1,000 out.

          • Mike Westerman 2 years ago

            To what extent and what price curve do you include demand side management? Clearly the projected and being realised low costs of solar are going to attract more consumption by intermittent loads. Clearly energy costs as a proportion of cost of inputs for many businesses in Australia have changed significantly in the last several years, and the response has been for many to install their own generation, but also to rethink their business structure/capital cost balance

          • itdoesntaddup 2 years ago

            Demand side management is only useful on short timescales – seconds and minutes to a few hours at most. Beyond that, you are in to cutting real economic activity if you resort to it. You can use e.g. DSM of water heating to offset fluctuations in wind output, as they do on King Island – but that is of no use when there is a period of days with low winds: you’d be taking cold showers.

            Wherever countries have chosen a path that results in expensive energy, industries that rely on energy move away to countries where energy remains cheap. It is an interesting strategy, but I suspect it ends up with reduced standards of living and no savings of emissions at the global level (indeed, they likely increase).

          • eric 2 years ago

            Perhaps you should talk to the Chinese about that! They are building more zero emission electricity year on year than everyone on the planet and yet their economy and industry is booming.
            Explain that one away.

          • itdoesntaddup 2 years ago

            China consumes over 50% of the entire global coal consumption. Renewables are a paltry 2.8% of their primary energy consumption, even when factored up to coal equivalent (i.e. assuming the alternative is producing electricity from coal, with the thermodynamic losses that entails at 38% efficiency). They have a very long way to go before renewables are economically significant, or before they make any noticeable impact on their emissions, which are also the world’s largest at over 27% of the global total.

            Explain that one away.

          • eric 2 years ago

            Pretty easily. You a not factoring Hydro and Nuclear into your renewable equation. They are a significant part of energy production in China.
            Or, the growth rates of clean generation and EV vehicle production in China.
            Or, the progressively ramping incentives for renewables and penalties being applied to fossil in China. They are implementing a nationwide carbon price.
            China has stated aim of gradually but at an increasing rate, clean up their emissions, faster than just about anyone in the world and their economy continues to boom.

            What do you expect, you flick a switch and go 100% renewable overnight?
            So what is your point here, just to argue for the sake of arguing?
            Do you have any solutions of your own?

          • Mike Westerman 2 years ago

            Misguided crap! DSM is about choosing the most cost effective way of maximising economic gain. For example, when a Qld uni was looking at new buildings several years ago, the additional air conditioning load would have resulted in very expensive augmentation deep into the grid. Instead, a DSM approach convinced them and the NSP to instead look at sharing in the cost of developed chilled water storage, resulting in a reduction in demand of 10MW with a benefit to the state $10M. The NSP didn’t receive this level of benefit because of distortions in the electricity market that failed to match cost to the state with payment by customers, as is often the case with markets (the NEM especially).

            Unfettered expansion of capacity is economic insanity.

          • itdoesntaddup 2 years ago

            I have A Modest Proposal for you that should really help to solve the problem of needing to invest in grid capacity at all.

          • Steve 2 years ago

            Since there aren’t any HELEwith CCS its pretty hard to estimate the cost, you would be hard pressed to get HELE for under $93 / MWh.

          • Glynn Palmer 2 years ago

            A report completed in November 2015 estimated the LCOE of supercritical pulverised coal with CCS at $168/MWh. Here is the report and the info is in table 46 on page 148. Note this is not ultra super critical. This report is 2 years old.

            The $93/MWh for renewables with storage came from this report
            There is a reference to it on page 1. and in table 3 on page 17 which also examines different scenarios.

          • Steve 2 years ago

            Not sure what relevence this has. It is the RET credits which are purchased that are the important thing.

          • itdoesntaddup 2 years ago

            What happens if the supply of RET credits is insufficient?

      • jeffhre 2 years ago

        “So by charging up yourself you are causing extra fossil fuelled generation.”

        Which one is the perpetual charging energy machine? The coal fired boilers that are having their electrons replaced on the grid, or the solar that is replacing their electrons on the grid. Because…if your circular argument never stops, one of them has to be a perpetual energy machine!

        Hint: EVs replace gasoline, and solar replaces coal and natural gas.

        “So by charging up yourself you are causing extra fossil fuelled generation.” Yes, you win the prize, as this is exactly why households and companies are using solar. The electrons from solar are deployed to offset the inevitable increased use of fossil fuels created by driving cars. Whether it is from gasoline use or coal and NG use. The electrons are identical and actually don’t care when or what time of day they are generated. Nor if they replace the energy from gasoline, coal or NG.

        And yes, as you hinted, an entirely green grid would never present the problem of balancing using clean energy, with replacement clean energy. It would all be clean – and the attempt to exploit a made up circular argument, becomes moot.

      • Steve 2 years ago

        Maths doesn’t add up.

  6. tsport100 2 years ago

    Note: The Gov comparison web-site doesn’t list the BMW i3 which has been on sale in Australia since late 2014, nor the soon to be launched in Australia Hyundai Ioniq EV. Both these battery electric cars have much lower energy consumption than the 2012 vintage Nissan Leaf sold locally….. which easily blows away a 2012 Toyota Corolla for emissions by a significant margin.

    • Gyrogordini 2 years ago

      Then there is the newly-released to Oz Renault Zoe ZE40, and it’s Kangoo ZE brother…

    • nakedChimp 2 years ago

      It’s nearly as if they don’t want to even produce unbiased information.
      Who would have thought that?

    • tsport100 2 years ago

      Turns out the BMW i3 is hidden on the Government’s Green Vehicle Guide. Their own figures show a BMW i3 costs 1/3rd as much to fuel as a Toyota Corolla.. or ZERO if charged from a roof-top PV system. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/034f87003548d6224c458c1bfb11d729452f67cc1f6f18ec7b34ff6240071261.jpg

  7. Peter Campbell 2 years ago

    The grid intensity takes into account ‘transmission losses’. However, the GVG emissions calculations for petrol cars consider only the petrol actually burned in the vehicle. No consideration is given to its ‘transmission losses’. How much oil was burned shipping the oil half way around the world? How much electricity was used to run the refinery? (Hint: A lot.) How much diesel was burned to transport the petrol around the country before it got to fill a vehicle?
    People have been doing ‘well to wheel’ analyses for decades. The answer, regardless of how detailed the assumptions, always comes out that EVs are better in nearly all circumstances and about on par or only slightly worse on only the very most (>90%) coal-intensive grids.

    • Marc Talloen 2 years ago

      If anyone is interested as to how much electricity (dirty energy) is used to run the refinery, have a look here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQpX-9OyEr4&feature=youtu.be

      • MaxG 2 years ago

        Thanks for posting… another eye-opener for most…

        • Joe 2 years ago

          Lets get the Kelly back for another talk once he has a little look at the video.

          • Coley 2 years ago

            Let’s put a tin hat on his head and use him for target practice!

          • Joe 2 years ago

            A waste of ammo and time I suspect.

          • solarguy 2 years ago

            Ah, but a hell of a lot of fun and satisfaction. You would doing something good for the country.

      • moltenmetal 2 years ago

        …and if you want accurate information on this topic instead, you can look here:

    • Mike Shackleton 2 years ago

      They also neglect the fact EVs do not need regular oil changes (no issues with oil manufacture and waste oil disposal) and because of regenerative braking, brake pads are changed infrequently.

  8. howardpatr 2 years ago

    The contents would be beyond the apprehension of Kelly, Abbott, Joyce and the others guiding Coalition policy on anthropogenic climate change and the renewable energy future but for an idea of the future check out the website for the German company E3DC.

    It is now owned by a company called Hager which is already well represented in Australia. It won’t be too many years before many homes, with their EVs, will be mini energy storage and distribution centres.

    • nakedChimp 2 years ago

      Thanks for the pointer.
      Didn’t know them.

  9. Robert Westinghouse 2 years ago

    The fact is politicians lie and lie and lie….we know the facts.

    • Joe 2 years ago

      And we had the Chief Liar, Two Tongues Turnbull, up in Cairns on Monday, on his mission to save ‘Our Reef’, telling the assembled media that Australia’s CO2 emissions are reducing. I checked the data courtesy of The National Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2015, 2016, 2017 all years of increasing CO2 emissions. But back to the Kelly we all know what his form is when it comes to anything connected with RE and giving FF the flick. His lies about EV’s are being called out but don’t expect an apology or any followup from The Australian Newspaper…the lies must stand uncorrected, yes. To add further insult we had the Joyce, who is now The Federal Transport Minister, saying that EV’s were unsuitable for Australia….it is petrol guzzlers forever. You really have to shake your head when you remember that the Kelly, the Joyce and their ilk are actually in charge of the country.

      • Robert Westinghouse 2 years ago

        I just do not get it…How can they be so STUPID…or is it us who keep voting the pieces of poo in each year….I may was well be talking to the tree outside as talk to a politician….make me MAD

        • Colin Clarke 2 years ago

          Somewhere there is some sort of valued return to these idiots.

        • Joe 2 years ago

          …what is that expression…”you get what you voted for”. I didn’t vote for them but I’m copping all the damage and mayhem that they are dishing out..

        • neroden 2 years ago

          First of all, all these corrupt LNP politicians obviously don’t care what happens to their kids. If their kids die in a heatwave or due to flooding or drought or whatever, they don’t care. They are heartless monsters who are happy to see their kids die because they care only about themselves.

          Secondly, these corrupt LNP politician monsters are obviously getting paid directly by fossil fuel companies.

      • mick 2 years ago

        mate words fail me with kelly at least with baaanaby you know up front that he couldnt organise a —- in a knock shop if he had 50 bucks in his fist (probably not taking inflation into account)

        • Roger Brown 2 years ago

          He just shags his office workers ! Barnaby will be a father AGAIN soon , but limited news won’t tell you that .

          • mick 2 years ago

            yep saw that online still gets put back in on top of that the way he carries on in the pub im surprised he hasnt been taken down a notch

          • Roger Brown 2 years ago

            Barney knows that Pollies are protected species , but have seen a few photos of him with a black eye , not from the separated wife and children ?
            He does have that ” I want to punch his head ” look about him .

          • mick 2 years ago

            its called a kind face

          • TechinBris 2 years ago


  10. MaxG 2 years ago

    Welcome to Australia; the land of abundant stupidity…
    Stupid people, according to Carlo M. Cipolla, share several identifying traits: they are abundant, they are irrational, and they cause problems for others without apparent benefit to themselves, thereby lowering society’s total well-being. There are no defenses against stupidity. The only way a society can avoid being crushed by the burden of its idiots is if the non-stupid work even harder to offset the losses of their stupid brethren.

    • nakedChimp 2 years ago

      There is other ways as well, just sayin’ 😉

    • Coley 2 years ago

      Then the US of A is well stuffed-)

      • MaxG 2 years ago

        Agree! I read this fitting description about stupidity here:
        In 1976, a professor of economic history at the University of California, Berkeley published an essay outlining the fundamental laws of a force he perceived as humanity’s greatest existential threat: Stupidity.

  11. Gyrogordini 2 years ago

    He IS a “barking mad technology troglodyte”!

  12. Ken Dyer 2 years ago

    Clearly, the figure that is used to define Fuel Lifecycle CO2 is totally wrong. This is hoe the Green Vehicle Guide describes it:
    “For petrol, diesel and LPG vehicles, default annual fuel cost and CO2 estimates are based on a vehicle travelling 14,000 km per annum, with 66 per cent of travel in urban driving conditions.
    For electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, annual fuel cost and fuel lifecycle CO2 estimates are based on the vehicle’s energy consumption.”

    Clearly, the geniuses who stuck their wetted finger in the air and came up with these figures got it totally wrong. They then base the EV’s energy on Ausytralia’s greenhouse gas emissions from here


    As everybody knows, and it is well documented, Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions have clearly been on the rise ever since that compatriot of the idiot Kelly, Abbott cancelled the carbon price.

    Furthermore, when you look at the “explanation” above, it clearly indicates that apples are being compared with oranges.

    So, to summarise, the Green Vehicle Guide as it is currently published is erroneous, misleading, wrong and really just plain stupid, much like the COALition.

  13. DugS 2 years ago

    Dear Craig, if you believe an electric car is more polluting than a petrol/diesel one then I have a nice bridge to sell you.

    • Roger Brown 2 years ago

      Too Late , the LNP sold the bridge to their mates, who then put a Toll on the bridge !

      • Ian 2 years ago

        Don’t you mean a troll under the bridge.

  14. Olle Scholin 2 years ago

    We purchased a 2012 Nissan Leaf half a year ago and we use it for local commuting in the Newcastle area. The car uses 1.2 kWh per 10 km and is charged at home by our own solar power, which is automatically diverted to the car whenever sufficient power is available. A normal trip would be around 30-40 km, which equals around 4 to 6 kWhr. As our solar system generates 40-60 kWhr/day, we have plenty energy to charge the car. I estimate that at least 80% of the energy we have put into the car comes from solar.
    So, in our case at least, the claim that an EV pollutes just as much as ICE car is completely wrong.

    • Charles 2 years ago

      Sounds like a perfect arrangement! Out of interest, what make/model EVSE do you use to do the “solar divert” thing?

      • Olle Scholin 2 years ago

        Currently use the EVSE that came with the car, connected to an on/off diverter. This EVSE is restricted to 2.4 kW and so to improve further, I’m designing an EVSE which hopefully will fully use the car’s charger (3.3kW) and adapt the charging power to the solar power available.

        • Ian 2 years ago

          Olle can you export electricity from your car back to your house. ie can you use your Nissan Leaf as a home storage battery?

          • Gyrogordini 2 years ago

            I think at the moment that is illegal. Doesn’t mean it can’t be done, but the Ded Dino lobby is causing enough trouble accepting RE at present, I don’t think they have the bandwidth to contemplate V2Home

        • Patrick Comerford 2 years ago

          Way to go. Came across this very neat charger made in the uk. Called a ZAPPI and made by a start up called http://myenergi.uk/ it retails for about GBP500 but I understand there is a government rebate available which reduces that. There’s also YouTube videos with good info. Haven’t heard if they are available here but does illustrate nicely the manufacturing opportunities available supporting an EV industry.

          • Gyrogordini 2 years ago

            It’s a nice unit. Hopefully “sumwon” will pick it up and get approval for Oz…

    • Steve 2 years ago

      My 2014 BMW i3 has done 13.2 kWhr per 100 km over the last twelve months since its last service. Then again I am a bit of a lead foot when it comes to traffic lights 😉

      Speaking of which, when BMW did the service they plugged the car into their computer, checked the electrickery inside then told me the car is good to go for another twelve months. Should add the electricity cost of driving their computer for twenty minutes….

  15. Carl Raymond S 2 years ago

    2 years and it’s a moot point, because the battery industry is past tipping point, scaling exponentially, with prices falling fast. This does two things.
    One, the price of an EV that is better than the Corolla will be less than the Corolla in 2019.
    Two. Storage plus solar will be cheaper than the cost of *transmission*, let alone coal. Coal will be history faster than your old box TV.
    Adani Charmichael is a fight to avoid wasting tax money. It will never sell coal.

  16. Colin Clarke 2 years ago

    What about hybrids! They don’t use a gram of electricity from the grid, so their pollution is only from the 4 or so litres per 100 km of petrol they use.Climate deniers say “we don’t need to do anything because we’re such a small economy our contribution is too small to make a difference”
    What an Un-Australian attitude. It’s like saying on Clean up Australia Day – “I won’t pick up rubbish, my contribution is too little to bother with”.

    • Mike Shackleton 2 years ago

      Hybrids fall down in that you still have to maintain an internal combustion engine. They were are good interim technology for manufacturers to gather an understanding of battery management, regen braking etc but now we really need to push to go 100% EV. I looked into getting a plug in Hybrid and even if you are super diligent, plug in and charge all the time and only use the petrol engine on long trips you are still up for the cost of maintaining that engine.

  17. Askgerbil Now 2 years ago

    “And they could start by fixing the Green Vehicle Guide…”
    The government’s website has more anomalies than the self-evident ones.
    I produced a comparison of a Telsa model and a small Toyota, then used the “Advanced” option to select “100% renewable energy” for charging the Telsa.
    Not only did the annual CO2 emissions drop to zero, but the cost of fuel for the year also fell to zero. Not bad… https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8f394e7bbf997748fca17622fe3d68d0974b0f40810f34fecebe3f0087cd93f8.png

    • itdoesntaddup 2 years ago

      Which demonstrates that the CO2 embedded in manufacture is excluded from the data. Figures I’ve seen suggest a Nissan Leaf is 70gCO2e/km for manufacture (a Tesla S would be substantially more), against a comparable ICE at about 40gCO2e.

      • Glynn Palmer 2 years ago

        Why does an ICE use less energy to manufacture than an EV.?

        The batteries that go into Tesla’s will be carbon neutral thanks to the PV panels powering the gigafactory.

        If they do this for the battery factory, they may do the same for the EV factory?

        • itdoesntaddup 2 years ago
          • Coley 2 years ago

            Also from your “link”

            “Electric cars are far from perfect, and there are plenty of valid ways to critique them. But let’s not pretend that a gasoline vehicle can compete with an electric car in terms of carbon emissions. It’s just not a contest.

            Give an electric car the right juice and it crushes combustion engines”

            And every day, the option to access the “right juice” increases.

          • itdoesntaddup 2 years ago

            Your accusation earlier was as you now see quite wrong. That site has good green credentials. Hence your quote: but it doesn’t alter their findings which I quoted.

          • Barri Mundee 2 years ago

            The sooner we decarbonise the grid the better, then there will be few environmental arguments against transitioning to EV’s.

            Australia has a long way to go.

        • Gyrogordini 2 years ago

          “Why does an ICE use less energy to manufacture than an EV.?”

          What about the thousands more components, all finely machined etc. and their ultimate disposal, as well as the raw materials, transport, refining etc.?
          And let’s not discount our *two* weeks’ supply in country of oil-based fuel products that the country imports, via Singapore (where it’s refined), from dog-knows-where.

      • Coley 2 years ago

        “Figures I’ve seen”
        After spending many hours scratching around on your favourite ‘denialist sites’ no doubt.
        Look, an ICE vehicle uses about the same energy and materials as a BEV, but the added materials cost in providing the battery for The BEV is more than offset by not having to build a great big clanking ICE engine/transmission/ lubrication/ cooling/and exhaust system.
        Then after? No competition, a car with minimal servicing/operational costs.
        ‘Itdoesntaddup’……remember …big toes and thumbs count👍🏻

      • handbaskets'r'us 2 years ago

        I don’t think you’re going to get a lot of converts here. Maybe troll Conservapedia or Breitbart? Ever seen a Tesla factory roof? Besides, Tesla also owns Solar City, -biggest green energy company in the world. So their production is more than offset by solar. Incidentally the company now sources entirely recycled materials, -also solar powered. This is probably to stick it up naysayers like….
        I like my Tesla and it runs on pure sunlight.

        • itdoesntaddup 2 years ago

          Evidently you’ve got religion.

          • TechinBris 2 years ago

            I know that if I was going to forced to have to do religion, as it seems we are continually coerced by a lot of people’s rhetoric these days, I would prefer to choose the one that doesn’t accept continuing misery and death as an acceptable deliverable for any success.

  18. john 2 years ago

    Unfortunately Fake Statements work.
    People will hear and read the statements and believe them.
    Just like Alternate Facks unfortunately the message is sent to the people who love the message.

    • mick 2 years ago

      ive just read that they want to put cooling fans on the reef to offset rising sea temperature im hoping this is alternate,fake fack whatever of course we might be on another planet/reality

  19. Chris Fraser 2 years ago

    Craig Kelly please get yourself down to Bunnings Aisle 10 … because that’s where we keep all the Nuts.

    • john 2 years ago

      Ha ha ha good one.
      Unfortunately I can remember a Senator whose statement was “Solar Panels will never pay for themselves in a Million years” . He got elected every time so yes making statements that are “Nuts” gets you elected.

  20. Robert Comerford 2 years ago

    The fossil fuel paymasters of our major political parties will keep them spewing lies until the cows come home. Even a so-called hybrid like a non plug-in Prius ( it has only one power source… petrol) is only there to entice the public to keep using their polluting product. Studies years ago showed that increasing the mpg or reducing the price of fuel encouraged people to drive more because it was ‘cheaper’. From a pollution perspective that results in a nil gain.

    • Joe 2 years ago

      It took decades to out Big Tobacco and BIg Asbestos thanks to the lies that were tossed around by their “supporters” ….now we are doing a re runner of sorts with Big Fossil Fuel.

  21. Tim 2 years ago

    When you consider they take massive donations from the coal industry, and their mindset is donor-focused, it is no surprise.

    No surprise at all.

    Vote Green.
    Better on economics, social justice, jobs, and the environment.
    Social democracies are better for people.

  22. Stuart Watson 2 years ago

    Craig Kelly has produced his own fake news and thanks Giles for taking on his miss information. I will check the tail pipe emmisions of my Nissan Leaf (also charged on excess rooftop solar) in my garage and urge Craig Kelly to do the same with an ice car…EVs can fun on renewable energy and ICE vehicles can’t ….a simple fact.

  23. Peter 2 years ago

    The National Greenhouse Accounts Factors state the emissions emissions intensity factor for electrical energy in Victoria is 1.08 kg CO2-e/kWh (July 2017 report). This has fallen in the last few years from 1.18. (For comparison, Tasmania’s intensity is 0.14).

    Based on this data and data collected from the grid, the PV system and charging the hybrid car, my home plus hybrid with solar PV halved my CO2-e emissions, but my home and hybrid without solar is estimated to be about 5% worse than petrol.

    It would be useful to have a reference to more detailed calculations for the data reported here.

  24. itdoesntaddup 2 years ago

    A couple of weeks back there was an excellent article on this site pointing out that Snowy 2 PHES would in practice be powered by coal until the local coal was all shut down. It’s a shame to have an article that now tries to pretend the opposite case just because it relates to EVs. Because of the very limited interconnection across state borders, it’s possible to get a state by state estimate on associated emissions that would be reasonably accurate. The result would be that EVs are green and clean in Tassie, but brown fowls in NSW. You also need to be looking at whole lifecycle emissions, including manufacture and raw materials, and junkyard disposal.

    You also have to be very careful to consider what is the marginal source of generation to charge up EVs. Done at night, that would exclude solar (unless you do it from your Powerwall charged by solar during the day). Since renewables have a high degree of grid priority, but are not dispatchable, it is more than likely that it will be a dispatchable generator – coal, gas, diesel, hydro – that meets the extra demand.

  25. N Page 2 years ago

    I don’t understand why murdoch and his coal buddies hate EVs. They run on coal after all!

    And whats a climate denier doing arguing about emmissions anyway?

  26. Andrew Woodroffe 2 years ago

    For something like a century now, motorists have been willfully using the lungs of fellow city dwellers, let alone the lungs of city dwelling puppies and kittens, to filter out car exhaust – NOx, SOx, Ozone, particulates, unburnt hydro carbons, etc. Admittedly, they also use their own lungs this way . . .

    The idea of comparing street level exhaust pipes with smoke stakes of far away coal plants is insane. Where people actually live and breathe, EVs have no emissions.

  27. Andy Saunders 2 years ago

    Actually all the above is incorrect.

    Unless the average Tesla/Volt owner decides to install solar PV just because they are buying an EV, then it’s a decoupled decision. You rooftop solar is (sensibly) not dedicated to your house, but feeding any internal consumption and exporting the remainder to the grid (thereby displacing most likely some FF generation).

    Buying an EV means you will be adding to the *marginal* consumption of electric power at the time you charge. In SA, that’s likely to be close to 100% gas, for instance (as gas does a lot of the load-following), and sometimes (late on windy nights) wind power. In Tasmania, it’s likely to be hydro.

    In other states it’s a bit more complicated. Possibly close to the average generation mix.

    • RobertO 2 years ago

      H Andy Saunders, All the above (or below is incorrect) is it’s self incorrect. Your statement, “In other states it’s a bit more complicated. Possibly close to the average generation mix” applies to all the NEM states because of the interconnects and how each state generates it electricity. Vic uses mostly brown coal and some of the imports to SA will be some brown coal power. The major point is that as we move to RE any charging will average out to using the % of RE in the overall network (not all EV will charge only at night time, some will charge during the middle of the day). I beleive that we will always have gas (FF) as the major backup only (not use more that 0.003% of the time in the year averaged over several years). When people talk about web sites they need also to ask “When was this written, What was the reason behind the writer doing it and what did they use as their baseline. To quote one below EV have a manufacturing embeded costs of 70 gm CO2 / km and ICE only has 40 gm CO2 / km forgets that the ICE also has to add the running costs of 184 gm CO2 / km and the EV may have a NEM average 0.78 kg CO 2 / kw hr or as one person below claims 0.12 kw hr / km (works out at 6.5 gm CO2 / Km and did they add the imbedded CO2 costs of the solar panels and equipment used to power the battery).

  28. Behyad Jafari 2 years ago

    Great article as always Giles. Also important for the Government to note that using grid average emissions data is comparing the worst case scenario for EVs against the status quo for ICE. Australians can, should and do charge their EVs with 100% renewable energy.

  29. eric 2 years ago

    What about pollution reduction and air quality in cities. We know tail pipe emissions cause deaths. What do the Libs have to say about that?

Comments are closed.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.