Energy providers and renewable technology companies developing 'novel' electric car charging prototy

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10...ng-prototype-outback-stuart-highway/102953618
Rural Australia provides unique challenges to the rollout of EVs but this might also have massive impact on isolated rural communities currently relying on expensive diesel generators

BTW I have driven the Stuart Highway and I will tell you that the few and far between petrol stations must all be run by descendants of Dick Turpin - it is one of the reasons why the indigenous communities along the highway live in poverty

 

Electric will never fit most rural areas will never adapt electric like city people. We travel in areas we need to carry extra gas for crying out loud. If we need extra gas to not run out till the next gas station visit, electric cars would never work.

 

And yet the World Solar Challenge has been successfully run for 30 years - down the Stuart Highway
https://worldsolarchallenge.org/

 

That’s nice. How about camping or hunting?

 

Wake up Australia – renewable energy won’t save the planet if it costs the earth
Guest Blogger
It is undeniable that current Net Zero plans are astronomically costly, technologically impossible and politically unstable. . . .

“Sadly, our climate and energy policy remains in the grip of an intelligentsia that lacks the wisdom to recognise the boundaries of its own ignorance”. Nick Cater

“…destroying the landscape with inferior technologies that cost more and do not achieve the desired policy aim of Net Zero is insane”. Michael de Percy

I am not sure many people are fully aware of the massive engineering changes currently underway in our rural landscape. The changes are on a scale never attempted in this country before, and it is swallowing obscene amounts of money for minimal benefit and, indeed, no proof it will improve the climate.

If you only listen to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen, or even the mainstream media, then you would be excused into thinking that the renewable energy transition is achievable, cheap, seamless, wholly affordable and essential for our contribution to prevent a “climate catastrophe”.

As Nick Cater writes:

“They have invested a primitive faith in power from wind, water and sun that defies logical argument. They have convinced themselves that renewable resources are free and inexhaustible, ignoring the tendency of wind and solar to gobble land and capital”.


Chris Bowen.
However, the notion that weather-dependent wind and sunshine-dependent solar (with or without pumped hydro or mythical mega-batteries) will soon provide all our power needs is nothing short of delusional. Our Prime Minister contends that the cost of the obvious alternative – nuclear power, which can be available 24 x 365, whatever the weather – is exorbitant, whereas chaotically delivered wind and solar are as cheap as chips. But he ignores that for every megawatt (MW) of wind or solar capacity, another MW of dispatchable generation from coal, gas, diesel, or hydro must be dialled up when the sun sets and/or calm weather prevails.

Many governments in the Western world have committed to achieving net zero carbon emissions in the foreseeable future. The US, Germany and the UK both say they will deliver by 2050, and they believe that wind and solar power can achieve this through heavily subsidised renewable energy projects. There is one problem: these plans have a single, fatal flaw – they rely on the pipedream that there is some affordable way to store surplus electricity at scale. When it comes to battery storage to back up a full wind and solar system without fossil fuels, the problems are massive, and the cost is all out of proportion to the benefits returned. And yet this major issue is ignored when acolytes tell us all we must do is add larger and more batteries.

In Australia, we are not immune to this madness, and the elites from both major parties, their supporters and bureaucrats, have chosen to do it by full electrification. . . .

 

How about just functioning like normal, useful vehicles?

That challenge is just a bunch of college students purpose designing a vehicle to do one thing only.

Whoopee!

 

Plenty of free campsites along the Stuart Highway - and plenty of roadkill too! These guys are good eating

 

You didn’t click on the site did you? 30 years ago it was “a bunch of college kids” but this is an international race - and team America has to outperform Japan and the Netherlands.
Not only that but the specs have evolved over the years with more and more “interior comfort” design features incorporated. What these teams are doing today will change the cars of tomorrow. I doubt we will see commercially available cars fully powered by solar but they may be supplemented by solar

 

Extraordinary Costs Of Green Energy Creeping Slowly Into Public Awareness
October 09, 2023/ Francis Menton

• 
  A key claim of the green energy movement has long been that the intermittent “renewables” — wind and solar — provide the cheapest form of energy. Therefore, the advocates say, just build enough wind turbines and solar panels, convert all use of energy to electricity, and sit back and enjoy a future of affordable energy without adverse environmental consequences.
  
  
• Meanwhile a key theme at this blog has been exposing the incompetence and chicanery of the claims of low cost for electricity from wind and sun.
  
  
• Although it may often seem as if nobody is listening, I reassure myself that when the full costs of wind and solar electricity eventually get exposed, the people will catch on and not allow themselves to be impoverished.
  
  
• Over in Europe, it looks like enough of the costs have now gotten exposed to cause the beginning of a public awakening.
  

READ MORE

 

Oh! How sweet an opinion piece by an anonymous person on a known discredited site

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/

 

That's just more denial.

 

Ooh! Oooh! Oooh! Another blog - how predictable

 

Look again it is north just me that finds “Whatupmybutt” to be a conspiracy site with multiple failed fact-checks

 

Denial, repeated.

 

Yes I deny any rubbish based on “fake news” from a misinformation (astroturf) site
https://climatefeedback.org/outlet/watts-up-with-that/
I mean is an Ad Hom the best you have to “defend” your sources? That is the third citation I have posted proving “Whatsupmybutt” inaccuracy. This is on the same level as the claim there were no/are no campaigns of climate misinformation- I cited six sources - you cited ONE and then kept up with the ad Homs

 

Here is a research paper discussing WUWT

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10572252.2021.2019317

And your defence for quoting from the site is……….

 

The whole point in camping is to be isolated. Paved, gravel, or designated camping isn’t camping. If you see a charger at a camp site and you call that camping or hunting you have way different definitions than I do

 

WUWT needs no defense. Taylor and Francis, on the other hand . . . .

Taylor & Francis

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Taylor_&_Francis


Taylor & Francis Group is an international company originating in England that publishes books and academic journals. Its parts include Taylor & Francis, ...

". . . Taylor & Francis has faced criticism for its use of author licensing agreements,[38] and several of their journals have been criticized or retracted papers due to concerns over review and publishing practices.[39][40]

Journal protests
In 2013, the entire board of the Journal of Library Administration resigned in a dispute over author licensing agreements.[38]

Academic practices
In 2016, Critical Reviews in Toxicology was accused by the Center for Public Integrity of being a "broker of junk science".[41] Monsanto was found to have worked with an outside consulting firm to induce the journal to publish a biased review of the health effects of its product "Roundup".[42]

In 2017, Taylor & Francis was strongly criticized for removing the editor-in-chief of International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, who accepted articles critical of corporate interests. The company replaced the editor with a corporate consultant without consulting the editorial board.[43]

In 2017 as part of the Grievance studies affair hoax articles, the T&F journal Cogent Social Sciences accepted one of "The conceptual penis as a social construct" that had previously been rejected by another Taylor & Francis journal, Norma: International Journal for Masculinity Studies, which suggested the study would be a good fit for Cogent Social Sciences.[44][45] When the authors announced the hoax, the article was retracted.[46] In 2018, another Grievance studies affair article "Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon" was published in Gender, Place & Culture, which was also retracted later that year.[40][47]

In December 2018, the journal Dynamical Systems accepted the paper Saturation of Generalized Partially Hyperbolic Attractors only to have it retracted after publication due to the Iranian nationality of the authors. The European Mathematical Society condemned the retraction and later announced that Taylor & Francis had agreed to reverse the decision.[48] Previous instances of Taylor & Francis journals discriminating against Iranian authors were reported in 2013.[49][50]

In 2022 there has been much debate about the Accelerated Publication service offered by Taylor & Francis for some of its biomedical journals.[51] For $7,000, a scientist can expedite the peer review process and be published in as few as three weeks.[39]

Manipulation of bibliometrics
Self-citation is a practise that can inflate the seeming prestige of a journal or group. In 2020, six T&F journals that exhibited unusual levels of self-citation, and as a consequence their journal impact factor suspended from Journal Citation Reports.[52] An April 2022 article in the T&F journal Accountability in Research outlined some of the factors leading to consistent suspension from Journal Citation Reports.[53] . . . .

 

Maaaaaate when it comes to isolation we have MORE a than enough.

 

You have proven nothing other than that people who agree with you agree with you. And I have not posted a single ad hominem.
Your basic stumbling point is that you define "misinformation" as any view you don't like.
A similar failing is apparent in the Taylor & Francis paper you cited.

 

They are a publishing group like Wiley online or Random House or Springer. What you should be researching is the journal it was published in

 

Mate you just did


Look up the term ad hominem and get back to me when you can disprove what I have just proven about WUWT

 

If I'm going to follow any type of purpose built, real world useless vehicle, it'll be Top Fuel dragsters. 3-4 seconds of ear splitting, ground shaking power.

Not these boring things.

 

Fish rot from the head.

 

I won't be getting back to you because you haven't proven anything, or even raised a serious point.
It looks like I'm not the one who does not know what ad hominem means.