They should force fuel prices to be locked for 7 days. Changing it on a daily basis is bullshit.
Removed by mod
For me anything that helps out petrol car drivers is bad as it inadvertently encourages less people to move to EV’s
but good for people who still drive petrol drinkers
I get what you’re saying, but by the same logic, anything that encourages adoption of EVs (or continued use of petrol/diesel vehicles) is bad because it ultimately encourages less people to just use PT
Walking to a train station and then hopping on an electric train filled with a few hundred other people is probably the lowest CO2 way of travelling, besides pure walking cycling
I get what you’re saying, but by the same logic, anything that encourages adoption of EVs (or continued use of petrol/diesel vehicles) is bad because it ultimately encourages less people to just use PT
I’m not necessarily encouraging adoption of EV’s but I’m definitely against making petrol cars cheaper to run… although I do argue for far cheaper electricity rates which will increase EV adoption and ultimately reduce co2 which is my ultimate goal
I’m also not 100% sure encouraging people to use PT has any effect, people use cars because they allow you to go to anywhere you want at any time of the day or night or public holidays or unions in sydney striking etc right from your front door, PT cannot compete with this especially in Australia where everything is so far apart
You can encourage it but I think there are limits on how far it can go without changing our cities completely around and by that point there’s not much need to encourage, people will give up their cars ev or ice willingly
Yeah, I do agree. That’s not really my stance, but just following the logic, it doesn’t make a lot of sense
The PT argument is a whole other kettle of fish, and there’ll always be a need for private cars in the society we live in, but the argument could definitely be made that if we didn’t encourage adoption of EVs, or continued use of ICE vehicles, and actively disincentivised driving, more people might cycle, walk, and catch PT around
I don’t see any mass migration to PT without the infra changes along with it, Brisbane doesn’t even have a cheap train to the airport and when I have to catch a train to the city for work my trip time doubles compared to my motorbike and I still have to use my car to get to the station… and that’s assuming I’m not 1 minute late and miss the train so then you have to add another 30 minute wait in :( … but at least we are getting some improvements with cross river rail.
At the moment the best bet that I can see to reduce co2 emissions is to encourage EV adoption because at least it is something familiar to people and until the infra changes required to make the place a ‘15 minute city’ come along it’s the best chance we have to reduce co2.
This doesn’t sound like a problem with PT -per se-, it sounds more like a problem with PT infrastructure Melbourne doesn’t have a train to the Airport either (currently) and all attempts are receiving severe political roadblocks.
Melbourne does have regular radial public transport to the CBD during peak times and the potential to have regular public transport during regular times.
Melbourne does need more connective public transport, we do have an adequate bus network, but due to congestion, it is unreliable during peak traffic times. The Suburban Rail Loop (if it gets finished before the next change of government) will be a good start, but more outer suburban lines (Frankston-Dandenong-Ringwood) would also be of benefit.
Just remember, when you are stuck in traffic, you are the traffic that you are stuck in.
The only EVs that are better for the environment than ICE are shared EVs (like Trains, Trams and Electric Buses) and ultralight EVs (like e-bikes and cargo e-bikes).
Driving a Lithium battery EV full-sized car is just shifting the environmental damage to different locations and cost centres.
Nah. Any EV is definitely better than ICE. It’s just a very small improvement over ICE compared to public and active transport. It’s like…if ICE is a 10, EV is a 9, a train is a 4, and a bike is a 2.
It depends a lot on vehicle longevity. An EV, PHEV or even a hybrid all have batteries that degrade within (or more likely just after the expiration of) the warranty period. They batteries are often more than the car is worth. A pure ICE vehicle should keep running for decades after the warranty period has expired, as long as it is maintained to the minimum standard.
Both Toyota and Porsche claim that EVs are a WOFTAM because their vehicles typically have “infinite” lifespans, (For very small values of “infinite” 😉)
Lately, manufacturers are heading away from this mindset because it is much more profitable to sell EVs with engineered obsolescence, forcing punters to buy a new car as soon as the warranty expires.
@Salvo @Zagorath EV batteries so far are generally outlasting the expected/rated lifespans significantly. Yes, the range reduces and first gen EVs have more marked range reduction, but batteries can be replaced and the old battery repurposed as a stationary home battery or similar for a significant period before ultimately being recycled.
Yep those OG passively/air cooled batteries really have done a dent in the reputation for battery lifespan, hopefully over the next 10 years as more people understand that we’ve been on actively/water cooled batteries for like 10 years now that the lifespan degradation is much slower
7 year old EV with just 24KM range loss
EV’s have come a long way in a very short time, just like how big of an impact solar is having some people haven’t kept up
Both Toyota and Porsche claim that EVs are a WOFTAM
Not sure about Porsche, but Toyota made a business decision to invest in hydrogen, and so has a financial interest in downplaying batteries.
EVs powered entirely by black coal are still more efficient than ICE cars
It reduces co2 output and for me that’s the most important thing at the moment especially here in Australia where everything is built around cars
And it adds to microplastics by putting even more wear on tyres due to the extra weight of the battery.
due to the extra weight of the battery.
They’re working on it:
SAIC-owned IM Motors currently offers its L6 saloon with a semi-solid-state battery – a halfway house to a full-solid-state battery that uses a more viscous, gel-like electrolyte than the liquid in a lithium ion cell.
This pack allows an extra 33kWh of battery capacity to be crammed into the same space as an equivalent lithium ion pack. That equates to a 28% improvement in the car’s range to a total of 621 miles (1000KM), according to Chinese homologation testing.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/technology/solid-state-battery-round-2025-be-decisive-year
At 1000KM of range we are already within the space of 10 years of EV’s hitting the mainstream reaching beyond what petrol cars can do which will allow for smaller batteries that are lighter for cars, and that’s with a semi-solid state battery, not a full one!
In addition to the weight reduction they’re also working on reducing the amount of critical minerals in batteries and reducing the chance of fire and increasing the range and improving the charge times.
Different models of EV wear tyres at different rates, but you are correct that on average, EVs chew through tyres at a much higher rate than comparative ICE vehicles.
Also, while low profile tyres reduce the unsprung weight of a vehicle, they are much more prone to damage than vehicles with relatively smaller rims. While you may save fuel/energy on paper, all it takes is one irreparable puncture to have a much higher environmental impact.
@Salvo @Deceptichum my #minicabMiEV weighs about half the average ICE ute, it also has tiny light commercial tyres. So choice of EV matters.
For me anything that helps ev car drivers is bad as it inadvertently encourages less people to take PT’s.
@Deceptichum @Eyekaytee I drive my EV to and from the city from rural Victoria where PT is half an hour drive from my home, park it and take PT around town, or ebike. You may find many EV drivers are pretty pro-bike and pro-PT, they aren’t mutually exclusive.
I’m sure that this will mean that instead of fuel prices being inflated on the Friday Morning before a long weekend, they will be inflated on the Thursday Morning before a long weekend.
This will mean that that those people who fill up on Payday will be paying the inflated price, even if they are organised and plan ahead.
Everyone gets paid on different days. Those filing up on pay day may or may not have already had to pay the inflated price depends on the day they get paid.
Am I the only one who just fills up whenever the tank is almost empty instead of on some kind of set schedule?
Nah I’m the same. I cbf minmaxing an hour of my time to save $5 at the pump.
You are right, but the greater majority of people who are sensitive to fluctuating petrol prices are either PAYE employees and get paid on Wednesday or Thursday or living off government payments, which are also paid on Thursdays.
People who are Salaried are more likely to have a company car or company fuel card, which means that they are not affected by fuel price fluctuations.
Yep! Isn’t it great?!?
