Typical Euros reinventing the mousetrap. Imagine the toll all that dirt, dust and grass clippings will take getting all though it and all the stuff that can go wrong. Wouldn't look all space age and flash for very long. The catcher is an insult on top of it. Try fixing it yourself when the buttons and controls wear out or bust and the electronics pack it in.
I'm sure it's a lovely gadget when new though.
Last edited by Mowerfreak; 15/10/2105:06 AM.
Ahh, if only victa had kept producing the thumblatch catcher series, they would be in better shape today!
Imagine sending in wildland fire fighters with a heavy battery pack that still would give no where near the run time of 1kg of mixed fuel.
The get out clause here is the bit about being 'so long as 2024 is "viable"' - but that being said it wouldn't be the first comprehensive stuff up by a government would it.
I generally do not like any outdoor power equipment with electric motors - the only situation I don't mind battery power in is a quality chainsaw. I have seen enough arborists struggling to start a Stihl arborist saw to gather that a battery would probably suit better.
But until I can get a quality used battery saw for under $20, I will stick with my old 12in GMC, 10in Ozito, and 16in Victa and Ryobi 4040
They will need to fire up a few nuclear plants before that can happen Max because wind and solar won't cut the mustard even without everybody switching to EV's
I already know of people that run their EV on their house solar system Norm, it doesn't cost them a dime to run their EV in electricity ,the tyres are another matter though $500. each for a Tesla tyre and they only last 30,000 km.
I already know of people that run their EV on their house solar system Norm, it doesn't cost them a dime to run their EV in electricity ,the tyres are another matter though $500. each for a Tesla tyre and they only last 30,000 km.
I kindly disagree about the zero cost. A solar system will have maintenance costs if nothing else. Even failed components that needs replacing costs the owner.
Every solar system does takes a considerable time to recoup the initial costs thru savings.
Hi Max, You could make it so you could run your EV off your solar system but you would have to either work night shift, be working from home or retired. You can't work a day job driving to and fro to work and keep it charged
I already know of people that run their EV on their house solar system Norm, it doesn't cost them a dime to run their EV in electricity ,the tyres are another matter though $500. each for a Tesla tyre and they only last 30,000 km.
I kindly disagree about the zero cost. A solar system will have maintenance costs if nothing else. Even failed components that needs replacing costs the owner.
Every solar system does takes a considerable time to recoup the initial costs thru savings.
If you look at it like they bought an EV then went out and bought solar then yes there will be considerable costs involved, I was looking at it like the people already have solar whether they have an EV or not.
Originally Posted by NormK
You could make it so you could run your EV off your solar system but you would have to either work night shift, be working from home or retired. You can't work a day job driving to and fro to work and keep it charged
The number of solar batteries installed continues to rise with 28,262 installations in 2024, an increase of 4.9% on 2023 numbers. Australia now boasts a total of 121,551, solar panel and battery units (hybrid systems), representing 3% of all solar owners.
If the solar system is set up with battery storage, you could potentially store the solar energy generated during the day and use it to charge the EV at night. This setup could mitigate the issues associated with daytime charging needs
It all depends on how many klicks you do in a week as you could always charge the EV on the weekend without a home battery for the solar.
With the Solid State batteries ,If you typically drive less than 1000 km during the week, charging on the weekend could be sufficient to cover your needs. You may not deplete the battery completely by the time the weekend comes.
There are also other ways to get around solar only working during the day and you can make power at night without using a battery.
When the sun is shining, solar panels generate electricity. If the solar panels produce more electricity than is needed, the extra power is used to pump water from a lower tank (reservoir) to a higher tank (reservoir). This process stores energy in the form of elevated water.
At Night:
When it gets dark and solar panels stop producing electricity, people still need power. The water stored in the higher tank is released back down to the lower tank. As the water flows down, it turns turbines (like water wheels), which are connected to a generator that produces electricity.
In simple terms, during the day, solar energy is used to pump water up a hill, and at night, that water flows back down to generate electricity when itβs needed!
Hi Max, I have solar and I can easily work out how much I pay for my power I use from the grid per year. For me to buy a battery for $10,000 it would take me 50 years just to get my money back and this will not save me 1 cent and I can assure you the battery will probably need replacing at least 5 times in that period so my $10,000 investment will have cost me $50,000 and at my current cost of power it will take me 250 years to get my money back with no interest paid. A very dud investment, the batteries at this stage are a total con
Yes again I was thinking more about the people who had batteries already and not about people going out to get a battery to charge their EV at night .Some people need to be off grid as it would cost more to connect power.
There are still other alternatives like charging your EV on the Weekend or use your solar during the day to make power at night.
Using electrolysis to produce hydrogen from solar energy during the day and then using that hydrogen to generate electricity at night is a feasible approach.
At the moment Max with technology where it is at it is way too costly to produce hydrogen for the thermal output you can get from it. Maybe in 20 years they may come with an answer but hydrogen in an economic form is a long way off.
Hi Max, Apparently there is some mob in WA who is talking about a 7000 hectare solar farm and so many thousand wind turbines in the hope they can make green hydrogen. Good luck with that
I never knew how many things they can use hydrogen for.
Hydrogen has a range of applications in various sectors, especially as the focus shifts toward cleaner energy solutions. Here are some of the main uses for hydrogen, particularly in the context of a large-scale hydrogen plant:
Hydrogen fuel cells are used in various modes of transportation, including buses, trucks, trains, and even ships. Hydrogen can power fuel cell vehicles (FCVs), providing a clean alternative to traditional fossil fuel-powered vehicles.
Industrial Processes: Hydrogen plays a crucial role in several industrial processes, especially in: Ammonia Production: Used as a feedstock for fertilizers. Refining: Hydrogen is used in petroleum refining processes, particularly in hydrotreating to remove sulfur from fuels. Steel Production: Hydrogen can replace coke in the reduction of iron ore to produce steel, significantly reducing CO2 emissions.
Power Generation: Hydrogen can be used in gas turbines to generate electricity, either as a blended fuel with natural gas or as a primary fuel. It can also play a role in grid stabilization when integrated into renewable energy systems.
Heating: Hydrogen can be used for heating in residential and commercial buildings, either through hydrogen boilers or by blending hydrogen with natural gas in existing gas networks.
Chemical Production: Beyond ammonia, hydrogen is used in producing methanol and other chemicals, contributing to various industrial applications.
Energy Storage: Hydrogen can serve as a means of seasonal energy storage. It allows for long-term storage of excess renewable energy, which can be converted back to electricity via fuel cells or combustion.
Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU): Hydrogen can be combined with CO2 to produce synthetic fuels or chemicals, playing a role in reducing carbon emissions.
Space Exploration: Hydrogen is used as a rocket fuel in the form of liquid hydrogen due to its high energy content and clean combustion.
Research and Development: Ongoing research is exploring new and innovative uses of hydrogen, including its role in synthetic fuel production and in other up-and-coming technologies.
Hydrogen Roadmap: Australia has invested in developing a "Hydrogen Roadmap," which outlines strategies for becoming a major player in the hydrogen industry, particularly in exporting green hydrogen.
Yes Norm, but it was a win win when the Hindenburg blew up as they worked out Hydrogen would be good for bombs, then later found that the hydrogen bomb has the potential to be 1,000 times more powerful than an atomic bomb.
What I never understood with the Hindenburg is that it didn't actually explode it just burned slowly as it floated to the ground. There may have been an initial explosion but it was the materials which burnt it to the ground
A person would hit the ground from the same height in 4 to 6 seconds the Hindenburg hit the ground in around 30 seconds Norm.
The time that it took from the first signs of disaster to the bow crashing to the ground is reported as 32, 34 or 37 seconds. Since none of the newsreel cameras were filming the airship when the fire first started, the time of the start can only be estimated from various eyewitness accounts and the duration of the longest footage of the crash. One analysis by NASA's Addison Bain gives the flame front spread rate across the fabric skin as about 49 ft/s (15 m/s) at some points during the crash, which would have resulted in a total destruction time of about 16 seconds.
The flames quickly spread forward first consuming cells 1 to 9, and the rear end of the structure imploded. Almost instantly, two tanks (it is disputed whether they contained water or fuel) burst out of the hull as a result of the shock of the blast. Buoyancy was lost on the stern of the ship, and the bow lurched upwards while the ship's back broke; the falling stern stayed in trim
