Remove this Banner Ad

Bye Bye GM & Toyota Pie

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

By fluke this morning I happened to catch Ockham's razor when my alarm went off too early and I'd left my clock radio on Radio National from the other day.

No More Range Anxiety

Robyn Williams: Now, without being unkind about Holden and their 140,000 jobs, or is it 200,000 jobs that might go, isn’t this yet another example of Australia sticking to the 19th century technology? I know the car is early 20th century, but the basic model is late 19th: oil, spark, burn – move. And in this past week we’ve seen countless examples of what might be instead: from 3D printed cars (you may have seen them on 60 Minutes (yes, print your own car and cross Australia), cars that drive themselves and cars made out of carbon fibre, produced in Geelong, Victoria. Yes, it is the 20th century but Australia is still digging coal, dredging ports off the Great Barrier Reef and exploring yet more ways perhaps to go backwards.
So what does Alan Finkel think? He’s our ultimate techo, Chancellor of Monash University, President of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering and someone who’s run his own successful engineering company.

Alan Finkel: I admit it. I love technology, especially if it involves electronics.
All my life I’ve either been a hobbyist, or a professional electronics engineer. Even when I shifted disciplines from electronics to neuroscience, it was only because I learned that brain cells act like tiny electronic circuits. The scale of my activities changed a few years ago when I joined an electric car company as the chief technology officer. Yes, I was still working with electricity, but instead of dealing with nano amps and micro volts in brain cells, I was dealing withdozens of amps and hundreds of volts to charge electric cars. I passionately believe in the future of electric cars. I know that future drivers born today will take them for granted, yet sales so far have been woefully slow.

The truth is, there is a problem.

I used to drive an electric motor bike. It was terrific, but it only had a 30 kilometre range so I had to monitor the battery gauge all the time. Most days, I avoided taking it out for fear that I would run out of battery before the end of the day. Now I own a Nissan Leaf, a fantastic, pure electric car. But although I can get away without charging it every night, I diligently keep my eye on the remaining range in a way that I never do in a petrol car. This fear of running out is known as range anxiety, manifesting itself as the panicky concern that you will be stuck on the freeway with zero charge in the battery and no way to get home other than a ride in a tow truck.

However, finally, in August BMW launched the i3, a car that heralds a new era. It is the first electric car to eliminate range anxiety. The BMW i3 is an electric car with state of the art specifications: a 150 kilometre range on a single charge, a 125 kilowatt motor, 0 to 100 kilometres per hour in 7 seconds, comfort, class and safety. Most of the publicity focuses on this being the first production car in the world with a carbon fibre reinforced polymer body. This is indeed remarkable, and puts this car into the same category as the world’s most modern aeroplanes. However, after touching the panels and inhaling that special smell of the interior of a brand new car, you won’t care whether the body is made out of steel, aluminium, carbon fibre or chewing gum. All you will care about is performance, comfort and ease of mind.

The actual game-changing breakthrough is that the BMW i3 is available with an optional auxiliary power unit that converts it, when needed, from a pure electric car into a series hybrid electric car. We’ve all heard of hybrids. Hybrid vehicles such as the Toyota Prius, the Honda Civic, the Chevy Volt and indeed my previous car, the Lexus GS 450h, are popular. What distinguishes the BMW i3 from these is that the BMW i3 is a series hybrid whereas the others are parallel hybrids.


In a parallel hybrid the wheels are sometimes powered from the electric motor, sometimes from the petrol engine and sometimes from both. Each of the electric motor and the petrol engine has to be full strength, and their outputs are blended by sophisticated gearboxes that add to the price, weight and complexity of the vehicle. For these reasons, good as they are, parallel hybrids are a transitional technology. Whether it is ten years from now, or twenty years from now, they’ll be phased out of existence. The series hybrid is much simpler. Unlike the parallel hybrid, in a series hybrid, the wheels of the car are always driven by the electric motor, nothing else. The separate auxiliary power unit is a combination of a petrol tank, a small petrol engine and a generator. When the battery falls below a certain level, the auxiliary power unit automatically kicks in and starts charging the battery. Now you can finish your journey and get home from wherever you are.

There are other ways that have been developed to overcome range anxiety, but none has been successful. The first and most basic means is to simply ensure that you don’t drive the electric car beyond its rated range in the first place. Most production electric cars have a range of about 150 kilometres, which is without doubt enough for normal city driving given that you can plug in every night. But it’s inadequate for weekend trips to the snow fields or the wineries.


The California car company, Tesla Motors, gives its cars a battery weighing more than half a tonne to provide an incredible 450 kilometre range, but this adds greatly to the price of the vehicle, and even then does not get you from Melbourne to Sydney.

The second solution is to swap the battery. The principle is that you drive your car into a battery exchange station and three minutes later drive out with a fully charged battery that just happens to be a different one.

Wonderful as this sounds, it’s not commercially practical because car manufacturers regard the battery as a key component of the performance, safety and weight balance of their vehicles. Therefore, they have no interest in using standard designs upon which a battery exchange station would rely.

A third approach is to use powerful ‘quick charging’ that enables the battery to be recharged in about an hour. Good, but not nearly as fast as filling up with petrol.
As you can see, these alternatives all have limitations. In my opinion, the only viable way to eliminate range anxiety is the series hybrid configuration that liberates the BMW i3. The beauty is the simplicity. There are no gearboxes, no duplicate engines nor any other mechanical components outside the auxiliary power unit. The auxiliary power unit itself doesn’t have to be hefty. Consider that the BMW i3 only needs its peak output power of 125 kilowatts briefly, when it is accelerating rapidly or when climbing a steep mountain road. The rest of the time it is operating at a tiny fraction of that power, with the average power over the course of a drive being 20 kW or less.


Therefore, if the battery runs low and the auxiliary power unit switches on, it only has to deliver 20 kilowatts of electricity to the battery. For this reason, the petrol motor inside the auxiliary power unit can be small and extremely efficient because it runs at a constant speed into a constant load. In normal daily driving, the BMW i3 operates in pure electric mode, topped up each night at home.

The auxiliary power unit lies dormant for weeks or months on end, activating rarely such as during that infrequent trip to Sydney. But knowing that the auxiliary power unit is there completely eliminates range anxiety.

Consider one last thing – cost of ownership. Let’s say that like me, you would like to reduce your carbon footprint. You can invest in solar panels, or you can invest in an electric car. In the absence of subsidies solar panels would be an expensive purchase that you never planned when you were growing up. On the other hand, you always hoped to buy a new car every now and then, so why not make it an electric car? Looked at this way, buying an electric car is a budgeted expense, not an expensive extra. With time, the price differential between electric cars and conventional cars will become vanishingly small. So you will be paying no more for your environmentally friendly electric car than for your environmentally unfriendly conventional car. Some forecasters predict that electric cars will actually become cheaper than their petrol predecessors.

“Wait,” you might say, “what about the resale value of my electric car?” Good question. After a few years of ownership the battery is bound to lose some of its driving range, which might discourage the next purchaser. It would not be much good to eliminate range anxiety only to have it replaced with resale anxiety. Fortunately, with a series hybrid electric car, that’s not the case. If the prospective purchaser of your electric car knows that there is an auxiliary power unit installed, a slight reduction in battery range simply doesn’t matter. Your resale price will be preserved.

Till now, range anxiety counterbalanced the manifest advantages of electric cars, such as responsive performance, smoothness, quietness and low carbon-dioxide emissions. Now that range anxiety has been eliminated, you can enjoy, without qualification, all of the benefits of electric driving.
The commentators of today have not yet realized it, but historians will mark the BMW i3 series-hybrid electric car as the game-changing breakthrough that heralds the beginning of a new era of electric driving.
 
Reading this thread I'm thankful none of you are making a decision on where to spend our tax dollars next. There's some good ideas no doubt but it's a fairly reality free zone in here. Robyn Williams would be in full Abbott government blame mode wouldn't he? Nice job loss figures he was spouting there.
 
I'm sorry there's no statesman-like figures in politics; our leaders are lacking, proper foresight and vision to get this country going with national building. It's sad the only thing that's happening in politics is our national debt is on the way up and up.

KT for PM if he's inclined.
 
I'm sorry there's no statesman-like figures in politics; our leaders are lacking, proper foresight and vision to get this country going with national building. It's sad the only thing that's happening in politics is our national debt is on the way up and up.

KT for PM if he's inclined.

DON'T forget we have to STOP THE BOATS.

The BOAT's is the most important issue in Australian politics for the last 15 years. The boats the BOATS.

I said to Mel on the way to work today, for 60 years boats have been coming, in the beginning they were respected because they work hard. Now they aren't respected because they work hard but make lazy Australian's look bad. (I know there some issue's needing to be addressed with boat people) Governments play politics by distracting people about boat people when there are so many more extreme issues. IMO
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

DON'T forget we have to STOP THE BOATS.

The BOAT's is the most important issue in Australian politics for the last 15 years. The boats the BOATS.

I said to Mel on the way to work today, for 60 years boats have been coming, in the beginning they were respected because they work hard. Now they aren't respected because they work hard but make lazy Australian's look bad. (I know there some issue's needing to be addressed with boat people) Governments play politics by distracting people about boat people when there are so many more extreme issues. IMO


The boat people coming here is not that simple, it was fixed but then the last government broke it. Now it's well on it's way to being fixed again but we are still incurring massive costs in administering the thousands of people that we are working out what to do with as well as the biggest cost of all in lost lives which is still occurring. Boat people don't work, was it 90% of the rent seekers these days are still unemployed after 5 years whilst guaranteed free dental, health, subsidised and priority housing etc why would you work? It's not a distraction when it's a massive issue costing us billions in our taxes and killing thousands of people for a problem which was solved.
 
Plenty of illegal boats in the 1700's and 1800's. They built a nation.

The current pm and last one were pommy ( ok welsh in julia's case) boat people.
 
It can be argue'd population growth create's a healthier economy.

" Boat people don't work, was it 90% of the rent seekers these days are still unemployed after 5 years whilst guaranteed free dental, health, subsidised and priority housing etc why would you work?"

Personally I believe that is a complete urban myth and non truth unless there is some credible statistics to support this.
 
FishingRick04, you can just go onto the immigration website and look at the stats yourself. After 5 years 90% of Afghan asylum seekers are unemployed, it's not much better for the other main groups that we have been getting since the laws were changed. You can believe it's an urban myth all you want but it doesn't sound like you've ever bothered to check rather just tell everyone they must be wrong.
 
Good to see the private sector company in WA is trying to harness tidal power. Their contraption is different to the one I suggested but it sits on the bottom of the ocean and is 5km offshore from Rockingham. Watch 2 minute video at ABC news

Construction starts on world's first wave energy farm

Perth-based company, Carnegie Energy, has started building the world's first wave energy farm off the West Australian coast.
 
FishingRick04, you can just go onto the immigration website and look at the stats yourself. After 5 years 90% of Afghan asylum seekers are unemployed, it's not much better for the other main groups that we have been getting since the laws were changed. You can believe it's an urban myth all you want but it doesn't sound like you've ever bothered to check rather just tell everyone they must be wrong.

I'm not saying your wrong, but feel free to find me the link and cut it into here.
 
Asylum seekers are on bridging visas which have stringent conditions around employment, including no access to employment. Asylum seekers who arrived in Australia by boat on or after 13 August 2012 and are granted bridging visas are not permitted to work.
 
As for the myth of this guaranteed unlimited support:

Australian Human Rights Commission


4. What support is available for asylum seekers on bridging visas?

Asylum seekers who are granted bridging visas are not eligible for social security payments through Centrelink and are not provided with public housing.
Asylum seekers may be provided with support to help them with the initial transition from immigration detention to living in the community. This might include financial assistance to help with basic living expenses (at 89% of the Centrelink Special Benefit rate), short-term emergency accommodation, and community orientation.[1] This transitional support is only available for six weeks.
Following this, some asylum seekers experiencing financial hardship may be eligible for assistance under the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme (ASAS) while their immigration status is being resolved.[2] To qualify they must have been waiting for a decision about their protection visa application for at least six months or must meet certain vulnerability criteria.[3] Under the ASAS, asylum seekers may be eligible to receive financial assistance to help with basic living expenses (at 89% of the Centrelink Special Benefit rate).
Alternatively, asylum seekers who are particularly vulnerable due to exceptional circumstances, and have no access to other support or assistance in the community, may be eligible for the Community Assistance Support (CAS) program.[4] The CAS program helps asylum seekers to meet their basic health and welfare needs by providing assistance which may include complex casework support, financial assistance to help with basic living expenses (at 89% of the Centrelink Special Benefit rate), rent assistance (at 89% of the Centrelink Rent Assistance rate) and assistance with essential medical expenses.
Under the ASAS and the CAS, the Australian Red Cross may also provide eligible asylum seekers with referrals to health services, counselling, accommodation, clothing and furniture, education, legal services and social support.
All asylum seekers granted bridging visas are eligible for Medicare.
Australian Human Rights Commission
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Geez they are lucky, they get all the breaks, sounds like they can't even take the jobs of those Australians who don't want to work anyway.
 
And even if asylum seekers are on a bridging visa with employment or have an exemption to work, because their status is temporary and subject to sudden change, who is going to employ them? They would get the most menial jobs, especially if their language skills are poor and they are unskilled.

To single this group out as somehow rorting the system is absurd. There are much better examples among Australian citizenry.
 
Except the stats are for asylum seekers with claims approved so that's when they can dive into the honey pot of gold they were after. Obviously they are completely screwed under the new government at all times so won't have a chance of getting a job or benefits.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

And why do you think the premiums needed to be increased? Let me put it in Leigh Whicker terms, less people = less pie, thanks Labor. I would hazard a guess the raise in claims would be people making the most of their cover before they cancelled it.
 
Except the stats are for asylum seekers with claims approved so that's when they can dive into the honey pot of gold they were after. Obviously they are completely screwed under the new government at all times so won't have a chance of getting a job or benefits.

Do you actually know what group you are talking about? Are you now referring to refugees, not asylum seekers? Do you mean asylum seekers with a bridging visa that allows employment? Do you have a link to the stats you claim are on the now aptly named Dept of Immigration and Border Protection website? Or are you referring to a report released 3 years ago?

And why do you think the premiums needed to be increased? Let me put it in Leigh Whicker terms, less people = less pie, thanks Labor. I would hazard a guess the raise in claims would be people making the most of their cover before they cancelled it.

The only justification I have seen for yet another > CPI increase to private health insurance which is already subsidised by public monies is that claims increased more than expected. So what do you mean less people? Do you have a link to that assertion?
 
Just on health insurance premiums the trend has been for the premiums to increase well above the CPI, but it does pay to shop around. Last 6 month premium quote (21/4/2013) on the top cover from Medibank Private was $1,943.30. Shopped around and with 10% RAA member discount we changed to top cover HCF 6 months premium which was $1,193.85. You pay about $50-$60 more per visit at the dentist, but we're still much better off with the lower premium especially as the health insurance is hardly used.

Heath insurance rises against CPI, someone's telling some pork pies.
premium+rise+chart3.PNG
 
Medical science knowledge is doubling every 5 years for the last 30 years. That means everything that has been learnt in the last 5 years, is more than we have learnt in the previous 10,000 years put together and then everything that will be learnt between 1.1.2014 - 31.12.2018 is more than the 10,000 years before 1.1.2014.

ie 2 to the power 6 = 64 is more than 2 to the power of 5 + 2 to the power of 4 + 2 to the power of 3 + 2 to the power of 2 + 2 to the power of 1.

ie 2+4+8+16+32 = 62, 2 to the power 6 = 64. Then 2 to the power of 7 = 128 whereas 2+4+8+16+32+64 = 126.

Someone has to pay for all that knowledge expansion and then that information transfer, the new tests, new examinations etc being put into practice. Then there is the fear of litigation so any new test that might be relevant is used....just in case. That's why healthcare CPI will be 2 to 4 times more than general CPI.

Within the first hour of my first professional job after Uni I was given an introduction to what Touche Ross did in Australia and what it did world wide. The head of management consulting division talked about how big they were in healthcare in the USA and how they wanted to get bigger in Oz because the share of the healthcare industry in Oz is growing. He said the USA healthcare industry was 14-16% of the USA economy and in Oz it was 8-9% of the economy depending on what you count as healthcare. Over 25 years later, in the USA the healthcare industry is 16-17% of the economy and in Oz its now 11-12% of the economy. Its a juggernaut and as we get wealthier, we spend more on healthcare and we demand more and world class services as we expect to fight off every disease. As I said earlier someone has to pay for this, and it's time politicians stop throwing money at the system to just buy votes and actually plan for this exponential growth.
 
Immigration
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/settlement-outcomes-new-arrivals.pdf

So people on private health shouldn't get any public money towards their healthcare? Could you imagine the cost if everyone who was on private now went public? So you want to punish the private health people because they also receive some of their taxes back towards their own healthcare whilst they actually are saving everyone cash. They are also generally unable to avoid getting private health as due to the medicare levy surcharge you get forced onto it, now with the threshold introduced by labor it's pushed people back into public which means less pie to go around. Medical costs aren't arbitrary, I would think one of the main drivers pushing up the increases is the medical insurances costs for all aspects of the health system which flow through to the end point which is us the consumers.
 
Immigration
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/settlement-outcomes-new-arrivals.pdf

So people on private health shouldn't get any public money towards their healthcare? Could you imagine the cost if everyone who was on private now went public? So you want to punish the private health people because they also receive some of their taxes back towards their own healthcare whilst they actually are saving everyone cash. They are also generally unable to avoid getting private health as due to the medicare levy surcharge you get forced onto it, now with the threshold introduced by labor it's pushed people back into public which means less pie to go around. Medical costs aren't arbitrary, I would think one of the main drivers pushing up the increases is the medical insurances costs for all aspects of the health system which flow through to the end point which is us the consumers.

ok so that's the 2011 survey of humanitarian entrants to Australia. This found:


While Humanitarian entrants are less likely to be working compared with other streams, they are far more likely to be studying full-time, studying and working or studying and looking after their families. Given that we are exploring only the first five years of settlement in this study, this is not a surprising result as many Humanitarian entrants are strongly focused on creating a new life, and studying for a qualification is an important step in this journey. As outlined in chart 11earlier, after 4 years living in Australia, around 40% of Humanitarian entrants have a job of some type.

Given 75% of new arrivals aged 18yo+ have a high school education level or lower, it is not surprising they head into education attainment. Hardly the leap into the honeypot of welfare you are portraying. And how are asylum seekers screwed under this new government? This new government is still taking in 20,000 humanitarian refugees as per Labor's agreement under the Gillard government. All this government is doing is continuing Labor's resumption of the Pacific Solution recommenced by Gillard and finalised in the dying days of Chez Rudd to 'stop the boats'. The ridiculous thing is over 90% of boat arrivals once processed are found to be legitimate refugees but will not be resettled in Australia.

And I don't see a link to support your assertion about the increase in private health insurance being related to a decrease in numbers of people taking up PHI. It's ok, the Health Minister only has vague assertions for the biggest PHI increase in nearly 10 years.

Health insurance soars

Mr Dutton blamed an 8 per cent increase in overall payouts by funds this year for the sharp rise. He said the former government should also be held responsible, noting health insurers had been ''constantly under attack''.

''There is no doubt this increase could have been lower had it not been for the pressures placed on the sector by Labor,'' he said in a statement. However, Mr Dutton declined a request for an interview to explain those pressures.
Health insurance soars

The government subsidises the private health industry massively and many health experts are warning that this will have painful ramifications for the public health system. John Menadue is one of the most experienced and respected health advocates in Australia and sums the case up succinctly:

John Menadue
Many business economists continue to criticise the previous government and possibly the current one over the government subsidy of $10 billion over seven years for the auto industry. But that subsidy is small beer.

The government subsidy to the private health insurance industry (PHI) has been $30 billion plus, over seven years. This year the government will provide $7 billion for the private health insurance industry. $5.6 billion will be in a direct subsidy to the industry. There will be another $1.4 billion in income tax foregone by the Commonwealth Government.

That $30 billion is a mega-subsidy which the rent-seekers in the PHI industry defend against all comers. Unlike the auto industry PHI does not provide any product at all. PHI is made up of financial intermediaries that shuffle money from one place to another.

Australia is paying an enormous price for these high cost financial intermediaries whose major attraction is to help provide wealthier people an opportunity to jump the hospital queue.

PHI is inefficient with administrative costs about three times higher than Medicare. The subsidy has not taken pressure off public hospitals. Private gap insurance has facilitated enormous increases in specialist fees. Most importantly, the expansion of PHI progressively weakens the ability of Medicare to control costs. The evidence world-wide is clear that countries with significant PHI have high costs. The stand-out example is the US. President Obama may have substantially achieved universal coverage, but private health insurance in the US with its lack of cost control will ultimately cripple and finally destroy his reforms. Warren Buffett has described private health insurance companies as the “tape worm” in the US health sector. Yet the Australian Government generously subsidises this industry in Australia.
John Menadue

For more detail see Subsidised private health insurance is bad policy.

Neither of these are party political arguments. Labor reintroduced the Pacific Solution over the final stages of Gillard then Rudd government. Labor continued the PHI subsidies introduced by the Howard government.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom