this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2025
5 points (100.0% liked)

Melbourne

2172 readers
40 users here now

This community is a place created for the people of Melbourne and Victoria. We are a positive, welcoming and inclusive community. We might not agree about everything, but we always strive to stay civil and respectful.

The focus of our discussions is based around things that affect Victoria, but we are also free to discuss our local perspective on wider issues. Or head to the regular Daily Random Discussion thread to talk about anything.

Full Community Guidelines

Ongoing discussions, FAQs & Resources (still under construction)

Adoption Certificate for Nellie, the Daily Thread numbat (with thanks to @Catfish)

Feedback & Suggestions

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
lodion@aussie.zone
RustyRaven@aussie.zone
briongloid@aussie.zone
bot001@aussie.zone
YarraByte@aussie.zone
5
Motorists able to lock in low petrol prices for 24 hours under Victoria’s new ‘fair fuel’ plan (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 6 months ago by Baku@aussie.zone to c/melbourne@aussie.zone
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Salvo@aussie.zone 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Baku@aussie.zone 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yep! Isn't it great?!?

[–] chis_r@aus.social 1 points 6 months ago

@Baku @Salvo It also means consumers have to rely on checking an app ahead of time, so it's simply another piece of admin that people will have to manage on top of everything else. Lovely!

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 points 6 months ago

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.

[–] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 1 points 6 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] Baku@aussie.zone 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] Baku@aussie.zone 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Salvo@aussie.zone 1 points 6 months ago

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.

[–] Salvo@aussie.zone 3 points 6 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Salvo@aussie.zone 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] kudra@aus.social 2 points 6 months ago

@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.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 6 months ago

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.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

EVs powered entirely by black coal are still more efficient than ICE cars

[–] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

And it adds to microplastics by putting even more wear on tyres due to the extra weight of the battery.

[–] Salvo@aussie.zone 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] kudra@aus.social 1 points 6 months ago

@Salvo @Deceptichum my #minicabMiEV weighs about half the average ICE ute, it also has tiny light commercial tyres. So choice of EV matters.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

For me anything that helps ev car drivers is bad as it inadvertently encourages less people to take PT’s.

[–] kudra@aus.social 1 points 6 months ago

@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 name EV drivers are pretty pro-bike and pro-PT, they aren't mutually exclusive.