Arguments for/against Promoting Electric Vehicles

Transport
61

A subsidy may redirect consumption, and a well designed subsidy will redirect it in favour of social good. Many of the overseas subsidies helped develop the charging stations you refer to, and Australia is lacking that infrastructure largely because of the absence of that initial Government support.

At the end of the day, any relative subsidies to electric vehicles are piffle in the scheme of subsidies to motorists. Any motorist who drives on a road that is not a toll road reaps the benefit of government funded infrastructure.

1 Like
62

where do these people think they get their electricity for their cars from? from the two biggest polluters like the wind and solar or the battery that doesn’t even existed as yet
 how pathetic 


63

How does wind and solar pollute?

1 Like
64

My apologies. I didn’t recognise it as the first one was the republish on the ABC

2 Likes
65

Normally Discourse (the forum software used by Choice) would pick that up automatically and warn you - however evidently its test for “duplicate link” is by URL rather than by content (and a content test in this case would probably not have worked anyway).

2 Likes
66

Can you explain what you even mean by “pollution”?

Some people (yes, for propaganda purposes) use the word “pollution” to refer to “CO2 emissions” whereas historically it would have had other meanings (other chemical substances). So what chemical substance(s) are you referring to?

I think it is fairly difficult (read: not credible) to argue that fossil fuel vehicles do not produce pollution. For example: Diesel exhaust - Wikipedia coughcarcinogencough

Well, um, some people charge their cars from PV panels on the roof and other people charge from the grid and the grid may be electricity from a range of sources or a choice of sources. So there is no single answer to that.

Say what now?

2 Likes
67

Hmm. As to the arguments about subsidies, I feel that some who call for that are seeking to ape say European countries’ economic or environmental policies. But that IMHO, ignores reality: unlike say France or Sweden or Switzerland, geologically we are closer far closer to Saudi Arabia or Venezuela or Kuwait. We have the gifts of plenty of fossil fuels. Surely it makes more sense to manage those resources perhaps better than we have to date rather than throw them aside on the expectation that someone in some university or think tank claims to know how best to drive us towards alternative fuel sources, which it is hoped, will one day be cost competitive with fossil fuels.

1 Like
68

I think you are saying there is one set of rules for those who have fossil fuel resources - keep burning cause you can - and another for those who don’t. Those who don’t have no choice as so they may as well make a virtue of necessity and not burn. This completely omits any consideration of the reason why burning or not might be problem. So you have moved away from the question of should our government pick winners towards should we take any action about pollution and climate change at all.

Your comparison with Saudi Arabia is quite accurate. They are going to make every dollar they can out of oil and (so far) Oz is going to make every dollar out of coal and gas. Which leads to the next matter.

Renewables are already competitive with FF in power generation, no energy company will build more coal fired power stations in Oz as they will lose them money, look at the rush for privately funded solar and wind farms and the absence of new coal plants.

EVs are not mature technology yet. When petrol powered cars were first on the roads they were much more expensive than the horses they were replacing. It will take time for EVs to catch up. If you say we ought to allow the market to take its course then you are accepting that there is no urgency and if it takes 50 years that will be OK. I don’t think we have that long to act.

5 Likes
69

It doesn’t matter whether it is cost competitive. If someone gave you the choice of two drinks, one that is going to kill you but costs only 10c and another that is safe to drink but costs $1, which would you choose? You going to stick with the 10c drink until the safe drink comes down in price towards 10c? :wink:

I take your point that each country has to make its own decisions, taking into account all the conditions in that one country.

Is that really true though in the context of promoting, or not, electric vehicles? Taking the fossil fuel alternatives as being either petrol or diesel, we are reliant on imports of crude oil, are using taxpayer money to prop up domestic refining capacity, 


The great white hope of gas-powered cars has not materialised. The NRMA says “automotive LPG sales [
] now account for just two per cent of total automotive fuels sold in Australia”. If anything, that is a cautionary tale about the government picking winners, and about the potential for ending up with an orphaned vehicle. (Are people doing LPG anti-conversions these days?)

I’m pretty sure that noone is powering her car with coal. :wink: (While it may be possible to do coal gasification, and use the product directly in a modified car engine, or perform further reactions in order to produce a conventional car fuel, I don’t know that anyone is actually doing it commercially in Australia for car use.)

Anyone who believes that CO2 emissions from combusting fossil fuels are causing change to the climate simply doesn’t see a future in any fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas) for cars. It’s a question of when those fuels disappear from use in cars. It’s a question of whether affected companies want to shape the future or let it happen to them.

6 Likes
70

If you think that renewables are subsidised, it might surprise you to know that approximately $12 Billion iin Government subsidies goes to Australian fossil fuel industries . Subsidies and assistance are given to fossil fuel related businesses at all levels; such as extraction, refinement, distribution, export, etc, etc.

If fossil fuels weren’t subsidised and supported to the extent that they are, they would be significantly more expensive than renewables.

3 Likes
71

The biggest “subsidy” is that they are allowed to be used at all without paying for the externality (climate change).

6 Likes
72

In the above article, the lack of a carbon price is mentioned:
University of Queensland professor of economics John Quiggin adopted a broader definition of “subsidy”, more closely aligned with the IMF report.

“By far the most important subsidy of the fossil-fuel industry is the absence of a carbon price,” he says.

7 Likes
73

This may negate any arguements as it appears that ICE vehicle will very shortly become extinct.

3 Likes
74

Some caution is needed as that claim appears to be coming from ICE manufacturers i.e. there could be an element of scaremongering and/or exaggeration.

It is also unclear whether the standards apply to use in the EU or to manufacture in the EU. In the former case, a company could still manufacture for export.

Quite a few EU countries have already scheduled to do this voluntarily anyway. So a “ban” would extend it to the rest of the EU but not change the situation in many of the big players.

We also need to see the fine print to understand whether the EU regulation would apply to all vehicles or only to private use cars or something in between.

Regardless, other commentators have suggested that Australia could become a dumping ground for ICE cars. Might be able to pick up an affordable Beamer. :wink:

2 Likes
75

But will the fuel be affordable?

The possibilities, not yet economically proven exist to produce hydrocarbon fuels that are offset in some way. Biofuel, sequestration offsets for traditional sources, or several options to synthesise fuel using captured (*reclaimed) carbon.

The outcome might please a number of motorists and bike riders with carefully tuned ears and feelings about exhaust notes. The practicality may be mute, considering the future road rules will likely ban non AI-autonomous vehicles from all our main roads. IE removing driver input to all control of the loud pedal, acceleration and rear end rumbling from our roads forever!

It’s difficult to see any future beyond an Aussie boom in ICE car compaction.

Note:
‘*Reclaimed carbon - a nod to how the gas powered future might spin how good synthesised fuels are.

2 Likes
76

(not taking my comment too seriously but) Maybe. With a global collapse in demand for ICE engines, perhaps there will be a global collapse in demand for ICE fuel. All assuming that Australia does not itself ban ICE engines. In the short term, the price of fuel could drop. In the much longer term, ICE fuel could become such a niche product that the price starts to rise again, not to mention the rising inconvenience of being able to get hold of ICE fuel.

3 Likes
77

Any Car Manufactured in the EU must comply with the Standard is my understanding from reading the documentation, a car may be de-tuned for say a market like ours if it is possible. Some cars are already de-tuned as we can’t run our cars to Euro 6 anyway now. Our fuel is Euro 5 standard, but at least 2 I know that are Euro 6 are de-tuned for our Euro 5 standard of fuel “Toyota Corolla Hybrid and Mazda 3 2.0-litre petrol” and there may be more just not acknowledged.

From the current regulations

“(18) The CO2 emission performance standards set out in this Regulation apply to new passenger cars and new light commercial vehicles. With regard to the existing fleet of such vehicles, including second-hand vehicles, additional measures aimed at reducing emissions may also be taken, inter alia, at national and Union level. For instance, measures may be taken to encourage a higher fleet renewal rate, in order to replace as fast as possible older, more emitting vehicles by more performant ones. Access to more affordable zero- and low-emission vehicles could stimulate consumer behaviour change and faster deployment of low-emission technologies.”

The CO2 Emissions are to be measured using WLTP methodology which is a more real road use type measurement system

" (14) As part of the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8), a new test procedure for measuring CO2 emissions from, and fuel consumption of, passenger cars and light commercial vehicles, the Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicles Test procedure (‘WLTP’), set out in Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1151 (9), started to apply in 2017. That test procedure provides CO2 emission and fuel consumption values that are more representative of real-world conditions.

It is appropriate, therefore, that the new CO2 emissions targets should be based on the CO2 emissions determined on the basis of that test procedure. Considering, however, that WLTP-based CO2 emissions will be available for target compliance purposes from 2021, it is appropriate that the new CO2 emission performance standards should be defined as reduction levels set in relation to the 2021 targets calculated on the basis of the CO2 emissions measured for the purpose of the WLTP emissions test. In order to ensure the robustness and representativeness of the values used as the starting point for defining the emissions reduction targets to be applied in 2025 and 2030, the conditions for performing those measurements have been clarified as part of the implementation of Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2017/1152 (10) and (EU) 2017/1153 (11)."

So not the wishy washy testing that pre-dated WLTP which was “New European Driving Cycle” (NEDC). NEDC figures differ widely from real World type driving conditions figures and has been acknowledged as a problem by the EU Regulators.

4 Likes
78

A very unflattering article regarding the uptake of EV’s in Australia.

2 Likes
79

Yes, it is having a shot at our lack of uptake. I don’t disagree with the sentiment.

I also found the article ‘unflattering’ as it lacked objectivity. The views expressed may be well intended, but they are not supported by any detailed analysis.

A proper financial analysis would lay bare the supposed savings, as well as the capital investment required, and payback over time.

There has been a great deal of uncertainty, smoke and mirrors around solar PV paybacks. Some has come from the PV industry and poor marketing. Most has come from government failures to provide certainty in regulation and action within the electricity market (structure and capacity).

Motor vehicles are a greater financial commitment than solar. They demand two to three times more of annual household expenditure compared to that on electricity.

Laid bare through a detailed analysis, if it is true there are genuine nett savings, every home owner would be racing towards the nearest Hyundai or Tesla dealer today. I suspect that’s not generally how it is.

The same analysis would however demonstrate how large the real gap is. This would leave two choices. For those more financially capable to value their extra commitment to make a better choice. For those not so capable, the cost to the government (community funding) needed to make it affordable. With 15million ICE passenger vehicles in the nation and several million vans and 4WDs/tradies utes - it’s a great opportunity to fund the future.

The ABC article asks the right questions. It needs to take the discussion further, than just flying a kite.

2 Likes
80

These have been done and currently the cost of owning a EV (initial purchase price, loan repayments, fuel costs, servicing, tyres and on road costs such as registration, insurance and auto-club membership) is about $300-400 per month more than an equivalent sized ICE in the same vehicle category. See:

It is unfortunate that the article appears to only use running costs, but ignores other costs which need to be factored into the cost of owning a vehicle.

1 Like