We have all benefited from the use of ICE and fossil fuels. It’s how and why we are where we are. It’s delivered our technology and lifestyles, pollution and green house gas emissions.
It’s the planet that’s the looser.
If there is a divide, it is those with more wealth who are getting the greater benefit from the EV revolution. The current crop of BEVs are only affordable to those more financially blessed. And arguably the rich, Elon Musk being at the head of the pack are those leading the investment in renewables. Look to who owns the worlds largest solar PV panel and inverter manufacturers, or battery based businesses.
Looking at it from a business perspective, if the most cost-effective solution isn’t the most convenient, then we have a choice. Pay more or change.
Take the apocryphal 2,000 daily commute. If the most cost-effective option won’t allow us to make the journey in one go, then we either take longer or pay more. Put another way, we pay in money or we pay in time.
Another example is sea freight. Current developments indicate that the majority of a sea voyage could be sail-powered. Most of it could be automated. Doing away with fuel and (most) labour costs promises radically cheaper freight. But it would take time and rely on the wind. We’re pretty good at judging when the wind will blow, where and in what direction, but there will be unforeseen variations. Under those conditions, modern “just-in-time” supply chains would collapse. Either we change and pay the costs in time or we pay the costs in money.
Details on Victoria’s electric vehicle road use tax. https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/registration/registration-fees/zlev-road-user-charge
I’m struggling to see how a State road use charge relates to a Commonwealth excise. The excise supposedly funds roads, but actually goes to General Revenue. As far as I can tell, funding for roads from General Revenue is far less than net fuel excise.
State Governments are always trying to find ways to raise revenue, since their spending is more than taxes they can impose. A problem in Australia called ‘vertical fiscal imbalance’ between the Federal tax raising ability versus the states. Addressed somewhat by the GST and Commonwealth grants.
Presumably the Vic Gov has seen an opportunity to slug electric car owners with a new tax, to raise some more money, with the excuse of “hey, don’t complain about it, you don’t pay any fuel excise after all so you need to help pay for the roads you drive on”.
Of course the money goes into general revenue, and is not specifically set aside for roads.
The benefit of hitting the average motorist is the approx 15 million passenger vehicles to spread the love around.
Alternately there are approximately 2.5 million commercial utes, vans, light and heavy trucks. The running and fuel costs are tax deductible and the gst paid on fuel etc is able to be recovered each quarter.
The fastest growth rate in road vehicle emissions has been from commercial use vehicles. These contribute a similar quantity of green house gases as all the passenger vehicles combined. They also have been free of tough European style emissions regulations.
Why should we priorotise effort on the fuel options for 15 million passenger vehicles? The greatest benefit for replacement or upgrading the fewest vehicles would be to decarbonise the much smaller fleet of heavy haulage, trucking, trade vans and utes as a priority.
The vehicles used commercially are high use, 50,000km annual not uncommon. The pay back in reduced maintenance and lower fuel costs of EV as an option much more attractive than the average urban passenger vehicle doing 12-14,000km.
Yes, our leadership has just blown billions of dollars in tax write offs to supercharge - tradies and business - to purchase new imported ICE vehicles.
Whether battery electric (BEV) or Hydrogen (FCEV) or … the closest real world examples in Australia are a handful, of battery electric buses.
Wow, a ‘volcano’ under the bonnet. Better than a ‘Tiger in the Tank’ any day, and likely more WWF friendly.
From the article - While the methanol cars are still outputting CO2 emissions, the fuel could be made carbon neutral if sustainably-harvested hydrogen was also used in its production. The idea is the CO2 captured from the volcano merely passes through the engine of a car first, rather than being immediately released into the atmosphere by the volcano.
Reality-
If one can afford an ultra exclusive Swedish super-car does it really matter?
That is a very strange and potentially misleading comment in the article. Currently almost all commercially made ethanol uses biomass as its feedstock. Biomass, providing it isn’t clearing ood growth forests, is considered both renewable and sustainable.
It appears it is a misquoted cut and paste from a H-vehicle article.
Edit: Ethanol production has a number of issues, the main one being that it will compete with food production, potentially place pressure on natural resources if land is cleared for biomass production and if used extensively as a vehicle fuel, would potentially impact on long term food security. I expect that ethanol will be a niche fuel for specialised vehicles as a result.
But what is the point?
You produce hydrogen from some green method and then combine with CO2 to produce methanol or ethanol and then burn it in an engine to produce…CO2 again.
Why not just use the hydrogen in an engine or fuel cell and avoid CO2 emissions?
Touché
The first option likely retains that essential (for some) noise and vibration factor of a thousand cats caught in a blender. The second can deliver a more efficient and assured mind blowing burst of power.
Neither is as likely to say ‘exclusive’ in 2050 as owning and running a conventional hydrocarbon fuelled motor vehicle.
What then might Harley fans have to look forward to, and any other ICE vehicle romantics?
Note:
Bans on the sale of new ICE vehicles have current target dates in Europe (possibly 2025) and the UK (2030). There appears to be no proposed leeway to permit any new sales after the end dates once agreed, even if your vehicle is fuelled on a bio fuel or other lower carbon cost synthesised product. Although the later options may extend the useful life of some ICE at the cost of a premium fuel option? The traditional motor cycle manufacturers appear to be largely ignoring the prospects.
The point is the author of the article has possibly got muddled up on how hydrogen and ethanol are produced. Because alcohol is a carbon-hydrogen-oxygen compound, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is made using hydrogen gas, oxygen gas and carbon.
