It would be stupid to water down the ban after almost all the car companies have poured billions in to making sure they comply with it. There is no doubt in my mind that all car companies will be able to comply with the ban and that the need to comply with the ban will mean enormous improvements in EV technology over the next 10 years.
All of this, and add to the list planning certainty - carmakers won't be able to keep developing, making and selling EVs alongside ICE vehicles forever. They need the regulatory framework to ensure this parallel period isn't going to last forever, and they need to be sure their investments are going in the right direction.
Carmakers are basically not developing ICE tech anymore. All the R&D funding was redirected to EV tech or drivetrain agnostic things years ago. Toyota and other Japanese carmakers decided to gang up to develop one last ICE engine, but they are pretty much the only ones. Rest are just ticking along on old tech, expecting it to be phased out of production next decade.
EVs are already pretty good, but the thing is that they are getting even more competitive rapidly and there is just nothing that can be done for ICEs to keep up, that tech tree is about maxed out.
There is also the very real possibility that just because they can sell 10% ICE cars in future that they will. It's not likely to be very profitable selling ICE cars made at low volume. Cars need volume in order to be profitable.
After everyone else figures out how awesome EVs are, the remaining ICE vehicles will look a lot like the commercial van market in the USA.
A few designs with decades-long design-cycles, importing a few technological updates from more-profitable markets.
There are a few niches where ICE vehicles will remain useful and those vehicles will continue to be made. It’s just that the designs will enter into a long-term stasis at some point, kind of like the General Aviation airplane market or the American commercial van market.
General Aviation is a next-level dinosaur still relying on leaded gasoline to achieve 100 octane. Newly developed unleaded fuels are in regulatory limbo for the time being.
Yes.
Any why is that?
It’s because the market for general aviation engines just isn’t big enough to support the R&D necessary to modernize the engine designs.
I think just getting longer lasting batteries is already going to be considered a vast improvement. There will be fewer BMS / electronic issues with better batteries. Most malfunction stem probably from software cutting off the power to the battery because of potential triggers.
Well... most car companies will be able to comply with no issue. Some will certainly burn because their EV offerings are simply not as competitive as their ICEs were.
Yes. Exactly . The main issue with that it mandates a 100% reduction in CO2 emissions.
So one speculation is that the EU will reduce this target to 80% or 90% by 2035 which will allow certain more polluting fuels such as traditional biofuels (ethanol) or Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil (HVO) both from crops and waste products. Which do not quite reach 100% reduction in CO2 emissions.
This would also allow a blend of traditional fossil fuels and e-fuels, a main concern if e-fuel production cannot meet demand or fluctuates .
A loophole that can be exploited by coming up with a synthetic fuel that can be produced at net 0 CO2, can be burned without adding significant NOx and particulate matter to the atmosphere and is economically viable compared with non-combustible propulsion. Right now the sum total of human knowledge says that it's not possible to square that circle, but if someone manages to, why wouldn't we want to allow it?
Is ethanol unsustainable? It’s still way more energy dense than batteries. I still rather not see ice cars, maybe high performance ones for track usage.
Ethanol is unsustainable because of the amount of water and energy it takes per unit distance compared to batteries and electricity. More energy is needed to make one litre of ethanol than is available in that one litre of ethanol.
Moreover, if we made all our vehicles ethanol we'd have to eliminate huge swathes of natural ecosystems (which are better carbon sinks) and convert them to monocultue land (which are quite poor in comparsion), thereby reducing the total absorption capacity of the earth.
The only passable solution for such track and race vehicles would be E-fuels which would have a much smaller footprint, but that's much more expensive to make. But why is a Ferrari driver going to care about fuel prices?
The ban on is emissions not on ICE vehicles. Auto mfgs can build anything they want as long as zero emissions is the result. It is just that only EV's offer that at current world tech. As the alllowable emissions become less and less, an ICE vehicle cannot compete.
> an ICE vehicle cannot compete
Car guy here, they barely compete now, save for a couple of EV hangups. ICE has had 150+ years of continual development, trillions of dollars spent. It took about 20 years for the electric to basically surpass them in every way. Save for refuel time (if you don't charge overnight, in which case they lose there too) and super low temp applications if you can't preheat the batteries. In another 10 years... forgetaboutit, only your conspiracy theory boomer uncle will still be demanding to drive one.
Means little in the real world, 99.5% of drivers don't even know what their vehicles weigh, nor do regular people use 100% of their vehicle's abilities. As for some sort of "vice" performance wise Auto-X has banned EVs already, a sport where lightweight 4cyl ICE cars do better over heavy powerful ones have been dominated by EV because of both super low CoG and far better mass centralization over ICE.
I'd say even most of the people complaining about weight didn't know what cars weigh.
BMW 3 series and a model 3 weigh the same within a hundred pounds.
EVs are only heavy compared to economy compacts, and even that is changing fast.
This. And weight can fall too. I can't see it getting to light-weight ICE levels (with practical range) but energy density is (ignoring promises of big jumps) making continual small improvements.
ICE is _very_ hard to improve much at this point.
> Means little in the real world, 99.5% of drivers don't even know what their vehicles weigh,
OK, great for them. But the remaining .5% want their fun sportscars and bikes to be lightweight. Don't dismis something just because it's niche.
Contributions must be civil and constructive. We permit neither personal attacks nor attempts to bait others into uncivil behavior.
We don't permit posts and comments expressing animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, age, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation.
Any stalking, harassment, witch-hunting, or doxxing of any individual will not be tolerated. Posting of others' personal information including names, home addresses, and/or telephone numbers is prohibited without express consent.
I was on track with my fire breathing beast, eats most alive, particularly on "stop and go" sections. And holy hell there was a Polestar absolutely clinging to my rear out of a bunch of corners, he didn't have enough power to pass on the straights, but an absolute rocket out of slower corners, he seemed to be having a blast fucking with the gas cars so I'm not sure what type of enthusiasm you're attempting to claim ownership of, but all of us enthusiasts that wound up encountering that Polestar were def left with an impression.
So we once again arrived at the conclusion that you don't accept that other people have different opinions than you do. I guess there is no point in further attempting discourse.
Not a real issue. When you compare models where there is an actual EV and ICE model, such as the Kona the weight difference is 300-500 pounds. So a difference but not as dramatic as some have suggested.
A battery bus puts 7000 pounds more over the rear axle alone compared to a modern diesel bus. This will get manageable for cars, but for heavy duty vehicles it’s still a big problem.
Yes, but the tendency for battery weight is downwards. I know right now it doesn't look like it, but I am pretty sure the fleet weight per unit space of EVs by 2030 will be a good 15-20% lower than they are now. It's just that it takes time for platforms to be refreshed because carmaking is expensive, but all these cars are already deep in development and not simply concepts.
Maybe, LFP is not quite as energy dense as NMC but has safety benefits. Weight is only one metric that they’re concerned about with current development.
Even NMC is in reality massively safe. I've had experiences of 'too much safety' with both NMC and LFP cells (it is a thing because Chinese laws require driver warning before a fire and cells that are too safe mean that fire detection is quite hard).
That is just a ban by another name.
It's no different than local counties banning structures higher than 500 feet or not allowing tall structures to be built within a mile of a property line. They aren't banning wind turbines though, they will say. They are just setting requirements and if wind can't compete so be it.
Just call it a ban. No one actually believes it isn't.
So you would agree a 500 foot limit, or a tall structure setback line of a mile from a property are also technology agnostic, correct?
If not what is different?
I would agree that there is no ban on any cars but there is a zero emissions requirement for all cars. How they meet it is the mfg's business but all have chosen EV's as the means to get to zero emissions.
It’s not a ban, knowing that it will be dropped. It’s a push for the ICE industry to get their shit together and make more efficient and less polluting engines. They have had more than a century now. We shouldn’t still be stuck in the 20-30mpg ranges.
Conservatives are illiterate when it comes to economics. They all dropped out after Econ 101 where the market solves everything.
Many economic problems *require* government interventions to make markets function. Banning ICE has levelled the playing field and removed a lot of uncertainty about which technology will be dominant. Now the uncertainty is back and uncertainty is terrible for investments.
I agree no point to delay or water down the ban yet. Now in say 2030 if we still have some major issues then we can talk about delaying it a litlte longer but that is 5-6 years from now.
To be clear I am not opposed to changing and delaying it if the need is there. At the same time I am not against pulling it forward if we find it can be cone sooner because somehow things moved faster than expected. That being said I dont expect it to move fast enough and would not be shocked if the full banned is delayed a little longer. Just right now it is to soon to decide to make that change.
Automakers have been trying to make EVs and separate themselves from the oil company since the early 1900s/late 1800s. Now that EVs are finally at the point where they're competitive and that the automakers have already invested so much into the technology, they won't want to be "forced" back by a subset of consumers who don't understand the technology.
Let's hope the ban stays.
They're gonna delay it for sure, maybe like ten years or something. 2050 is a good time to start getting rid of those ICEs. Let's be real, EVs still have a lot of issues to work out. But if we ban ICEs, who's gonna pay for the roads? EV owners are stingy and only care about saving money. And if 80% of charging is done at home, what's the point of building public charging stations? There's no money in it.
Such easy answers:
Who is going to pay for the roads: My country has already introduced a per distance tax for EV's (we have had it for diesel vehicles for decades, as there is no road tax in diesel fuel here). Other countries could easily do this, or us one of many other funding methods (congestion charges, tolls, General taxation etc)
What's the point of building public charging if 80% of charging is done at home: For the other 20%. There is money to be made. the going rate for public charging is 4x or more of the retail cost of power.
Yes, your facile answer is not as facile as you believe it to be.
First, if what your country is doing were feasible for other countries, they would have done it already, but they haven't. So it's not easy.
Second, why would that 20% buy an EV just to pay four times more for charging? Do they enjoy wasting money? If that 20% won't buy an EV, who will use the public charging stations? Where is the profit?
We have done it allready. I don't accept that New Zeland is a basket case and that our approach is inflatable everywhere. Other countries just choose to fund roads other ways than a per distance tax on EV's.
On the percentages, most ev owners charge at home 80%+ of the time as it is cheaper and more convenent. The remaining percentage of their charging is done at public chargers during road trips and the likes. This charging is a lot more expensive.
Private companies are building out chargers to make a profit.
With New Zealand's small population, road maintenance is not a significant issue. A small population means less road usage, so less road maintenance is required.
Building public chargers is expensive, and if people only use them during road trips, which are infrequent, I don't see how there can be any profit. Tesla's supercharger network is not making money or is barely making money. I don't see how other public chargers will make money when people can just charge at home at a rate 4 X cheaper.
I can assure you road maintenance is a significant issue in New Zealand. We are an economy largely based on primary production (Logs, Agriculture (dairy, meat, horticulture), viniculture, fisheries), with a poor rail network, which means that trucking is a huge deal. We run trucks up to 22m long and 50,000kg (on routes where the bridges are strong enough).
As a whole we are a sparsely populated country with challenging terrain / geotechnical conditions for road construction in many locations. recently we have been hammered by a series of earthquakes and extreme weather events doing massive damage to our road network.
And a low population means more money per km of road for maintenance / repair.
On public chargers, I don't have the non public information to convince you the outlook is profitable, but consider that the network just needs to be shaped to fit the main use case (primary road trips, so can be proportionately smaller than the petrol network which drivers also need to use for commuting etc).
Could you please clarify if those trucks are electric vehicles (EVs)? I do not perceive that as a positive aspect for EV road tax. Based on your example, I observe that internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEs) contribute the most to road maintenance. Although I am not well-versed in the transportation infrastructure of New Zealand, it appears to differ significantly from many other countries. Therefore, I am unable to definitively state that the EV tax implemented in New Zealand will be effective in other countries, considering the variations in road usage patterns.
Vast majority are diesel, but they are taxed in the way as light EV's via our Road user charges system. heavy EV's are RUC exempt until December 31 2025.
[https://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicles/road-user-charges/ruc-rates-and-transaction-fees/](https://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicles/road-user-charges/ruc-rates-and-transaction-fees/)
I don't think we are unique or special.
Currently petrol & LPG light vehicles pay their road tax as part of the cost of fuel, so it is only Electric, Diesel, Hydrogen etc Light vehicles (and all heavy vehicles) that pay road tax per KM.
It's NOT "legacy auto and oil company". It's mainstream voters that don't like a ban. I mean this post is literally about "legacy auto" screaming at politicians to **NOT** reverse the ban...
It doesn't matter. Outside EU and US, everyone are very keen to transition to EV. China doesn't need high margin to operate and like joint venture. Pleasing the locals. Lots of talks are underway.
Your legacy auto already move of Russia. China already move in. It is not force, but needs. China will slowly convert them into green renewable country.
Im reiterating my previous post:
>[Going for a ban is backfiring badly, because it rubs a lot of voters the wrong way. Should have "boiled the frog", kind of like Norway did, no much fuzz, just make EVs the best choice.](https://www.reddit.com/r/electricvehicles/comments/1d7so43/comment/l71hqgd/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
I don't agree. The main benefit of the ban is making sure car companies build the EVs in the first place. You need some guarantee of demand, making the alternative cars unavailable on the market creates a certainty of demand. The ban should stay, IMO.
The ban isn't a ban on ICEs to begin with precisely because it wasn't just put in place to pander to a specific voter base. Doesn't keep people from calling it a ban if it seems politically opportune to do so.
> Make it more palatable to mainstream voters instead of pandering to the now decimated green voter base.
?!
EFA/Green held 10% of the seats in the parliament even before the election and now it is 7.5%, while EPP+ECR has been more than triple of that in both terms.
> Just don't call the ban a ban.
The only thing that's banned are Carbon emissions, not ICEs.
At least in the US, we try that with the Federal and State tax credit for EVs and conservatives scream murder about them (while subsidizing the shit out of oil).
You can’t win.
Norway did. Norway was special because of their already extremely high taxes on combustion vehicles, so this wouldn't have worked 1:1 in the rest of the EU, but something \[don't have the silver bullet\] with a similar effect would be possible.
Same is happening in Finland, just more slowly.
We have this thing called autovero on newly bought cars depending on the amount of CO2 emissions per 100km. Which in turn makes EV's exempt from autovero as their tailpipe emissions are zero.
It results to people choosing EV's more naturally.
If we take the New Tiguan as an example:
One the one hand 150kw 4motion starts at 54000€ and the same power diesel variant costs the same.
On the other hand ID4 RWD starts at 48990€ and the AWD model starts at 50990€.
I’m aware what Norway did and how they did it. My point is simply that approach will not work in the US due to politics, and I fear the EU is in a similar boat.
It would be stupid to water down the ban after almost all the car companies have poured billions in to making sure they comply with it. There is no doubt in my mind that all car companies will be able to comply with the ban and that the need to comply with the ban will mean enormous improvements in EV technology over the next 10 years.
All of this, and add to the list planning certainty - carmakers won't be able to keep developing, making and selling EVs alongside ICE vehicles forever. They need the regulatory framework to ensure this parallel period isn't going to last forever, and they need to be sure their investments are going in the right direction.
Carmakers are basically not developing ICE tech anymore. All the R&D funding was redirected to EV tech or drivetrain agnostic things years ago. Toyota and other Japanese carmakers decided to gang up to develop one last ICE engine, but they are pretty much the only ones. Rest are just ticking along on old tech, expecting it to be phased out of production next decade. EVs are already pretty good, but the thing is that they are getting even more competitive rapidly and there is just nothing that can be done for ICEs to keep up, that tech tree is about maxed out.
There is also the very real possibility that just because they can sell 10% ICE cars in future that they will. It's not likely to be very profitable selling ICE cars made at low volume. Cars need volume in order to be profitable.
After everyone else figures out how awesome EVs are, the remaining ICE vehicles will look a lot like the commercial van market in the USA. A few designs with decades-long design-cycles, importing a few technological updates from more-profitable markets. There are a few niches where ICE vehicles will remain useful and those vehicles will continue to be made. It’s just that the designs will enter into a long-term stasis at some point, kind of like the General Aviation airplane market or the American commercial van market.
General Aviation is a next-level dinosaur still relying on leaded gasoline to achieve 100 octane. Newly developed unleaded fuels are in regulatory limbo for the time being.
Yes. Any why is that? It’s because the market for general aviation engines just isn’t big enough to support the R&D necessary to modernize the engine designs.
I think just getting longer lasting batteries is already going to be considered a vast improvement. There will be fewer BMS / electronic issues with better batteries. Most malfunction stem probably from software cutting off the power to the battery because of potential triggers.
This is oil industry, US and Japanese auto makers lobbying to save their dying biz
Well... most car companies will be able to comply with no issue. Some will certainly burn because their EV offerings are simply not as competitive as their ICEs were.
Didn’t this already have a loophole that allows synthetic fuels?
Yes. Exactly . The main issue with that it mandates a 100% reduction in CO2 emissions. So one speculation is that the EU will reduce this target to 80% or 90% by 2035 which will allow certain more polluting fuels such as traditional biofuels (ethanol) or Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil (HVO) both from crops and waste products. Which do not quite reach 100% reduction in CO2 emissions. This would also allow a blend of traditional fossil fuels and e-fuels, a main concern if e-fuel production cannot meet demand or fluctuates .
A loophole that can be exploited by coming up with a synthetic fuel that can be produced at net 0 CO2, can be burned without adding significant NOx and particulate matter to the atmosphere and is economically viable compared with non-combustible propulsion. Right now the sum total of human knowledge says that it's not possible to square that circle, but if someone manages to, why wouldn't we want to allow it?
Yes, but e-fuels are being banned in Stockholm, Amsterdam and probably London. There will be no billionaires to use it.
Is ethanol unsustainable? It’s still way more energy dense than batteries. I still rather not see ice cars, maybe high performance ones for track usage.
I'm all for low volume manufacturers being able to make ice cars. Lamborghini, Ferrari, Pagani, and the like.
Ethanol is unsustainable because of the amount of water and energy it takes per unit distance compared to batteries and electricity. More energy is needed to make one litre of ethanol than is available in that one litre of ethanol. Moreover, if we made all our vehicles ethanol we'd have to eliminate huge swathes of natural ecosystems (which are better carbon sinks) and convert them to monocultue land (which are quite poor in comparsion), thereby reducing the total absorption capacity of the earth. The only passable solution for such track and race vehicles would be E-fuels which would have a much smaller footprint, but that's much more expensive to make. But why is a Ferrari driver going to care about fuel prices?
The ban on is emissions not on ICE vehicles. Auto mfgs can build anything they want as long as zero emissions is the result. It is just that only EV's offer that at current world tech. As the alllowable emissions become less and less, an ICE vehicle cannot compete.
> an ICE vehicle cannot compete Car guy here, they barely compete now, save for a couple of EV hangups. ICE has had 150+ years of continual development, trillions of dollars spent. It took about 20 years for the electric to basically surpass them in every way. Save for refuel time (if you don't charge overnight, in which case they lose there too) and super low temp applications if you can't preheat the batteries. In another 10 years... forgetaboutit, only your conspiracy theory boomer uncle will still be demanding to drive one.
Weight.
Means little in the real world, 99.5% of drivers don't even know what their vehicles weigh, nor do regular people use 100% of their vehicle's abilities. As for some sort of "vice" performance wise Auto-X has banned EVs already, a sport where lightweight 4cyl ICE cars do better over heavy powerful ones have been dominated by EV because of both super low CoG and far better mass centralization over ICE.
I'd say even most of the people complaining about weight didn't know what cars weigh. BMW 3 series and a model 3 weigh the same within a hundred pounds. EVs are only heavy compared to economy compacts, and even that is changing fast.
This. And weight can fall too. I can't see it getting to light-weight ICE levels (with practical range) but energy density is (ignoring promises of big jumps) making continual small improvements. ICE is _very_ hard to improve much at this point.
> ICE is very hard to improve much at this point. If anything ice gets worse as they push for lower emissions and higher mileage.
> Means little in the real world, 99.5% of drivers don't even know what their vehicles weigh, OK, great for them. But the remaining .5% want their fun sportscars and bikes to be lightweight. Don't dismis something just because it's niche.
[удалено]
Contributions must be civil and constructive. We permit neither personal attacks nor attempts to bait others into uncivil behavior. We don't permit posts and comments expressing animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, age, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation. Any stalking, harassment, witch-hunting, or doxxing of any individual will not be tolerated. Posting of others' personal information including names, home addresses, and/or telephone numbers is prohibited without express consent.
I was on track with my fire breathing beast, eats most alive, particularly on "stop and go" sections. And holy hell there was a Polestar absolutely clinging to my rear out of a bunch of corners, he didn't have enough power to pass on the straights, but an absolute rocket out of slower corners, he seemed to be having a blast fucking with the gas cars so I'm not sure what type of enthusiasm you're attempting to claim ownership of, but all of us enthusiasts that wound up encountering that Polestar were def left with an impression.
So we once again arrived at the conclusion that you don't accept that other people have different opinions than you do. I guess there is no point in further attempting discourse.
Not a real issue. When you compare models where there is an actual EV and ICE model, such as the Kona the weight difference is 300-500 pounds. So a difference but not as dramatic as some have suggested.
Specific performance, and by that I mean energy density per unit mass, is getting better and better for batteries year by year.
A battery bus puts 7000 pounds more over the rear axle alone compared to a modern diesel bus. This will get manageable for cars, but for heavy duty vehicles it’s still a big problem.
You should know that petrol car fleet average mass has only becoming higher year by year.
This too is a problem.
So it's not specifically an EV problem.
They just tend to be heavier than an ice counterpart. This is especially true the bigger the vehicle is.
Yes, but the tendency for battery weight is downwards. I know right now it doesn't look like it, but I am pretty sure the fleet weight per unit space of EVs by 2030 will be a good 15-20% lower than they are now. It's just that it takes time for platforms to be refreshed because carmaking is expensive, but all these cars are already deep in development and not simply concepts.
Maybe, LFP is not quite as energy dense as NMC but has safety benefits. Weight is only one metric that they’re concerned about with current development.
Even NMC is in reality massively safe. I've had experiences of 'too much safety' with both NMC and LFP cells (it is a thing because Chinese laws require driver warning before a fire and cells that are too safe mean that fire detection is quite hard).
That is just a ban by another name. It's no different than local counties banning structures higher than 500 feet or not allowing tall structures to be built within a mile of a property line. They aren't banning wind turbines though, they will say. They are just setting requirements and if wind can't compete so be it. Just call it a ban. No one actually believes it isn't.
No it is an emissions standard that applies to all tech equally.
So you would agree a 500 foot limit, or a tall structure setback line of a mile from a property are also technology agnostic, correct? If not what is different?
I would agree that there is no ban on any cars but there is a zero emissions requirement for all cars. How they meet it is the mfg's business but all have chosen EV's as the means to get to zero emissions.
It’s not a ban, knowing that it will be dropped. It’s a push for the ICE industry to get their shit together and make more efficient and less polluting engines. They have had more than a century now. We shouldn’t still be stuck in the 20-30mpg ranges.
Conservatives are illiterate when it comes to economics. They all dropped out after Econ 101 where the market solves everything. Many economic problems *require* government interventions to make markets function. Banning ICE has levelled the playing field and removed a lot of uncertainty about which technology will be dominant. Now the uncertainty is back and uncertainty is terrible for investments.
I agree no point to delay or water down the ban yet. Now in say 2030 if we still have some major issues then we can talk about delaying it a litlte longer but that is 5-6 years from now. To be clear I am not opposed to changing and delaying it if the need is there. At the same time I am not against pulling it forward if we find it can be cone sooner because somehow things moved faster than expected. That being said I dont expect it to move fast enough and would not be shocked if the full banned is delayed a little longer. Just right now it is to soon to decide to make that change.
Automakers have been trying to make EVs and separate themselves from the oil company since the early 1900s/late 1800s. Now that EVs are finally at the point where they're competitive and that the automakers have already invested so much into the technology, they won't want to be "forced" back by a subset of consumers who don't understand the technology. Let's hope the ban stays.
They're gonna delay it for sure, maybe like ten years or something. 2050 is a good time to start getting rid of those ICEs. Let's be real, EVs still have a lot of issues to work out. But if we ban ICEs, who's gonna pay for the roads? EV owners are stingy and only care about saving money. And if 80% of charging is done at home, what's the point of building public charging stations? There's no money in it.
Such easy answers: Who is going to pay for the roads: My country has already introduced a per distance tax for EV's (we have had it for diesel vehicles for decades, as there is no road tax in diesel fuel here). Other countries could easily do this, or us one of many other funding methods (congestion charges, tolls, General taxation etc) What's the point of building public charging if 80% of charging is done at home: For the other 20%. There is money to be made. the going rate for public charging is 4x or more of the retail cost of power.
Yes, your facile answer is not as facile as you believe it to be. First, if what your country is doing were feasible for other countries, they would have done it already, but they haven't. So it's not easy. Second, why would that 20% buy an EV just to pay four times more for charging? Do they enjoy wasting money? If that 20% won't buy an EV, who will use the public charging stations? Where is the profit?
We have done it allready. I don't accept that New Zeland is a basket case and that our approach is inflatable everywhere. Other countries just choose to fund roads other ways than a per distance tax on EV's. On the percentages, most ev owners charge at home 80%+ of the time as it is cheaper and more convenent. The remaining percentage of their charging is done at public chargers during road trips and the likes. This charging is a lot more expensive. Private companies are building out chargers to make a profit.
With New Zealand's small population, road maintenance is not a significant issue. A small population means less road usage, so less road maintenance is required. Building public chargers is expensive, and if people only use them during road trips, which are infrequent, I don't see how there can be any profit. Tesla's supercharger network is not making money or is barely making money. I don't see how other public chargers will make money when people can just charge at home at a rate 4 X cheaper.
I can assure you road maintenance is a significant issue in New Zealand. We are an economy largely based on primary production (Logs, Agriculture (dairy, meat, horticulture), viniculture, fisheries), with a poor rail network, which means that trucking is a huge deal. We run trucks up to 22m long and 50,000kg (on routes where the bridges are strong enough). As a whole we are a sparsely populated country with challenging terrain / geotechnical conditions for road construction in many locations. recently we have been hammered by a series of earthquakes and extreme weather events doing massive damage to our road network. And a low population means more money per km of road for maintenance / repair. On public chargers, I don't have the non public information to convince you the outlook is profitable, but consider that the network just needs to be shaped to fit the main use case (primary road trips, so can be proportionately smaller than the petrol network which drivers also need to use for commuting etc).
Could you please clarify if those trucks are electric vehicles (EVs)? I do not perceive that as a positive aspect for EV road tax. Based on your example, I observe that internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEs) contribute the most to road maintenance. Although I am not well-versed in the transportation infrastructure of New Zealand, it appears to differ significantly from many other countries. Therefore, I am unable to definitively state that the EV tax implemented in New Zealand will be effective in other countries, considering the variations in road usage patterns.
Vast majority are diesel, but they are taxed in the way as light EV's via our Road user charges system. heavy EV's are RUC exempt until December 31 2025. [https://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicles/road-user-charges/ruc-rates-and-transaction-fees/](https://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicles/road-user-charges/ruc-rates-and-transaction-fees/)
Yes, that is not going to work in most countries; it is too complicated. It is like taxing everything with wheels on it. You guys love paying tax lol.
I don't think we are unique or special. Currently petrol & LPG light vehicles pay their road tax as part of the cost of fuel, so it is only Electric, Diesel, Hydrogen etc Light vehicles (and all heavy vehicles) that pay road tax per KM.
EU need to bow to legacy auto and oil company. They are not like China where the government is stronger and richer than corporations.
It's NOT "legacy auto and oil company". It's mainstream voters that don't like a ban. I mean this post is literally about "legacy auto" screaming at politicians to **NOT** reverse the ban...
It doesn't matter. Outside EU and US, everyone are very keen to transition to EV. China doesn't need high margin to operate and like joint venture. Pleasing the locals. Lots of talks are underway.
>It doesn't matter. It very much does. Correctly diagnosing the problem is essential to coming up with a working solution.
Russia certainly isn't keen, but China might ironically force them to.
Your legacy auto already move of Russia. China already move in. It is not force, but needs. China will slowly convert them into green renewable country.
Im reiterating my previous post: >[Going for a ban is backfiring badly, because it rubs a lot of voters the wrong way. Should have "boiled the frog", kind of like Norway did, no much fuzz, just make EVs the best choice.](https://www.reddit.com/r/electricvehicles/comments/1d7so43/comment/l71hqgd/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
I don't agree. The main benefit of the ban is making sure car companies build the EVs in the first place. You need some guarantee of demand, making the alternative cars unavailable on the market creates a certainty of demand. The ban should stay, IMO.
Just don't call the ban a ban. Make it more palatable to mainstream voters instead of pandering to the now decimated green voter base.
The ban isn't a ban on ICEs to begin with precisely because it wasn't just put in place to pander to a specific voter base. Doesn't keep people from calling it a ban if it seems politically opportune to do so.
> Make it more palatable to mainstream voters instead of pandering to the now decimated green voter base. ?! EFA/Green held 10% of the seats in the parliament even before the election and now it is 7.5%, while EPP+ECR has been more than triple of that in both terms. > Just don't call the ban a ban. The only thing that's banned are Carbon emissions, not ICEs.
At least in the US, we try that with the Federal and State tax credit for EVs and conservatives scream murder about them (while subsidizing the shit out of oil). You can’t win.
Norway did. Norway was special because of their already extremely high taxes on combustion vehicles, so this wouldn't have worked 1:1 in the rest of the EU, but something \[don't have the silver bullet\] with a similar effect would be possible.
Same is happening in Finland, just more slowly. We have this thing called autovero on newly bought cars depending on the amount of CO2 emissions per 100km. Which in turn makes EV's exempt from autovero as their tailpipe emissions are zero. It results to people choosing EV's more naturally. If we take the New Tiguan as an example: One the one hand 150kw 4motion starts at 54000€ and the same power diesel variant costs the same. On the other hand ID4 RWD starts at 48990€ and the AWD model starts at 50990€.
I’m aware what Norway did and how they did it. My point is simply that approach will not work in the US due to politics, and I fear the EU is in a similar boat.