• long running

Electric Vehicle Government Subsidies, Registration, Stamp Duty Discounts @ States & Federal Governments

2664
Electric Vehicle Government Subsidies, Registration, Stamp Duty Discounts @ States & Federal Governments
Go to Deal
Scrooge McDeal on 05/03/2023 - 13:22 whichcar.com.au (3905 clicks)
Last edited 02/07/2023 - 19:31 by 2 other users

I don't know where these post belong. If Mods believe it belongs into Forum then they can remove it.
I found an article that has very good information regarding EV Incentives in Federal, States and Territory.
These post is for people that thinking of purchasing an EV vehicle and inform them about the various available incentives by Federal, States and Territory.

Federal https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislat…
Incentives
The Labor Government launched its first ever electric vehicle strategy in September 2022, and in November 2022, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill passed through the Federal Parliament, which will provide up to $2000 off the purchase price of battery-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEV), as well as Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) exemptions for fleets and novated leases.
The Government will apply the exemption retrospectively to eligible cars first used on or after July 1, 2022.
PHEVs will initially be covered, but the offer will expire on April 1, 2025.
Tax
The Luxury Car Tax threshold for low-emission vehicles has been raised to $84,916, from the standard vehicle starting rate of $71,849.
Alongside the removal of the Fringe Benefits Tax the five per cent import tariff for EVs priced under the LCT limit has been cut.
The FBT savings amount to $9000 per annum for an employer, or $4700 for an individual with a salary sacrifice agreement for a $50k electric vehicle.
Cutting import tariffs drops purchase prices by a further $2500, according to the documents.

NEW SOUTH WALES official gov. website

Incentives
$3000 rebate for the first 25,000 EVs or FCEVs sold which are priced under $68,750 – but read the fine print, the offer is on the RRP plus the delivery charge and optional extras
Stamp duty waived on both types of vehicle under $78,000 – all from September 1, 2021
EV drivers can also use T2 and T3 transit lanes across NSW
Registration fee discounts.
Tax
2.5c/km BEV, 2c/km PHEV – but only as of July 1, 2027

VICTORIA official gov. website

Incentives
$3000 subsidy given for the first 20,000 EVs or FCEVs sold which are priced under $68,740,** as with NSW the **offer is on the RRP plus the delivery charge and optional extras
Reduced stamp duty rates
$100 discount on registration annually.
Tax
2.6c/km BEV, 2.1c/km PHEV from July 1, 2022

Update: as of June 30th 2023, The Victorian government has ended this scheme.

QUEENSLAND official gov. website

Incentives
$3000 rebate for new BEVs up to $58,000 on 15,000 cars as of March 16, 2022, like the other states the **offer is on the RRP plus the delivery charge and optional extras
Lowest car registration for BEVs – $263 a year
Lower stamp duty rates than ICE cars.
Tax
No plans at this time.

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY official gov. website

Incentives
Two years’ free registration for BEVs and FCEVs as of May 24, 2021 until June 30, 2024
Older EVs eligible for 20 per cent off rego fees
Stamp duty may also be waived on vehicles purchased for the first time
ACT drivers are also able to access up to $15,000 in interest-free loans to help cover the upfront purchase cost of an electric vehicle up to a cap of $77,565.
Tax
None yet – Distance and/or congestion based charging for all vehicle types “may be considered in the medium term”.

NORTHERN TERRITORY official gov. website

Incentive
BEVs and PHEVs to get cheaper rego and stamp duty from July 2022, the latter slashed by $1500
Discounts to last five years
Grants for home, workplace and public EV chargers, and opportunities offered to develop local skills to service technology and install infrastructure.
Tax
None – No current proposal, could possibly be in the long term.

TASMANIA official gov. website

Incentives
Two years’ free stamp duty for new and second-hand EVs as of July 1, 2021
Two years’ free rego on EVs purchased by car rental companies and coach operators.
Tax
Not plans at this time, but will monitor based on what’s happening in other states.

SOUTH AUSTRALIA official gov. website

Incentives
7000 subsidies worth $3000 taken off purchase price at point of sale, for a limited (unspecified) time only up to value of $68,750 **– this one is tricky, SA says the **offer "may or may not" include the delivery charge and optional extras depending on whether it is used to calculate stamp duty
Three years' free registration for vehicles first registered from October 28, 2021 up to June 30, 2025
Up to $2000 to install EV smart chargers at home, but limited to 7500 households.
Tax
EV tax initially pushed back from July 1, 2022 to July 1, 2027 or 30 per cent uptake (whichever comes first) – same as NSW – but was repealed by the State's Parliament in February 2023 due to public backlash
Would have meant a 2c/km charge for plug-in hybrid vehicles, and 2.5c/km for any other electric vehicles
Calculated and billed in arrears as part of the vehicle registration process and based on the distance travelled since the last renewal.

WESTERN AUSTRALIA official gov. website

Incentives
EVs exempt from 10 per cent on-demand transport levy
Largest incentive offer in Australia – $3500 rebate for the first 10,000 Western Australians to buy an EV or FCEV from May 10, applying to vehicles under $70,000 before on-road costs, note the offer is on the RRP plus the delivery charge and optional extras.
Tax
EV tax to start from July 1, 2027
2c/km km for plug-in hybrid vehicles, and 2.5c/km for any other electric vehicles.

Automotive Car Registration Electric Vehicle Stamp Duty Subsidy Vehicle Registration

Related Stores

Whichcar
Whichcar
ACT Government
ACT Government
Australian Government
Australian Government
Australian Government - Support for Businesses
Australian Government - Support for Businesses

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 05/03/2023 - 14:06
    +1

    Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill passed through the Federal Parliament, which will provide up to $2000 off the purchase price of battery-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEV)

    isn't that just this

    Cutting import tariffs drops purchase prices by a further $2500, according to the documents.

    or is there a federal rebate that can be applied for?

    • Mojorisin2016 on 05/03/2023 - 22:22

      I have the same question. Can’t find anything about a $2000 federal discount. I got my car in Aug 2022, so FBT exemptions still apply as it is retrospective.

    • LlamaLlamaLamp on 06/03/2023 - 15:19

      Most EVs are manufactured in countries that have a free trade agreement with Australia so the 5% import tariff already doesn't apply in most cases. OP made it sound like every/most EVs were subject to a tariff which is not the case.

  • jason2615 on 05/03/2023 - 14:06
    +7

    Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t the low RRP threshold pretty much exclude 90% of the EV’s out there? Especially if you want a larger size to suit a family of 4 and not a Leaf or other run about?

    • cheekymonkey97 on 05/03/2023 - 14:47
      +5

      It excludes 90% of EVs and 100% of the good EVs that you would actually want to buy.

  • [Deactivated] on 05/03/2023 - 14:07

    I don't believe anything new mentioned here

  • rahzel on 05/03/2023 - 14:08
    +2

    Yep thanks, managed to get a Mitsi Outlander PHEV, 12 month wait but that’s ok. Got it through as a novated lease, did the calculations and man what a bargain. Gotta say you gotta do your own calculations but when I compared the novated lease + residual value (if you want to keep) compared to a normal loan + the usual petrol, rego, licence etc you save up so much more in the 5 year term.

    • seafades on 05/03/2023 - 15:53
      +3

      This is something I’m considering as well. Do you mind sharing your calculations(cost breakdown) please?

      • azvc on 05/03/2023 - 15:57
        +2

        Keen to get this info as well please!

        • rahzel on 05/03/2023 - 21:15

          yep will send through aswell as for @seafades

          • MJD91 on 06/03/2023 - 09:33
            +1

            @rahzel: Can you send to me as well please mate.

          • seafades on 07/03/2023 - 18:25
            +1

            @rahzel: Sorry to bother you again, can you please let me know if you've sent through?

    • d3ft on 05/03/2023 - 17:15
      -1

      You save much more over a shorter term. Biggest benefit is in the first 12 months.

      • megadeth on 05/03/2023 - 19:09
        +1

        But won't a 1y term come with bigger balloon payment and only 1y of FBT exemption?

      • od810 on 05/03/2023 - 21:08

        No not with EV, because all the running cost and depreciation of the car exempted from FBT. You want to run novated lease until the scheme finishes.

        The best way to see how it works out, put the car as 100% for work usage to simulate 0 FBT and 0km to simulate no fuel expense:

        https://www.toyotafleetmanagement.com.au/novated-lease/novat…

        • megadeth on 11/03/2023 - 01:25

          Interesting, but beware the calculator shows zero FBT even for an EV with FBT base value of $150,000 or more. Not accurate, but does give an idea.

          • od810 on 11/03/2023 - 12:48
            +1

            @megadeth: Ah of course, it should only work for cars up to 84k ish. I assume people should know that. It wont be 100% accurate but it gives farely good ballpark

  • Daabido on 05/03/2023 - 14:09
    +3

    I would like to thank the non-EV owning planet destroying mouth breathing pleb taxpayers for their generosity. While you're still making smog, my car is powered by smug.

    • OpayuOnam on 05/03/2023 - 14:18
      +11

      This only applies to new purchases, from an environmental point of view using what's already built is much more efficient than throwing that out and buying a brand new shiny thing.

      • ATangk on 05/03/2023 - 17:20
        +2

        You know what else would be better from an environmental point of view? Making shit that lasts more than warranty period. And making shit repairable and upgradeable.

      • 1st-Amendment on 05/03/2023 - 18:23
        +1

        from an environmental point of view using what's already built is much more efficient than throwing that out and buying a brand new shiny thing.

        Yeah the rich inner city teal independents threw out the rule book on environmentalism because it didn't suit their lifestyle. What used to be 'Reduce. Reuse. Recycle' turned into 'Replace! Replace! Replace!' (and replace it all at the taxpayers' expense)

        A great example of this is NSW replacing thousands of perfectly working buses ( a good chunk of these are only a few years old) with electric buses, most of them made in China using coal power, then having to spend hundreds of millions replacing the electricity infrastructure to support them, all in the name of saving the planet. It truly is insane.

        • dcep on 05/03/2023 - 18:51

          Australia has more than 100 fossil fuel developments in the pipeline that could result in nearly 1.7bn tonnes of greenhouse gases a year – equivalent to about 5% of global industrial emissions.
          114 new coal and gas projects in Australia’s investment pipeline that contain more than double the amount of our annual domestic carbon emissions.

          • wisdomtooth on 05/03/2023 - 18:57

            @dcep: What's wrong with greenhouses? AFAIK, they promote plant growth.

        • cashews on 05/03/2023 - 20:16

          China isn't solely powered by fossil fuels, and every year the amount of renewables used are increasing.

          https://chinaenergyportal.org/en/2020-electricity-other-ener…

          • 1st-Amendment on 06/03/2023 - 10:31

            @cashews:

            China isn't solely powered by fossil fuels,

            Didn't say they were. They are the largest consumer of coal and the planet's largest emitter of CO2, and every battery, solar panel or wind turbine you buy from them is more coal being burned.
            Let me give you some actual data to paint the picture. In the last 20 years Australia reduced CO2 by about 100M Tonnes.
            In that same time China increased their emissions by almost 6000M tonnes. In the last year alone, China increased emissions by 500M tonnes, that's 5 x more than we reduced ours in 20 years.

            Does the phrase "a piss in the ocean" mean anything to you?

      • caitsith01 on 05/03/2023 - 21:34
        +2

        You throw your car out when you buy a new one?

        Every new car indirectly pushes a clunker off the roads, which is also a benefit.

  • liquid23 on 05/03/2023 - 14:10
    -2

    I can't believe we need to pay EV Tax, what other countries are taxing EVs to drive per km/miles in the future? I just know countries are paying more than Australia to own an EVs

    • Daabido on 05/03/2023 - 14:17
      +7

      Governments don't pay for subsidies. Taxpayers do.

    • brosk1s on 05/03/2023 - 14:32
      +1

      How is this a difficult concept to understand?

      The fuel excise that is built into petrol, diesel prices at the pump for example form a significant part of the government's total revenue - $18.3 billion in 2021-2022 l, over 3% of the total budget.

      Once people buy less fuel when every new car is an EV, where is this $20 billion sum going to come from?

      Australia is not some small, densely populated country that you would find in Europe that might just be able to eat the cost as they don't have as many roads to look after anyways. The switch to EVs will not significantly reduce the amount needed to maintain road infrastructure.

      • ParadroidDX on 05/03/2023 - 15:04
        +3

        When EV cars are actually a significant portion of the traffic, then introduce an EV tax, not before.

        • brosk1s on 05/03/2023 - 15:26
          +4

          Every EV car on the road today is one less car paying to use the road through fuel purchases, the argument that EVs should be able to freeload until the time when most cars on the road don't pay usage taxes is inane.

          You are making it seem like EVs are unfairly taxed for just existing, this is frankly not true. A BEV gets charged 2.5c/km in tax, my ICE car pays 5.35c/km in fuel excise.

          Of course the toxic side of the EV fan base gets butthurt when they are wrong about anything and tries to bury thoughts that oppose theirs rather than provide actual solutions.

          • Bretttick on 05/03/2023 - 16:48

            @brosk1s: We pay council rates & rego to use roads

            • wisdomtooth on 05/03/2023 - 16:52
              +1

              @Bretttick: Roads should be funded by land taxes, but I digress.

            • brosk1s on 05/03/2023 - 17:18

              @Bretttick:

              We pay council rates & rego to use roads

              As does every car on the road today, this is not unique to EVs and the total amount from rego and council rates is insufficient for the actual amount spent on road infrastructure.

              There are around $15 million passenger cars in Australia, if every car paid $600 in rego and $2000 in annual council fees (just a figure for comparison, council fees vary and one household also can have more than one car), thats $3.9 billion in revenue from that stream.

              (Not all council fees go towards council road maintenance and not all roads are council roads either.)

              For a point of comparison on how much infrastructure projects cost, the cost of upgrading the Great Western Highway between Katoomba and Lithgow in NSW (41 km stretch of road) was $2 billion dollars. With just $3.9 billion in revenue from rego and council rates, you will not be able to drive very far without an additional tax in some form.

            • 1st-Amendment on 05/03/2023 - 18:31
              +2

              @Bretttick:

              We pay council rates & rego to use local roads

              FTFY.
              Civics lesson 101:
              There are three levels of government in Australia:
              Local (councils) are responsible for local roads and collect revenue via Rates
              State are responsible for major arterial roads and collect their revenue (mostly) through GST, Rego, and Stamp Duty
              Federal are responsible for national highways and their revenue is from income taxes and fuel levies etc

    • Mrgreenz on 05/03/2023 - 14:32
      +1

      Why is that such a mind boggling concept to understand?

      You pay to use an asset. Mind blown

      • Bretttick on 08/03/2023 - 21:03

        We all know nothing is free, the problem i have is they like to milk it forever.

        Just like tolls on the Burnley tunnel, that shit was paid off years ago but we're still paying like clowns

        • Mrgreenz on 09/03/2023 - 10:51

          Google says Burnley tunnel is owned by Transurban, a private corporation.

  • Rain Cloud on 05/03/2023 - 14:13

    Just curious.. people who own one.. how much was it to install a charger at your own house/unit?

    • [Deactivated] on 05/03/2023 - 14:23
      +1

      well the next question is one-phase or three-phase?

    • Heybargain on 05/03/2023 - 15:23
      +4

      You don’t need to install one. Use your standard power point.

      • brosk1s on 05/03/2023 - 16:03
        +1

        If you plan to live at your place long-term, it's worth the $2000 install cost for a one phase charger. It takes something like 38 hours to fully charge a Model 3 with a powerpoint, which just isn't practical.

        • Heybargain on 05/03/2023 - 16:17
          +4

          Really depends on how many kms you drive. And yes it is practical.

        • interlocal on 05/03/2023 - 16:17
          +3

          Makes sense if you regularly drive 300km+/day.
          Otherwise you are fine with overnight charging, you don't really need 100% every morning. And for emergency scenarios there are plenty of fast chargers around if you live in major city (that would cost you more, but still half of the price of tank of petrol)

          • 1st-Amendment on 05/03/2023 - 18:35

            @interlocal:

            but still half of the price of tank of petrol

            So let me understand this. Charging at a retail charger might cost 50% of a tank of petrol, but the new Road Users Charges are likely to be about 2/3 of the fuel levy. So add those together overall you're down about 16% (0.5 + 0.66)?

            • interlocal on 05/03/2023 - 19:19
              +2

              @1st-Amendment: Basically average EV consumes 17kWh/100km (mine is less, some are more). If you drive 10k/year:
              Tax for 100km in VIC minus rego discount would be $1.6
              Charging at home at $0.22/kWh would be $3.74
              Charging at 350kW charger (that's really fast) at $0.6/kWh would be $10.2.
              So, total $5.3 if you charge at home, $11.8 if you use public fast charger.

              With petrol car that have 9L/100km (my second car) it would be ~$16.6. If it's mild hybrid with 5L/100km, then it would be $9.3.
              So, charging at home makes it 3 times less expensive than petrol car and almost 2 times less expensive than hybrid. Charging at fast chargers is between petrol and hybrid.

              But again, there is 1) solar, 2) free chargers at malls, libraries etc, so some part of charging would be free

    • interlocal on 05/03/2023 - 16:13
      +6

      Never installed one. Charging 1 night a week from regular 10A outlet in the garage. I drive about 150-200km a week.

  • tessel on 05/03/2023 - 14:20
    +1

    Tasmania leading the way as usual…

    • Clear on 05/03/2023 - 16:23
      +1

      Surprisingly our Liberal government very much believes in climate change and renewable energy.

      Speaking of which I was in a rural town of 2500 people and the fast charging stations were only 45c per kWh 😏

    • DPW on 06/03/2023 - 08:11

      Tasmania does plan on introducing a road user charge. They just don’t promote it. Here is a response from the Premier in April 2022

      “In the 2021‑22 Budget, the Government announced the introduction of a road user charge for zero and low emission vehicles from 1 July 2027 or when zero and low emission vehicles make up 30 per cent of all new vehicle sales, in line with the approach taken in New South Wales and South Australia.”

  • sajidmib on 05/03/2023 - 14:31
    +1

    Gulf Countries offering free charging facilities and free tolls.
    We dont have anything close to that.

    • wisdomtooth on 06/03/2023 - 10:48
      -1

      And how is their electricity generated? Hydro? In the desert? Course not. They burn petrol, just as "fossil" fuel cars do.

      • LlamaLlamaLamp on 06/03/2023 - 15:24
        +1

        Electric motors are much more efficient than petrol motors so even if you charge an EV using fossil fuels, you use considerably less fossil fuels to travel the same distance.

  • cheekymonkey97 on 05/03/2023 - 14:51
    +1

    EVs just aren’t worth it yet unfortunately. Doesn’t matter how many times I crunch the numbers, it’s always more financially viable to drive a petrol vehicle for me.

    • LlamaLlamaLamp on 06/03/2023 - 15:29

      How many kilometres do you drive per year?

  • Wimothy Jongingtons on 05/03/2023 - 15:00
    -2

    tnx OP bought a model 3 for towing at highway speed in cold temperatures

  • takeshi on 05/03/2023 - 15:14
    +1

    I have been researching for few months whether to buy EV.

    The issue is most of the EVs start at 50k. The ones under 50k is MG or BYD which would have terrible resale value.

    I am hoping Tesla 2 will be a game changer. To compete with Tesla 2, I am hoping Hyundai and others will reduce price.

    Also, if Toyota and Other manufacturers join, then it could bring EV price down.

    I think in another 2 years, there will be competition to bring the prices down.

    • ATangk on 05/03/2023 - 17:33
      +5

      Not sure why BYD has such a bad standing in your eyes. Toyota just licenced to use and built a brand new BEV using the entire electric platform from BYD from battery to motor.

    • aurotaro on 05/03/2023 - 19:48
      +1

      Most of Tesla's competitors aren't making money off their EVs. They're running at massive losses - check Ford.

      What makes you think they can afford to drop prices?

      • takeshi on 05/03/2023 - 20:11

        Competition always brings price down. Tesla had a head start that's why they are profitable. Other manufacturers are new to this and are spending a lot of money on R&D so it will take time for them to streamline manufacturing and assembly

    • takeshi on 05/03/2023 - 20:09

      I am not saying BYD is a bad car. I know they are a leader in EVs but when you have to resell, the price of a BYD will fall further than others.

  • CodeXD on 05/03/2023 - 15:22
    +3

    please use headings for each state instead of bold if you are going to bold specific sentences within each state.

    VICTORIA official gov. website(business.gov.au)

    Incentives
    $3000 subsidy given for the first 20,000 EVs or FCEVs sold which are priced under $68,740, as with NSW the offer is on the RRP plus the delivery charge and optional extras
    Reduced stamp duty rates
    $100 discount on registration annually.
    Tax
    2.6c/km BEV, 2.1c/km PHEV from July 1, 2022

    If everything is bolded, nothing is bold.

    • wisdomtooth on 05/03/2023 - 16:53
      +1

      This is a bold statement.

  • m0tyrider on 05/03/2023 - 15:26

    Why are they taxing us??
    2.6c per km!
    Dedicated electric vehicles are no where near where they need be to replace fossil fueled vehicles.
    What a joke.

    • takeshi on 05/03/2023 - 15:34
      +2

      Almost 10000 people die of air pollution and they want to tax us.

      • wisdomtooth on 05/03/2023 - 16:54

        In Australia? Refs, please.

        • takeshi on 05/03/2023 - 17:16
          +3

          https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-24/air-pollution-modelli…

          11000 deaths actually.

          • 1st-Amendment on 05/03/2023 - 18:44
            +1

            @takeshi:

            11000 deaths actually.

            No not actually. 11000 deaths guessed at by an organisation using models (once again, the entire climate cult provides no hard evidence, only models).
            "The study conducted by the Melbourne Climate Futures". Does that sound like someone with an unbiased point of view to you?

            This is standard for the ABC these days. Pass off opinion that they agree with as fact.
            Wake me up when you have ACTUAL evidence, not flaky reporting to flaky studies using flaky models…

            • wisdomtooth on 05/03/2023 - 18:46

              @1st-Amendment: It's funny to me how people shamelessly blatant establishment propaganda as scientific evidence 😄

              • slipperypete on 06/03/2023 - 08:51

                @wisdomtooth: that's funny considering around one billion US dollars spent yearly on climate denial yet not a single piece of research or scientific evidence with that money.
                The majority goes on social media and manipulating scientific studies to make things sound good for the fossil fuel industry

                • 1st-Amendment on 06/03/2023 - 10:35
                  -1

                  @slipperypete:

                  yet not a single piece of research or scientific evidence with that money.

                  Of course there is. Just look out of your window and tell me if you are under water yet?

                  Now let's flip that and point to me a single shred of hard evidence that the world is about to end

            • takeshi on 05/03/2023 - 19:36
              +3

              @1st-Amendment: This news is shared by both liberal and conservative media. But I don't trust it bcoz it's published by news channel. Peer reviewed research has been conducted all over the world regarding Air pollution emitted by vehicles. Apart from CO2, cars also emit CO and Nitrogen gases which can cause illness and that's a well known fact.

              Also, why do we need to burn fossil fuels and pay for fuel when there are so many clean/free energy sources.

            • Nom on 05/03/2023 - 19:57

              @1st-Amendment: Again, why are you wasting your time here ?

              You just discounted their work because it was summarised on the ABC and you don't like the name of one of the groups involved.
              If you can't contribute seriously then why are you even bothering to post here ?

            • Aureus on 05/03/2023 - 19:57
              +2

              @1st-Amendment: The models are the hard science. Makes me suspect you don't have a science background.

              • slipperypete on 06/03/2023 - 08:51
                +1

                @Aureus: and suddenly….he goes quiet

              • 1st-Amendment on 06/03/2023 - 10:37

                @Aureus:

                The models are the hard science.

                Haha, 'hard science' wtf (profanity) school did you go to?
                Bro, this is like totally hard science. Cowabunga!

                • Aureus on 06/03/2023 - 10:51

                  @1st-Amendment: You have no idea what you are talking about. Why pretend you understand this stuff?

                  You're clearly repeating conservative misinformation with zero analysis done by you.

                  You think peer reviewed science, that has been repeated all over the world by PhDs with decades of experience is wrong because you simply don't understand it.

                  Dare I ask your qualifications?

                  • 1st-Amendment on 06/03/2023 - 11:20
                    +1

                    @Aureus:

                    You have no idea what you are talking about.

                    Read: "I'm right and you're wrong". What an awesome argument…

                    Models are just best guesses, they are not 'hard science'. If there was such a thing as 'hard science' it would require evidence, not guesses.
                    But hey, don't just take my word for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong

                    You think peer reviewed science…

                    Which study exactly then let's discuss? It's odd that you claim to be the voice of 'hard science' yet can't reference a single piece of actual science…

                    has been repeated all over the world by PhDs with decades of experience is wrong

                    Let me quote Richard Feynman: "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts". But bring your studies and let's take a look

                    Dare I ask your qualifications?

                    Ah the good old argument for authority logical fallacy. You revealed a lot about your own ability to reason with that rookie error.
                    Are you able to think for yourself or do you rely on what the ABC/Guardian tells you to think?

                    When Al Gore said the Arctic would be ice free by 2013 because of climate change, what excuse did you make in your head for him not to be wrong?

                    Or when Tim Flannery said the dams would ever be full again becasue of climate change, shortly before they all filled up, did some part of you just pretend he never said that?

                    Here's some more for you to ponder, let me know if you still 'trust the experts':
                    https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-poca…

                    You would think that in a era where 'Interest rates will not rise in the foreseeable future', and that 'the vaccine will prevent you from getting covid', people would learn to treat 'the experts' with a little more caution. Yet here you are…

                    • Aureus on 06/03/2023 - 11:56

                      @1st-Amendment:

                      Which study exactly then let's discuss? It's odd that you claim to be the voice of 'hard science' yet can't reference a single piece of actual science…

                      You can read about HAPINZ 3.0 methodology here. Please let me know what part you have issues with.

                      Here is the AU report where they extrapolated the data from the NZ study

                      all models are wrong..

                      I don't think that means what you think it does. That was a quote by statisticians for statisticians. Statisticians still use models all the time.

                      Ah the good old argument for authority logical fallacy. You revealed a lot about your own ability to reason with that rookie error.
                      Are you able to think for yourself or do you rely on what the ABC/Guardian tells you to think?

                      ^ Makes no sense. Yes I would trust a mechanic on how to fix a car over my limited understanding. I would trust a surgeon to know what to do if I had an operation. It isn't about "Authority", experts actually do have more knowledge about the topic they are experts in.

                      Not even going to get in to silly climate change / vaccine rant. Not worth wasting the keystrokes as you are going to keep calling yourself an expert on everything anyway.

                      • 1st-Amendment on 06/03/2023 - 13:16
                        +1

                        @Aureus:

                        Please let me know what part you have issues with.

                        I already did and you avoided it. But sure let's go again…

                        "new exposure models have been developed to address knowledge gaps"
                        The study relies on models to fill gaps. Models are not fact.

                        Statisticians still use models all the time.

                        Oh dear, of course they do, I do it for a living so am very familiar with how they work. My point which you clearly missed is that models do have value, but they are not fact. And treating them as fact is foolish.

                        Yes I would trust a mechanic on how to fix a car over my limited understanding.

                        What if you had two mechanics and they both said different things? Who do you decide to trust?
                        Now instead of a mechanic that deals with known quantities, think about breakthrough science with many unknowns, where it is ALWAYS the outliers that find new discoveries. No breakthrough ever occurred by following the consensus. All the famous scientist went against the grain.

                        Also unlike a mechanic you're not talking to any scientists directly are you? All of your 'science' is filtered through the media where they select stories that for a narrative.

                        as you are going to keep calling yourself an expert on everything anyway.

                        I've never claimed to be an expert on anything so this claim only highlights you inability to make a coherent argument.

                        Let me dumb it down for you and use real world examples that you can verify for yourself. You see you don't need an expert to observe reality, all you need to do is be willing to open your eyes and think about it a little.

                        Example 1. Economic modelling: Has some value, is used to try and gauge future events and protect against financial catastrophes and sometimes it works, but sometime it doesn't. It isn't fact as the GFC and current inflation spiral can demonstrate. The consensus based on modelling was low interest rates for the foreseeable future. Do your own observations match those models?

                        Example 2. The Covid Pandemic. The models here actually got it pretty much all wrong. Initial forecasts were for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Australia alone. And no, lockdowns or vaccines didn't prevent that, there is no correlation in the data there. So do your own observations match those models?

                        Example 3. This is most fun because these models have been going for over 50 years and has all been mostly useless at predicting anything. The first climate models of the 60's were predicting a global cooling, up until the 80's when things started to warm up, then they suddenly predicted warming. Most recently we were in for long hot dry summers, then La Nina came and screwed all the predictions. Model = fail

                        Conclusions, Modelling can have use under certain circumstance but they are not fact.
                        If you are interested in an 'expert' opinion that differs from your own (or the ABC/Guardian), try this from a PhD in climatology: https://judithcurry.com/2023/02/24/climate-uncertainty-risk-…

            • ilikeit on 05/03/2023 - 22:04

              @1st-Amendment: Wasn't the modeling based on a projection using data from NZ?

              • Nom on 05/03/2023 - 23:19

                @ilikeit: Yes, it's spelled out quite clearly in the article 👌

              • 1st-Amendment on 06/03/2023 - 10:39

                @ilikeit:

                Wasn't the modeling based on a projection using data from NZ?

                Yes, do you know what a model is and how they work (or don't work as is usually the case)?
                Spoiler, it is the equivalent of a guess, and guessing should be taken with hige grain of salt, NOT passed off as fact.
                But don't just take my word for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong

          • CowFrogHorse on 06/03/2023 - 00:15

            @takeshi: And how many will die from disposed EV batteries into landfill ?

            Feel free to share links on tesla.com for recycling options.

  • Creamsoda on 05/03/2023 - 15:41
    +1

    Is there are site where they show how much of those state allocated rebates are left?

  • unhuman on 05/03/2023 - 15:47
    -3

    Such a waste of money without really good benefits to the environment. Australia is one of the few countries that don’t need ev just yet. Could be different in 2035 but right now most of the electricity is produced by burning coals. Plus battery are not really good for environment as of right now.

    • wisdomtooth on 05/03/2023 - 16:55

      True. Worth a neg.

    • dsar on 05/03/2023 - 17:45
      +7

      Why shouldn't Australia begin shifting to EVs? Even if the electricity is produced by burning coals, it'll still more efficient than the standard ICE.

      • 1st-Amendment on 05/03/2023 - 18:47
        -1

        Why shouldn't Australia begin shifting to EVs?

        You have your logic arse about. You need to as why we are doing something not why we aren't doing it. Like, why are we committing trillions of dollars to an industry that has very little demonstrated benefit?

      • unhuman on 05/03/2023 - 19:47
        +1

        Dude I rather we use that funds to create clean energy. Ev is over rated right now. Battery are not really clean is why. We are a nation with 30 million. We can have infrastructure built in no time should ev be needed. I don’t understand your logic of ev being cleaner than ice. Where do you think they mine minerals for battery ? And what happens when batteries die?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join