Taxing Utes and SUVs

Trying2SaveABuck on 11/03/2024 - 08:36
Last edited 12/03/2024 - 08:42

https://www.news.com.au/technology/motoring/on-the-road/gree…

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/council-could-sl…

https://www.news.com.au/technology/motoring/on-the-road/pric…

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-07/car-brands-set-to-fai…

'Australian motorists may be forced to pay as much as $13,000 extra for some of the country’s most popular cars under the Albanese government’s proposed new emissions standards.

The Ford Ranger, the top-selling car in 2023, would incur a penalty of $6150 under the proposed 2025 CO2 target, according to estimates compiled by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI), which has called on Energy Minister Chris Bowen to release the government’s own modelling of the likely impact on prices.

“I don’t understand why they won’t release the modelling,” said FCAI chief executive Tony Weber.

“Good public policy is created when there is transparency about the objectives and the underpinning assumptions about those objectives.

“Obviously we hope there are changes to the proposed standards. If it goes through as formulated the impact on consumers will be enormous, particularly in two ways — the increased purchase cost of the vehicle and the availability of product in market segments.”

The FCAI’s analysis suggests a Toyota LandCruiser — the seventh most popular car last year — would incur the highest penalty out of the top 20 of $13,250, while the sixth-rating Tesla Model Y would incur a carbon credit of $15,390 under the new rules.

The carbon penalty incurred by Australia’s other top five cars, the Toyota HiLux, Isuzu Ute D-Max, Toyota RAV4 and MG ZS, would be $2690, $2030, $2720 and $3880, respectively.

The figures, which assume the same drive-train or engine as 2023 with no improvement, are based on the highest CO2 emitting variant of each model, compared with the 2025 CO2 target at the penalty rate of $100 per gram.

“Consumers have two fundamental options — you can buy the vehicle that you want and if it doesn’t have the drive-train that meets the target as mooted you will pay the penalty,” said Mr Weber.

“The second option is you could substitute where they’re available to a more sophisticated drive-train that provides you with a better fuel efficiency. Typically in the future that will be EVs.”'

TLTR

the government wants to tax larger cars more [ones that are bad for the environment], potentially to subsidise cars that have better emissions standards. The local councils also want to hit larger cars with more expensive parking and fees.

Do you support taxing larger cars more?

For the record I support this tax as long as the money is used to subsidies more economically and environmentally friendly vehicles and sectors

Poll Options

949
Yes Tax them more
176
No dont tax them more
5
im unsure

Automotive Car SUV Ute

Comments

- MrFrugalSpend on 12/03/2024 - 21:20
  
  -2
  
  Well if you want to look at extra weight - EVs are producing more than equivalent size cars in particulate pollution:
  https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/07/elect…
  
  "EVs Are Sending Toxic Tire Particles Into the Water, Soil, and Air: Electric cars fix one pollution problem—and worsen another."
- KevinFine on 13/03/2024 - 10:15
  
  yea nah - EVs are a climate solution with a pollution problem
  - ihfree on 13/03/2024 - 10:23
    
    +5
    
    A SUV is going to be heavier than a car regardless of technology. Your article even calls out SUVs.
    
    The solution from your article:
    
    The tiny fragments that tires release into the environment are yet another reason to reduce car use.
    
    This is also linked The EV shift could prevent millions of childhood asthma attacks
- Damned on 13/03/2024 - 18:02
  
  -5
  
  I think you will find your electric car would suffer more tyre wear, lets not even talk about the damage to roads with the extra weight from these cars.
  - derrida derider on 16/03/2024 - 18:58
    
    +2
    
    That is crap. Virtually all road damage in every country is caused by heavy trucks, because physics.
    
    Road wear is created at the fourth power of axle weight - each axle on a loaded truck typically carries 8t per axle, so a 34 wheeler B-double with is causing (34/2)*4^4 = 4,352 times as much damage per km as a 2t four-wheeled car. Road freight is heavily subsidised by car drivers because of this.
    
    EVs are typically between 10% and 20% heavier than an equivalent sized ICE (some short range ones are actually lighter!). In the light of the above the extra road wear by EVs is a tiny rounding error (and the extra tyre wear is not much more).
Muzeeb on 11/03/2024 - 08:42

+19

They need to factor in the emissions created in the manufacturing process as well.

Volvo proved, on average, it takes 7 years for an EV to break even with CO² emissions compared to an ICE vehicle.
- ste616 on 11/03/2024 - 09:30
  
  +11
  
  Years is a useful way for people to think about it, but it is misleading as it is actually distance that counts. With the average amount of driving per year in Europe, which is relevant for Volvo, then yes it may take 7 years for an EV to pay for its construction carbon cost. But if you drive a lot more per year than that average, which I'm sure is quite common in Australia, then it will take less time.
  
  This article has a nice summary of it all (paywalled, sort of, you can get free articles if you don't read the site a lot).
  
  https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2023/06/29/high-mile…
  - Muzeeb on 11/03/2024 - 09:37
    
    +4
    
    It was 7 years or 140k kms if memory serves me correctly.
    
    Edit: just looked it up - it's 146k kms
    - Psdsoft on 12/03/2024 - 12:36
      
      -5
      
      This totally ignores the carbon cost of making ice vehicles and the ongoing carbon burden of driving them the same distance. Also ignores the carbon saving in improved population health outcomes
      - Muzeeb on 12/03/2024 - 12:55
        
        +2
        
        @Psdsoft: Did you read the Volvo study I linked?
  - bigticket on 13/03/2024 - 11:33
    
    -4
    
    Yes its distance that counts, but not referencing the difference between European and Australian average driving distances, makes it opinion rather than fact. There is another distinction that needs to be addressed, that is, the majority of world electrical supply is carbon sourced, meaning that the break even point is much greater than 7 years.
    
    EVs are also self limiting when it comes to distance. More time is spent on planing, waiting and charging rather than actual driving. Give me an ICE anytime. Fill up practically anywhere, any time with instant range and without the headache.
    - rumblytangara on 13/03/2024 - 11:43
      
      +1
      
      Years ago I said the same to someone who ran a business consulting on power generation and distribution, and she said that this is an oft-mentioned but wildly misused argument. That even electricity from the dirty coal fired plants found throughout southern China was overall better than trucking petrol all over the place to pump into cars.
      
      I'm not an expert and I've never looked into it, but it was literally her job to provide advisory services at the government level on this sort of thing so figured she knew what she was talking about.
      - Euphemistic on 13/03/2024 - 11:52
        
        +5
        
        @rumblytangara: This. An ICE car with the fuel already in the tank has about the same energy efficiency as an EV powered by coal fired power stations.
        
        Theres a huge difference in getting the energy to the vehicle between petrol and electricity. Petrol must be extracted, refined then shipped all over the world before being put into a truck and sent to a servo. Itll never be much more efficient than that. Electricity can be made locally fdom thw sun or wind, but yes, currently is created ay a massive power station and sent down the poles and wires.
        
        bigticket on 13/03/2024 - 19:44
        
        -4
        
        @Euphemistic: @rumblytangara
        @Euphemistic
        
        and she said that this is an oft-mentioned but wildly misused argument. That even electricity from the dirty coal fired plants found throughout southern China was overall better than trucking petrol all over the place to pump into cars.
        
        That is a ridiculous argument. If I read it correctly, the act of transporting a unit of fuel (not even taking the refining process into account) leaves a larger carbon footprint. I'd say your "friend" is on some funky drugs. That is to say, the act of burning coal, generating electricity through steam turbines and distributing via copper wires and finally charging the vehicle is "better". I think not. Every step introduces losses, lowering the overall efficiency.
        
        but yes, currently is created ay a massive power station and sent down the poles and wires
        
        Thank you for the support.
        
        Currently, due to the fact that the majority of world electrical production is derived from coal, the breakeven point is not 7 years, there is no breakeven point. Might as well say its >100 years.
        
        Wort on 13/03/2024 - 20:32
        
        @bigticket: You know that ice vehicles have huge radiators? They're not just there to be cool but to dump the massive amount of waste energy from the engine. An electric motor can do alot more with a kwh of energy then a ice can do (not including regenative breaking). There are also loses in the transmission of the car that greatly reduced with an electric drive train.
        
        bigticket on 13/03/2024 - 21:03
        
        @Wort: Do you know that coal fired plants have around 40% efficiency, similar to ICE? That means coal fired plants dump a massive amount of waste energy into the atmosphere. Making an argument without standing back and objectively taking into account of the efficiency of every step in the energy equation leads to falsehoods.
        
        Wort on 13/03/2024 - 21:50
        
        @bigticket: Hang on, no argument, I agree coal plants and ice engines are similar in there thermal efficiency. My point is that electric motors have benefits when it comes to how they use convert energy to motion that ice engine don't have.
        
        Euphemistic on 13/03/2024 - 21:52
        
        +3
        
        @bigticket: Break even point is the point where the manufacturing energy and the usage energy (for kms) is equal. An EV uses more to make, but less to drive. An ICE is less to make, but more to drive. After the break even point the whole of life energy emissions for the EV will always be less than the ICE.
        
        Energy efficiency of coal is about 40% at the end point of distribution from what ive seen. Battery EVs are 90% energy efficient.
        
        Energy efficiency of an ICE is less than 30% in the most efficient engines, and closer to 20% for many vehicles. That does not take into account the energy required to get the fuel into the tank which is a massive amount of energy.
        
        As i said above, the energy efficiency of a coal powered EV is roughly the same as the energy efficiency of an ICE with the fuel IN THE TANK.
        
        There is no comparison in straight energy efficiency when comparing EV to ICE. EV is vastly more energy efficient. Of course, they do have other issues such as being heavier and requiring more energy to manufacture, but the payback period in CO2 emissions can be as short as a year. Plus the enegy store for an EV (batteries) is highly recyclable while ALL the energy store (fuel) of an ICE cannot EVER be recovered. An EV can be fully powered by solar and wind and create no further emissions, but an ICE will emit forever.
        
        bigticket on 14/03/2024 - 18:34
        
        -2
        
        @Euphemistic:
        
        An EV uses more to make, but less to drive. An ICE is less to make, but more to drive. After the break even point the whole of life energy emissions for the EV will always be less than the ICE.
        
        Currently this is not the case. As eluded earlier, EVs break even point is a fallacy. EVs continue to pollute on and on as do ICE because EVs are generally powered with polluting coal. Its insane to to say otherwise.
        
        Energy efficiency of an ICE is less than 30% in the most efficient engines, and closer to 20%,
        
        This is simply not true. An old ICE may be 20% but comparing apples with apple, new for new, the best ICE have an efficiency of around 40%.
        
        Energy efficiency of coal is about 40% at the end point of distribution from what ive seen. Battery EVs are 90% energy efficient.
        
        Efficiency is a unitless number. The calorific value is another important factor. The energy density of
        gasoline and coal is ~ 46MJ/kg and ~24MJ/kg respectively, i.e. twice as much coal per unit mass is required to produce the same energy. EVs having an efficiency of 90% is optimistic. The real value is somewhere around 70+%. The overall efficiency of EVs with electricity derived from coal is ~70%x40% is somewhat > 30%. Combining this efficiency and energy density, the efficiency per unit mass becomes ridiculously low.
        
        Theres a huge difference in getting the energy to the vehicle between petrol and electricity. Petrol must be extracted, refined then shipped all over the world before being put into a truck and sent to a servo.
        
        When factoring in that coal has to be burnt to produce electricity for EVs this huge difference somewhat cancels out. Misquoting a figure of 90% without following the energy chain from start to finish is misleading. Coal must be extracted, refined, combusted, converted to electricity then shipped via the electrical grid before being used to charge an EV.
        
        Euphemistic on 14/03/2024 - 20:34
        
        @bigticket:
        
        Currently this is not the case. As eluded earlier, EVs break even point is a fallacy. EVs continue to pollute on and on as do ICE because EVs are generally powered with polluting coal. Its insane to to say otherwise.
        
        The break even point is not a fallacy, and the more renewable energy we get into the grid, the shorter the break even point. EVs might "continue to pollute" but they pollute so much less than ICE that any extra inputs for making an EV are soon exceeded by running emissions by ICE.
        
        bigticket on 15/03/2024 - 13:54
        
        -1
        
        @Euphemistic:
        
        the more renewable energy we get into the grid, the shorter the break even point.
        
        Totally agree with that statement. At this point in time the vast majority of electricity is sourced from carbon which leads to the undeniable fact that taking all the EVs on the planet as a whole, the break even point is nonexistent.
        
        That is to say, a subset of all those EVs that use true renewable energy are a small subset that do have a break even point. This discourse is focused on the planet as a whole and the discussion of EVs likewise should be considered as a whole. Thats just how it works.
        
        In my opinion, the rollout of solar and wind power is a BS government policy worldwide. These technologies still r?pe and pillage the planet and ultimately rely on the weather/clouds. Politicians are dumbasses who satisfy the own interests instead of the people and the planet. The sooner the uptake of nuclear reactors worldwide takes place by replacing carbon, the better, and then elusive break even point can be a real discussion.
        
        Euphemistic on 15/03/2024 - 15:40
        
        @bigticket:
        
        majority of electricity is sourced from carbon … the break even point is nonexistent.
        
        Thats just not true.
        
        Even if the break even point is long, having reduced tailpipe emissions in our cities is a big improvement to our health.
        
        bigticket on 15/03/2024 - 19:53
        
        -1
        
        @Euphemistic:
        
        Thats just not true.
        
        Whats the reasoning behind that statement. Base the reply on a global scale.
        
        France for example, generates most of its power by nuclear, and one could say that French EVs do have a break even point but countries like China, this is not the case. The larger population of China vastly outweighs any benefit derived from France.
        
        Even if the break even point is long, having reduced tailpipe emissions in our cities is a big improvement to our health.
        
        Agreed. Localised emissions in the cities would be lower, but if health is of concern, then nutrition is the most significant factor. The corrupted food chain of ultra processed foods is what leads to poor health. Red meat, fish, eggs and low starch carbohydrates is a good place to start.
        
        Euphemistic on 15/03/2024 - 20:04
        
        @bigticket:
        
        Whats the reasoning behind that statement. Base the reply on a global scale.
        
        Where is your proof that it isnt?
        
        Agreed. Localised emissions in the cities would be lower, but if health is of concern, then nutrition is the most significant factor. The corrupted food chain of ultra processed foods is what leads to poor health. Red meat, fish, eggs and low starch carbohydrates is a good place to start.
        
        We can improve health through cleaner air at the same time as improving nutrition. Doing one does not preclude the other. We have suitable technology to remove ICE cars from cities at the same time that we are converting our grid to lower emissions using more renewables and considering nuclear. The outcome being total overal emisison reductikn AND cleaner air in cities sooner.
        
        We need to stop burning stuff (except maybe small indiviual camp fires)
        https://stop-bs.com/
        
        bigticket on 15/03/2024 - 20:55
        
        @Euphemistic:
        
        Where is your proof that it isnt?
        
        Its logically self evident. The vast majority of global power generation is sourced from carbon fuels.
        
        Euphemistic on 15/03/2024 - 21:07
        
        @bigticket: "Logically self evident" means nothing. It's not proof of ANY sort.
        
        Yes, the majority of global powr comes from fossil fuels, but fossil fuel powered EVs are still.more efficient and less polluting than ICE… because science.
        
        bigticket on 15/03/2024 - 21:30
        
        @Euphemistic:
        
        but fossil fuel powered EVs are still.more efficient and less polluting than ICE… because science.
        
        Can you explain the science. I would love to hear it.
        
        Euphemistic on 15/03/2024 - 21:53
        
        @bigticket: Its just logically self evident.
        
        bigticket on 15/03/2024 - 21:58
        
        @Euphemistic: I thought so. You made a baseless statement, called the science card and can not produce a shred of supporting evidence.
        
        Euphemistic on 15/03/2024 - 22:09
        
        @bigticket: So you see how it sounds? Equally you havent provided evidence, despite me asking for it first. Why should I provide evidence when you havent offered any?
        
        This is about 5 years old, so possibly a bit out of date but thw oresenter does actual calculations and provides links to sources.
        https://youtu.be/6RhtiPefVzM?si=WDdrUF6fgo54_3_7
        
        bigticket on 16/03/2024 - 18:14
        
        -1
        
        @Euphemistic: Thank you for the youtube link. It obviously clear cut isn't right? Wrong, and this is why.
        
        The presenter states he teamed up with Formula E for the video and that in itself already introduces a clear bias. Note that the video is 5 years old.
        
        The AFDC website is the presenters only source of data is a government and industry funded entity that has an undeniable agenda to put as many bottoms in EVs.
        
        The derived data presented on the AFDC website is complex and requires a lot of data collection from many sources and considerable number crunching, hence the opportunity to mislead with mountainous data is ripe. A body with a clear EV agenda can not be trusted. They will herd data in the direction they want, to what is essentially is creative accounting to fool the general public.
        
        For example, head to exactly 6:00 into the video and the graph for EV CO2 for West Virginia is 9268lbs and that of ICE is about 11500lbs.
        Now head to the present day AFDC website
        https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html
        and choose West Virginia. Miraculously the EV has dropped to from 9268 to 6000lbs and conversely the ICE has increased by what looks like 1000lbs of CO2 even though the energy mix is the same. It is clear these presented figures are changing over time to show a larger disparity between EVs and ICE even though the input variables are essentially the same.
        
        That is not science, its presenting data to suit an agenda. The real science can be broken down in simple terms. The energy produced by burning carbon based fuels like crude oil, petroleum, coal and LPG is very similar(difference<10%) and hence it follows the amount of CO2 emitted is also similar.
        
        This means, all things been equal, burning coal in the beginning of the energy cycle for EVs or burning petroleum and the end of the energy cycle for ICE produces basically an equivalent amount of CO2. Its just simple science.
        But an EV is 20 to 30% heavier and having to lug around a 100kWh Tesla battery for example, for the life of an EV flips the equation so a carbon based EV is considerably more polluting than ICE over time meaning there is absolutely no break even point.
        
        Euphemistic on 17/03/2024 - 06:53
        
        @bigticket: Ok maybe were confusing energy efficiency with emissions here. Emissions wise, the link you provided, and one of the linked papers from that link both indicate emissions are lower for EVs (including cradle to grave). This leads to the conclusion that if an EV creates more emisions during its construction but less during driving at some point it will be overall better than ICE
        
        But if youre talking about energy efficiency, i also cant see how an EV that uses around 90% of its energy is the same as an ICE that turns over 60% into noise and heat, not forward propulsion.
        
        I'm happy to learn, be informed but I tend not to trust internet warriors that assert without backup.
        Again, your assertion has not been backed by a source.
        
        bigticket on 17/03/2024 - 14:33
        
        -1
        
        @Euphemistic:
        
        Ok maybe were confusing energy efficiency with emissions here.
        
        Im certainly not confusing these terms. The terms are intimately linked in working out the break even point of EVs powered from carbon based fuels, the point of contention of this exchange.
        
        Emissions wise, the link you provided, and one of the linked papers from that link both indicate emissions are lower for EVs (including cradle to grave).
        
        The link I provided indicates otherwise for EVs powered from carbon based fuels:-
        
        In geographic areas that use relatively low-polluting energy sources for electricity generation, all-electric vehicles and PHEVs typically have an especially large life cycle emissions advantage over similar conventional vehicles running on gasoline or diesel. In areas with higher-emissions electricity, all-electric vehicles and PHEVs may not demonstrate as strong a life cycle emissions benefit.
        
        Its ironic that the link I provided is actually sourced from the youtube video that you initially linked to support your position. Read the quote in bold above. It clearly says that higher-emissions electricity, ie. coal EVs may NOT demonstrate as strong a life cycle emissions benefit.
        At the start of this thread, that is exactly my position: break even point is a fallacy.
        
        But if youre talking about energy efficiency, i also cant see how an EV that uses around 90% of its energy is the same as an ICE that turns over 60% into noise and heat, not forward propulsion.
        
        At this point, there is confusion on your part. Not taking into account, as you mentioned: cradle to grave, that is, the WHOLE energy chain leads to statements like this that are misleading. This is how it works, 90 x 40 = 45% efficiency for a coal powered EV (40% been the efficiency of a coal powered plant to produce the electricity). The efficiency of an ICE is 40%. The difference between 45% and 40% are ball park and essentially the same considering we are using approximate figures. (ie, ICE and EV efficiencies a similar).
        
        Again, your assertion has not been backed by a source.
        
        Read the above quote in bold that is from your own source.
        
        In areas with higher-emissions electricity, all-electric vehicles and PHEVs may not demonstrate as strong a life cycle emissions benefit.
        
        Euphemistic on 17/03/2024 - 14:58
        
        +1
        
        @bigticket:
        
        In geographic areas that use relatively low-polluting energy sources for electricity generation, all-electric vehicles and PHEVs typically have an especially large life cycle emissions advantage over similar conventional vehicles running on gasoline or diesel. In areas with higher-emissions electricity, all-electric vehicles and PHEVs may not demonstrate as strong a life cycle emissions benefit.
        
        "May not demonstrate as strong" does not mean there is no break even point. You keep asserting that there is no benefit going to EV. The charts I looked at and the text I read indicated EVs were better from a whole of life emissions perspective.
        
        At this point, there is confusion on your part. Not taking into account, as you mentioned: cradle to grave, that is, the WHOLE energy chain leads to statements like this that are misleading. This is how it works, 90 x 40 = 45% efficiency for a coal powered EV (40% been the efficiency of a coal powered plant to produce the electricity). The efficiency of an ICE is 40%. The difference between 45% and 40% are ball park and essentially the same considering we are using approximate figures. (ie, ICE and EV efficiencies a similar).
        
        Ummm. Hiw do you get 90x40=45%? By my count that 36% (still better than most ICE). ICE efficiency is at BEST 40% WITHOUT accounting for fossil fuel extraction and distribution. I cant see how you can equate this with EVs. That was my inital point. Coal fired EV efficiency is around the same efficiency as ICE with the fuel already in the tank. You might say (again) that extraction and distribution of coal is the same as the extraction and distrivution of coal, but ive yet to see anyrhing that says it is (or not). Oil costs more than coal to distribute. convince me otherwise. I'm trying to find info on how much energy is used to create petrol, but it seems hard to find so far.
        
        Plus, the national grid figures (for USA) was 40% emission free electricity - amd rising.
        
        If you focus on "you said EVs were 36% efficient while ICE is 40%" you will have completely missed the point. 36% was responding to your bad maths. 40% is the number you keep.using for ICE as best case, when it's under 30% for most cars.
        
        bigticket on 17/03/2024 - 17:20
        
        -1
        
        @Euphemistic: My mistake on the maths. Point is the same. The efficiencies for coal EVs and ICE are around the same. Nit picking on distribution factors between both fuels (including oil refining) to push one over the line in a tight race shows, emission wise, they are not dissimilar andnote some of the distribution costs will cancel out.
        
        Using old energy technology with modern technology EVs like in a coal sourced energy state like West Virginia is really of no benefit.
        
        "May not demonstrate as strong" does not mean there is no break even point.
        
        This is just semantics and open to interpretation. It indicated to me the difference is small and balance could tip either way. Large capacity batteries in EVs will definitely tip the balance.
        
        36% was responding to your bad maths. 40% is the number you keep.using for ICE as best case, when it's under 30% for most cars.
        
        The bad maths was in your favour. 40% is the correct figure to use. We are talking about present and future production of ICE as we do likewise with present and future energy mixes for EVs.
        
        cadwalader on 14/03/2024 - 12:52
        
        +1
        
        @bigticket: Nah, when you say 40% you're comparing between the top of the range of a petrol engine and the top range for coal fired power plants without considering the lower end which is closer to typical.
        
        Petrol engine efficiency range from 20-40% and coal fired power is about 33-40%. HELE coal plants are pushing 45%. Not to mention that coal only makes up 48% of our power generation while 32% comes from renewables, especially if you're charging the car during the day time. About 19% comes from natural gas plants which are much more efficient than coal plants, having efficiencies of between 50-60% with waste heat recovery.
        
        ICE cars can't ever run off renewables or do waste heat recovery.
        
        bigticket on 14/03/2024 - 19:11
        
        -2
        
        @cadwalader:
        
        Nah, when you say 40% you're comparing between the top of the range of a petrol engine and the top range for coal fired power plants without considering the lower end which is closer to typical.
        
        We are not discussing typical. We are discussing present and the future, not an old bombed out ICE that is 20% efficient. Compare apples with apples. Coal makes a lot more than 48% of power generation worldwide.
        
        And renewables like wind and solar are not carbon free, they leave a large manufacturing footprint and at end of life have a disposal/recycling cost. What it all boils down to is that coal and natural gas basically supply electricity for EVs presently and in that case ICE vehicles are a better option. The energy cycle is similar, burning coal and gas at the beginning for EVs and burning fuel at the end for ICE.
        
        cadwalader on 19/03/2024 - 16:36
        
        @bigticket: We are discussing typical Australia (take a look at OP's links) for the present and future. Coal generation will be on the decline in the future also anyway. The average age of cars across Australia is 10.6 years old and only getting older with time. And most car engine state thermal efficiency is the maximum possible thermal efficiency when the engine is at a certain RPM or power output. The varied nature of engine type and use means a lot of engines spend a lot of time outside their maximum possible thermal efficiency, starting, stopping, idling etc many times throughout the day, something that power plant turbines don't have to experience.
        
        https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/tourism-and-trans…
        
        Even if we throw renewables out of the window because they are so terrible and have half energy produced by gas, the overall efficiency is still better than ICE engines.
        
        Euphemistic on 17/03/2024 - 18:09
        
        +2
        
        @cadwalader:
        
        Nit picking on distribution factors between both fuels (including oil refining) to push one over the line in a tight race shows, emission wise, they are not dissimilar andnote some of the distribution costs will cancel out.
        
        Its not nit picking when refining oil and then shipping it to your local servo uses a lot more energy than digging coal, washing it and shipping it to a power station. Refining petroleum uses huge amounts of energy
        
        Using old energy technology with modern technology EVs like in a coal sourced energy state like West Virginia is really of no benefit.
        
        Which is why we are moving away from coal, except in 'conservative' areas that cant see the benefits of renewables and wont invest in their future. Again, average 40% low emission in USA. Aus was 32% renewable in 2022.
        
        The bad maths was in your favour.
        
        Well.it wasnt in my favour, it showed less efficiency for EVs. If your showing bad maths without other links to back your arguments its a sign that you might be wrong about other stuff.
        
        40% is the correct figure to use.
        
        No 40% is not correct. For ICE 40% is very high efficiency, like for optimised stationary engines. Cars are under 30% especially if you start to take into account idling when stationary or coasting down hills and other drivetrain losses.
        
        Here, Nissan thinks they can get it to 50%, but only buy making the engine a generator and not connecting to wheels
        https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/nissan-e-power-gasoline-e…
        
        We are talking about present and future production of ICE as we do likewise with present and future energy mixes for EVs.
        
        Except you conveniently focus on EVs powered by coal, ignoring signifcant increases in renewables. Coal is not the future.
        
        Still waiting for your links to an assertion that EVs do not have lifetime emmisions lower than ICE
        
        https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/evs-are-they-reall…
        
        bigticket on 18/03/2024 - 13:59
        
        -2
        
        @Euphemistic:
        
        Refining petroleum uses huge amounts of energy.
        
        You're assuming this and have not data to back it up. Petroleum is produced by refining in a fractionation process that in simple terms, heat is applied to separate its constituents. Petroleum is one of the most energy dense fuels, meaning the energy cost in refining would be lower than you think. Petroleum is one of many of the products in the refining process, albeit the main one, and not all the plants CO2 can be assigned to petroleum.
        
        The bad maths was in your favour. (Well.it wasnt in my favour, it showed less efficiency for EVs.)
        
        Im fairly certain an EV efficiency of 45% is better than 36% ?
        
        And I think its not fair the say showing bad maths without other links to back your arguments its a sign that you might be wrong about other stuff about you?
        
        No 40% is not correct. For ICE 40% is very high efficiency, like for optimised stationary engines. Cars are under 30% especially if you start to take into account idling when stationary or coasting down hills and other drivetrain losses.
        
        No 40% is correctish figure to use. It accounts for present and future technologies. You even linked to a Nissan at 50%, Im claiming that cars produced in the next several years will have a 40% or better efficiency to compete with EVs and meet emissions.
        
        Except you conveniently focus on EVs powered by coal, ignoring signifcant increases in renewables. Coal is not the future.
        
        Well that was the original point of contention. I rightfully claimed that since globally the majority of electricity is carbon sourced (ie. coal) on a global scale there is no break even point. Its a myth. Conversely, to be fair, I pointed out locally, countries like France do have a break even point because their energy mix is mostly nuclear.
        
        Still waiting for your links to an assertion that EVs do not have lifetime emmisions lower than ICE
        
        Thank you for your link. It is clear that the Energy Council is funded by the government and scientists and researchers invariably agree with whoever provides the funding. You get that right? Most of the literature out there is state funded and most of the literature you are absorbing is certainly biased.
        
        One example, there are serious negatives to EVs presently.
        https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/revealed-how-far-electri…
        The advertised range falls far short and this is nothing new. New cars advertise a much higher mileage than what consumers find.
        Tesla, been one of the best in terms of efficiency, has a range shortfall of 25% and many others are over 30%. This figure will only increase as the battery capacity falls with time making the elusive real life break even point much further down the line than the theoretically opitimised calculations, that for example use the misleading 90% efficiency figures for EVs.
        
        Euphemistic on 18/03/2024 - 14:30
        
        +2
        
        @bigticket:
        
        You're assuming this and have not data to back it up. Petroleum is produced by refining in a fractionation process that in simple terms, heat is applied to separate its constituents. Petroleum is one of the most energy dense fuels, meaning the energy cost in refining would be lower than you think. Petroleum is one of many of the products in the refining process, albeit the main one, and not all the plants CO2 can be assigned to petroleum.
        
        So have you got any links for petroluem fusl refining emissions or do you just think that its not that much? I struggled to find anything.
        
        Well that was the original point of contention. I rightfully claimed that since globally the majority of electricity is carbon sourced (ie. coal) on a global scale there is no break even point. Its a myth. Conversely, to be fair, I pointed out locally, countries like France do have a break even point because their energy mix is mostly nuclear.
        
        Again wheres your references?.
        
        Still waiting for your links to an assertion that EVs do not have lifetime emmisions lower than ICE. And again , your claiming a comparison with future ice tech vs coal that is being phased out. Alternatively, what percentage of emission free electricity creates a break even point? The volvo study claims a break even of 7 years with current generation - and all youve said is 'no its not' and not provided a grain of evidence to back it.
        
        https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-sources-by-fuel….
        Globally coal is 35% of generation, Gas 23% and renewables about 15% this also refutes your claim about coal generation somewhat. Yes, its the largest proportion, but you're arguing a point about EVs being powered by coal when clearly a large percentage comes from elsewhere.
        
        Thank you for your link. It is clear that the Energy Council is funded by the government and scientists and researchers invariably agree with whoever provides the funding. You get that right? Most of the literature out there is state funded and most of the literature you are absorbing is certainly biased.
        
        Claiming an article is biased does not adequalty provide information that refutes it. Where is your source? You still refuse to show me anything backing your argument. Id be happy to read something backing your claims but you seem to not be able to provide it. Although, ill need some form of reputable source, not something off fox news.
        
        One example, there are serious negatives to EVs presently.
        https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/revealed-how-far-electri…
        The advertised range falls far short and this is nothing new. New cars advertise a much higher mileage than what consumers find.
        Tesla, been one of the best in terms of efficiency, has a range shortfall of 25% and many others are over 30%. This figure will only increase as the battery capacity falls with time making the elusive real life break even point much further down the line than the theoretically opitimised calculations, that for example use the misleading 90% efficiency figures for EVs.
        
        Stated ICE economy is also often 'optimistic', this nothing new. They are still developing standards for EV range so its a marketing figure at this point amd theyll donwhatever is necessary to make it seem higher becasue range is apparently most important when selling an EV
        
        Failing range doesnt effect the efficiency of an EV in most cases as its not common for an EV to run until empty. Shorter range is as a result of not as many kwh fitting in the battery, not the car using more. The car will still be as efficient to run. When an ICE engine gets worn out its emissions increase dramatically. Range loss is akin to the fuel tank not being filled to top in an ICE, not using like more fuel like an ICE will (admittedly after a very long life)
        
        bigticket on 18/03/2024 - 16:09
        
        -2
        
        @Euphemistic:
        
        Again wheres your references?.
        Still waiting for your links to an assertion that EVs do not have lifetime emmisions lower than ICE.
        
        References? Its common knowledge that global energy is sourced from carbon. Pushing EVs out globally means the energy source is carbon. When do you think the global energy mix is going to reverse flip from carbon to low emissions sources. Yes thats right, not any time soon. Probably in the next 30 to 50 years.
        
        China is still building coal plants. No references needed. I tend to only use reference data not abstracts and conclusions from others with vested interests. Outsourcing my thinking skills is not my cup of tea.
        
        I never claimed lifetime emission of EVs was lower, although saying the break even point is a myth is somewhat similar. The point is the existing break even point calculations are optimistised and the public are given figures that do not reflect reality. Your own youtube reference pointed out a Tesla 100kwh had a break even point of more than 17 years. Thats with idealistic conditions. Real life figures are obviously going to be larger and in a car like that, a useful life is not going to be much greater the 10 years, so yeah no break even point from your very own reference.
        
        Globally coal is 35% of generation, Gas 23% and renewables about 15%.
        
        Thats right. 15% renewables and the rest is carbon and nuclear.
        
        Claiming an article is biased does not adequalty provide information that refutes it. Where is your source?
        
        I don't think you understand how funding influences the science. If there was a government pushing for ICE then I could provide a source from the opposing side. But thats no the case.
        
        Failing range doesnt effect the efficiency of an EV in most cases as its not common for an EV to run until empty. Shorter range is as a result of not as many kwh fitting in the battery, not the car using more.
        
        That may appear to be a sound argument, but follow me here for a bit. Battery denigration not only lowers capacity, it also becomes less efficient to charge, generates more heat while in use and your lugging around big low kwh battery that increases the break even point. It therefore affects its efficiency, requires more energy to charge from electricity that is mainly sourced from carbon.
        
        Euphemistic on 18/03/2024 - 17:40
        
        +2
        
        @bigticket: While i get your 'common knowledge' argument, you are not providing any confidence in your assertions because you refuse to back them up other than 'because i say so' again, if youve got evidencd im open to adjusting my learnings and opinions.
        
        Where is the data supporting youre 'no break even on coal' assertion - and one that supports EVs on CURRENT grid makeup.
        
        I don't think you understand how funding influences the science. If there was a government pushing for ICE then I could provide a source from the opposing side. But thats no the case.
        
        I absolutely know how funding influences science and so i also understand that if someone is properly pushing an agenda, there's a report to back it. If there was any way the fossil fuel industry could twist the figures in their favour dont you think theyd be promoting the report on as much media as possible? Anti-EV is great click bait. The fact you are unable to provide a report refuting the link and simply claim 'its biased' only strenthens the feeling youve been led astray by the likes of fox and facebook where facts are less important than clicks. Certainly, claiming that all goverment studies are biased and therefore wrong lends itself to conspiracy theorist thinkings. I prefer to think that the science in such reports is largely correct, but sometimes biased in presentation, especially when a journalist gets hold of a snippet of a major in depth study.
        
        Battery denigration
        
        Aside form.the points you raise, degradation is not a real issue. The break even point over an ICE is well within the warranty period of a battery and the battery warranty includes a degradation component. Batteries are lasting well over 200,000km in real world conditions
        
        bigticket on 18/03/2024 - 19:50
        
        -3
        
        @Euphemistic:
        
        Where is the data supporting youre 'no break even on coal' assertion.
        
        Already did that.
        
        The point is the existing break even point calculations are optimistised and the public are given figures that do not reflect reality. Your own youtube reference pointed out a Tesla 100kwh had a break even point of more than 17 years.
        
        and one that supports EVs on CURRENT grid makeup.
        
        Could you rephrase that.
        
        strenthens the feeling youve been led astray by the likes of fox and facebook where facts are less important than clicks.
        
        FYI I am not on ANY social media platform. You're assumption, your mistake. My analyses are invariably based on actual credible data as previously indicated.
        
        If there was any way the fossil fuel industry could twist the figures in their favour dont you think theyd be promoting the report on as much media as possible?
        
        That is a really good point.
        Firstly, its not coming from the leftist state run media. Secondly. "twisting figures" is not my assertion, but rather creative accounting, cognitive biases from those collecting data, leaving pertinent data out, using inaccurate models etc. Thirdly, the fossil fuel industry holds the majority of the market anyway and the worldwide governmental push for going green in the transportation sector is not a big share. From memory, the total global transportation sector is less than 20% of annual fossil fuels usage and it includes all forms of transportation, commercial and private. From that perspective, and the unwavering push from governments, the fossil fuel industry is probably focused on the other 80% and diversifying in the future instead.
        
        Aside form.the points you raise, degradation is not a real issue. The break even point over an ICE is well within the warranty period of a battery and the battery warranty includes a degradation component.
        
        My points trump your assertion that degradation is not a real issue and that somehow a warranty that will never be will fix that.
        
        I think the this exchange has run its course. Feel free to respond if you wish, but we are running around in circles. Its been enjoyable, all the best.
        
        Euphemistic on 18/03/2024 - 20:26
        
        +2
        
        @bigticket: Still no links or facts. Again, you have only provided a couple of assertions and not backed them with anthing other than your own thoughts. Other than that youve cherry picked some worst case scenarios as evidence. If you cant provide evidence i call BS time and again.
        
        "Leftist state run media" also says a lot and really fits with unwillingness to provide any sort of evidence for your "facts". If find it interesting that you call thebstate runnmedia "leftist" when the state is often under more conservative power.
        
        bigticket on 19/03/2024 - 08:08
        
        -2
        
        @Euphemistic:
        
        Still no links or facts.
        
        Not true. I have boomeranged back your own link supporting my position thats in bold in my previous comment. Press pageup to view.
        
        Again, you have only provided a couple of assertions and not backed them with anthing other than your own thoughts.
        
        Not the case. I have presented numerous data, critically assessed that data. For example, in Australia, the eastern states, where most of the population lives the energy mix is <10-11% renewables and the Australian average is <10%. One average, every EV in Australia is running on predominately carbon sourced fuels.
        
        Im not going to look it up, but on a global scale, I would say the energy mix would be <5% and its not going to significantly change in the next 10-20 years. My assertion that on average, globally, EVs are predominately run on fossil fuels and hence the original point of our contention, the emission break even point is really long or non-existant. This is not just thoughts or opinions, its hard data backed up by science and common sense.
        
        You say that I cherry picked data. I think that is not the case. I have objectively presented data on both sides of the argument by acknowledging that the break even points in France are real since their energy mix is predominately nuclear.
        
        You don't have to answer this, but do you own or are thinking about purchasing an EV. Im asking because your arguments are strongly one sided and seem personal.
        
        Personally, unless the technology changes an EV is out of the question in my case.
        Hypothetically speaking, if I was purchasing a new ICE car, looking at the specifications and it required to be refueled at home and it takes several hours or overnight from a mini bowser that was installed at my home for free or I could go to a petrol station and refuel there for several hours, I would say you're friggin nuts. See what I did there? Flipping the scenario highlights pain of owning an EV that requires it to be refueled up 30 times a month if driven daily. There is also the daily range anxiety most EV owners suffer.
        
        If find it interesting that you call thebstate runnmedia "leftist" when the state is often under more conservative power.
        
        All the ALP states and the ALP federal government are far right conservative. Yeah right.
        
        Euphemistic on 19/03/2024 - 09:13
        
        +2
        
        @bigticket: Im not going to look it up, but on a global scale, I would say the energy mix would be <5% and its not going to significantly change in the next 10-20 years. My assertion that on average, globally, EVs are predominately run on fossil fuels and hence the original point of our contention, the emission break even point is really long or non-existant. This is not just thoughts or opinions, its hard data backed up by science and common sense.
        
        So you havent even looked at the links i added. It IS just thoughts and opinions.
        
        At this point youre just trolling.
        
        rumblytangara on 14/03/2024 - 14:45
        
        +3
        
        @bigticket:
        
        That is a ridiculous argument. If I read it correctly, the act of transporting a unit of fuel (not even taking the refining process into account) leaves a larger carbon footprint. I'd say your "friend" is on some funky drugs. That is to say, the act of burning coal, generating electricity through steam turbines and distributing via copper wires and finally charging the vehicle is "better". I think not. Every step introduces losses, lowering the overall efficiency.
        
        I really didn't get into it detail, it was a very brief side conversation. And because she is literally owned half of a company that does consulting for governments on power design and planning throughout Asia, I figured that she knew a damn sight more about than me, even though I had all the same initial thoughts as you.
        
        If a domain expert who I personally know, tells me something about an area that I know absolutely nothing about, I will tend to think that perhaps the ignorant person is myself. I'm not going to throw up all the obvious noob arguments scraped from a Google search that supports my bias, nor am I going to demand to see their proprietary models and then tell them that they're wrong. I was happy enough to give casual computing advice on the machines they needed to run their models off when travelling, because that happens to be my area of experience.
        
        But hey, you do you.
        
        bigticket on 14/03/2024 - 18:41
        
        @rumblytangara: There is a quite a distinct possibility, being a noob, there was something lost in the communication or a misunderstanding.
        
        Strictly speaking, an appeal to authority is not an argument.
- Euphemistic on 11/03/2024 - 10:35
  
  +6
  
  Other studies have shown it can be as little as 2 years.
  - boomramada on 11/03/2024 - 20:31
    
    +2
    
    What other studies ? Volvo compared within same model vehicles with three different power trians, more like apple vs apple comparison.
    - Euphemistic on 11/03/2024 - 20:36
      
      -1
      
      Comparing a single model is possibly an oversimplification, but none the less is a valid comparison. I was just pointing out that its not "7 years" for every EV.
      
      Ive seen an engineering explained video that calculated as little as 9 months for a model 3 compared to an ICE based on a range of factors. Ive seen other reports of a couple of years based on other models, but cant recall where.
    - Bigboomboom on 12/03/2024 - 15:53
      
      +3
      
      Comparing same model may not be correct either. There is the problem of slapping an EV drive train and battery on an ICE platform which features a lot of redundant parts that is not needed in an EV. This is why Polestar 2 is cramped, expensive and does not sell well and why Polestar is a dumpster fire for Volvo. It's also why EX30 is developed with Geely from an EV only platform.
      - boomramada on 12/03/2024 - 19:46
        
        @Bigboomboom:
        
        There is the problem of slapping an EV drive train and battery on an ICE platform
        
        What Volvo did was the closest you can get when comparing. You can't really compare Volvo vs Model Y.
        
        Bigboomboom on 12/03/2024 - 21:21
        
        +2
        
        @boomramada: Yes you can, what Volvo did is a disaster as shown by Polestar 2 sales, and subsequent Polestar financial woes. Also Model Y is a bigger more efficient car than anything built on the XC40 platform and it would have required less to make and is lighter to boot.
        
        bZ4x is also another example of why it is bad to compare an EV that is basically an ICE with slapped on EV components. You have so much redundant you don't even… and the result is a car that is heavy, cost a lot to build and yet still mediocre.
- whats up skip on 11/03/2024 - 11:54
  
  +2
  
  It might have taken that long for a Volvo to recover the embedded emissions, but this is far from what the best selling BEV takes. The Tesla model Y produced in the USA has lower embedded emissions that the average ICE vehicle produced in the USA. This is the best comparison.
  - gromit on 12/03/2024 - 16:51
    
    +1
    
    Really? lower emissions for construction even considering the battery? or is that being excluded as the battery is made seperately, The battery and the materials in it is what is truly awful for EV production.
    - Jolakot on 12/03/2024 - 19:46
      
      Depends where it's made: https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/does-making-an-electric-car…
      - gromit on 12/03/2024 - 20:48
        
        -1
        
        @Jolakot: That addresses only the manufacturing part unless I missed something, Lithium mining especially in places like Chile is hugely destructive and Co2 intensive as is the refining process (most of which occurs in China).
        
        whats up skip on 13/03/2024 - 09:01
        
        @gromit: No, it includes the battery. Tesla sources lithium from Australia. Australia produces around 50% of the world's lithium ore concentrate. Tesla is highly focused on reducing the embedded emissions in their vehicles. They track and report all their emissions every year in a very detailed report. As Tesla increases their production of their own battery cells they are further reducing emissions by dramatically reducing the amount of energy used in the production of the cells. Tesla doesn't need to use the very energy intensive drying process that is required by all other cell producers. In addition Tesla is building their own lithium refinery to convert lithium ore concentrate to battery grade lithium, which will use new processes to reduce the energy required in this process.
        
        Tesla is also pushing all of their suppliers to reduce their emissions. It is unlikely that Tesla will produce battery cells in China in the foreseeable future, so working with key suppliers is important.
        
        gromit on 13/03/2024 - 09:06
        
        @whats up skip: So when did Tesla move away from Ganfeng Lithium in China? I hadn't heard they had changed yet. I know they are building a refinery in the US but that is not running yet.
        
        and FYI Telsa already uses Chinese made batteries in some of their vehicles and likely will increase in future.
        
        whats up skip on 13/03/2024 - 11:16
        
        +1
        
        @gromit: Are you referring to Ganfeng lithium for cells produced in the USA?
        
        I think they are likely still obtaining some material from them. There is also some battery grade lithium material produced in Australia, which will increase dramatically over the next few years as more processing plants come online here.
        
        I know Tesla uses very large amounts of Chinese batteries, both CATL, BYD and LG Chem (China). It also sources batteries from Japan (Panasonic) and Panasonic USA. The Chinese made batteries are used in all Shanghai produced Tesla's (CATL & LG Chem), some of the Berlin model Y (BYD) and the some of the model 3 in the USA.
        
        Even with the ramping of the Tesla (Austin & soon Nevada) USA, soon Berlin produced 4680, Panasonic (Japan & USA) 4680, plus addition Panasonic USA 2170 and other suppliers, Tesla will dramatically increase purchases of Chinese made cells. However a large part of the additional Chinese cells will be going into energy storage products, mainly the MegaPacks produced in California and fairly soon Shanghai. Within a couple of years this will be over 80GWh per annum, with further new capacity expected to be added quickly.
        
        Tesla is in the process of obtaining approval to produce LFP cells in the USA (10GWh pa) using equipment from, but not owned by, CATL.
        
        In terms of Tesla vehicles, I would expect the percentage of cells used that are made in China will decrease until the production of the compact ramps in Mexico and probably China at which point it is likely that more will come from China.
        
        The future is very fluid with many factors in play, so it is very hard to predict what the ratios will be.
- orangetrain on 11/03/2024 - 12:44
  
  ICE vehicle is already break even? Whats the comparison exactly?
  - Muzeeb on 11/03/2024 - 12:46
    
    +3
    
    Volvo produce 3 versions of the C40. ICE, hybrid and BEV. They produced a comprehensive study on how all 3 similar vehicles pollute the environment over the production process and average use. It's quite an interesting read.
    
    Link to report
    - seannami on 13/03/2024 - 11:39
      
      +1
      
      I'd want a couple more studies to confirm this- sponsor bias is potentially high here, especially as Volvo is heavily relying on ICE based cars and their EVs are not selling as well as EV-centered companies. I wouldn't accept a report by Tesla or BYD face value either.
      
      The other thing we need to consider is that cars don't tend to spontaneously disappear at 7 years- their lifetime tends to be much longer than that, even if the original owner has long since moved on. So if the 7 years is accurate (I have read several conflicting reports - some that suggest an MG4 could outstrip a Corolla in about 3-4 years), then you are still making an impact for the life of the car after that 7 years- there are first gen Leafs running around that are older than that, and tech is significantly better now in terms of longevity.
- Aureus on 11/03/2024 - 12:55
  
  +6
  
  It is very dependent on the emissions of the source of electricity.
  
  C40 Recharge, Global electricity mix/XC40 ICE
  C40 Recharge, EU28 electricity mix/XC40 ICE
  C40 Recharge, wind electricity mix/XC40 ICE
  Break-even (km)
  110,000
  77,000
  49,000
  https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.volvocars.com/image…
- TEER3X on 12/03/2024 - 09:13
  
  +1
  
  What about vs a typical hybrid? Do the numbers change?
  
  I'm looking at getting a Haval hybrid or might spend extra and get the Toyota EV SUV.
  
  Also, what about EVs in accidents, aren't they almost always write offs/scrapped? Does that change the numbers at all?
- Never Pay RRP on 12/03/2024 - 09:49
  
  +7
  
  So if we need to factor the emissions in the manufacturing process, why don’t we need to factor in the emissions in the manufacturing and operation of the oil rigs, the shipping tankers, the refineries, the freight trucks, and the petrol stations? Petrol doesn’t magically appear emissions free at my local servo.
  I guess that part of the narrative doesn’t suit ICE manufacturers so it’s out
- UltimateAI on 12/03/2024 - 13:42
  
  +1
  
  Valid point, there are many inefficient EVs in terms of production and running.
  
  Look at Tesla’s, their cars use a fraction of the energy and raw materials to make. Farley went off when he learnt there is over 7 miles of cabling in a Ford lightning.
  Tesla use an entirely different approach for all aspects of the vehicle.
  - SpainKing on 13/03/2024 - 12:50
    
    Can I get a source on the 7 miles claim and Chris Farley going off? Sounds fun
    - UltimateAI on 13/03/2024 - 15:13
      
      +2
      
      It's Jim,
      I am trying to find the video of the interview this was last year if I recall, from a quick search perhaps I was wrong about the lightning, it was likely the Mustang Mach-E.
      
      What I can find in a quick search is Jim, acknowledging the harness was 0.9 miles LONGER than it needed to be. (70 pounds of additional weight).
      I can't seem to find the actual length readily available. It's not uncommon for a car to use 3miles of copper wiring. But upon reflection, I can't see any logical way how it could be 7 miles. So I appologise for that, it was quite some time ago.
      
      https://fordauthority.com/2023/02/ford-mustang-mach-e-wiring…
      
      Tesla's new wiring architecture significantly decreases the length of wiring harnesses to around 100 meters. Believe this was only possible because tesla design and build most of their parts so can use decentralized bus. Where traditional cars use OEM parts where everything must be wired back to a central CBUS. But could be wrong on this.
      
      With CyberTruck and newer platforms based on 48v, meaning the size (smaller gauge) of the wiring can also be reduced not just the length. Not a Joke, Elon sent all the CEO's of other automakers a cheat-sheet\guide on how to move to 48v, so expect others to follow.
- 811b11e8 on 12/03/2024 - 14:17
  
  +1
  
  It took 7 years in Europe, right?
  
  I haven't read the Volvo study, but similar studies with similar conclusions.
  
  They usually fell apart because they assumed people charge when the grid is dirtiest.
  
  A good chunk of people charge when the grid is cheapest, which is when it is much more green. Many customers charge for free in the middle of the day off excess solar, for example. (or late at night where there is a surprising amount of wind with more coming). Europen countries even have the technology to turn off charging when the grid needs to, so that people are not charging at the worst times.
  
  Most of the studies also didn't include all the CO2 needed in shipping and distributing petrol to the stations, but do include it for electricity which is strange because a lot of EV owners producing their own electricity especially in Australia.
  
  They also don't account for the fact that grid energy is getting cheaper and cleaner. The grids also getting more expensive with time of use rates at more polluting times to driving people to charge when its cleaner.
  
  The last study I read put the kms needed at around 50k to break even. If you look at most people's cars in Australia, they would have made over 50k.
  - 91rs on 12/03/2024 - 15:28
    
    "They also don't account for the fact that grid energy is getting cheaper and cleaner. The grids also getting more expensive with time of use rates at more polluting times to driving people to charge when its cleaner."
    
    Which one is it? it's getting cheaper or its getting more expensive?
    My rates have never gotten cheaper in the last 20 years, the off-peak if available is cheaper than peak obviously but its still more than it was 2,3,5 years ago.
    - Euphemistic on 13/03/2024 - 13:01
      
      +1
      
      Its cheaper if you use home generated solar.
- trapper on 12/03/2024 - 16:19
  
  They need to factor in the emissions created in the manufacturing process as well.
  
  They are manufactured overseas so those emissions don't count towards the 2025 CO2 target.
- frewer on 12/03/2024 - 22:15
  
  If this pass, I cant wait for a post "Tradie increase their rate due to CO2 tax" LUL
Benoffie on 11/03/2024 - 08:43

+1

They're not talking about moving or dumping the luxury car tax either. Double whammy for some of these vehicles
- GandalfTheCheap on 13/03/2024 - 10:43
  
  +4
  
  Good.
  - EitherWayUp on 13/03/2024 - 17:15
    
    A website where every bastard is tryna save as much as posssible regardless of the method overwhelming crying out for more tax. Brilliant.
  - rickdwp on 14/03/2024 - 13:23
    
    Good? Mate at the current rate, we're 3 years from a Rav4 having LCT. Given the entire point of the scheme was to protect the local car industry (that went well didn't it), wtf is the point in it's continued existence?
mskeggs on 11/03/2024 - 08:45

+31

If you need a particular vehicle for work, or because you attend very remote locations, the extra charge with no improvements to vehicles is pretty small over the life of the car, and is only for new vehicles.
If you drive a 70 series to pick up the kids and get to the Big4 at Kiama, the extra is likely irrelevant because you have made it a hobby/fashion choice.

And all the car makers will try and balance their fleet offerings to minimise extra costs, with improved engines like they have in every other country.
- barge-in hunter on 11/03/2024 - 12:12
  
  +7
  
  with improved engines like they have in every other country.
  
  This is the part I’m excited about - because our emission stds are so low, we only ever get the old, cheap, dirty engines
- rickdwp on 14/03/2024 - 13:26
  
  And all the car makers will try and balance their fleet offerings to minimise extra costs, with improved engines like they have in every other country.
  
  Everyone just seems to ignore this fact. Manufacturers said the same crap about mandatory seat-belts, airbags, catalytic converters, EFI etc etc etc and everytime they deal with it, without an issue. Almost like they're gaint companies with massive amounts of people paid to solve these issues, you know like they have in all those other countries these laws exist in.
  - Euphemistic on 14/03/2024 - 14:03
    
    Almost like they're gaint companies with massive amounts of people paid to solve these issues, you know like they have in all those other countries these laws exist in.
    
    Thats the thing. Theyve already managed to do it, theyre just shipping cheaper older tech to Aus becasue they can. If they were really worried about their current cleaner tech not working theyd be lobbying to up our fuel standards to suit it.
holdenmg on 11/03/2024 - 08:54

+2

So, just buy a Tesla Model Y for the carbon credit of $15,390 and set-off the saving against the added expense. lol
- leiiv on 11/03/2024 - 09:21
  
  +1
  
  Is it eligible for a tax deduction as a business car?
- Jimothy Wongingtons on 11/03/2024 - 09:39
  
  +9
  
  Just need a lift kit, blacked out windows, roof racks, and a set of authentic brand new fluro orange maxtrax
  - timthetoolman on 11/03/2024 - 10:14
    
    +1
    
    Don't forget the Nooj sticker
    - pegaxs on 11/03/2024 - 23:39
      
      +1
      
      And the “StReTcH yA SnAtCH” windscreen sticker.
  - rickdwp on 14/03/2024 - 13:27
    
    +1
    
    Don't forget the C U in the NT sticker (despite having never been to the Northern Territory)
Ryanek on 11/03/2024 - 08:58

+18

My neighbour has a huge Ford Raptor. He's an accountant.
- Muzeeb on 11/03/2024 - 09:07
  
  +7
  
  huge Ford Raptor
  
  Is that bigger than the normal Ford Raptor?
  - Jimothy Wongingtons on 11/03/2024 - 09:40
    
    +11
    
    Maybe he’s talking one kitted out with lift kit, bigger tires etc
    - Muzeeb on 11/03/2024 - 09:41
      
      That makes sense. Cheers
  - Euphemistic on 11/03/2024 - 10:37
    
    +2
    
    The raptor is the same basic body as the ranger, but has a wider track and body flares to suit plus its lifted and has bigger wheels than the stock ranger. So bigger in some ways, just not the interior or load space.
  - BobLim on 11/03/2024 - 21:52
    
    F150 Raptor rather than the more common Ranger Raptor?
    - Euphemistic on 12/03/2024 - 08:43
      
      Could be, but the ranger raptor is far more common.
  - ColtNoir on 12/03/2024 - 09:12
    
    Lift kits make them even more obscene.
- JDMcarfan on 11/03/2024 - 09:43
  
  +5
  
  maybe he's an accountant who sends their car offroad on weekends?
  There's a few off us like that
  I do think that Raptors drivers are tools though
  - JimmyF on 11/03/2024 - 09:59
    
    +6
    
    4x4 are a tax loophole for businesses.

Taxing Utes and SUVs

Poll Options

Comments

New Forum Topics