NZ Government Incentives Coming Soon For Buyers of Electric Vehicles!

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › NZ Government Incentives Coming Soon For Buyers of Electric Vehicles!

1 | ... | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | ... | 60

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2249651 1-Jun-2019 17:50

Delphinus:

tdgeek:

They regard 30c per litre as the equivalent. I assume that's off peak, unsure on that. $2-30 a litre right now, so up to $2 per litre saving. Yes RUC is the future cost.

Not sure where you found 30c/litre.

Typical petrol car, 7L/100km = $16.10 per 100km = $2415 per 15,000km.

Kona EV, 19.1 kWh/100km = $4.54 per 100km = $682. You might get close to 30c per L equivalent if you only charged at home on a cheap night rate of 11c/kWh. Only traveled at city speeds. Never used fast charger etc.

Assuming $0.2381/kWh.

tdgeek:

If two identical cars, an ICE and an EV version, were $40,000 apart, then clearly no deal. Ever.

$43k diference for Kona Elite: https://www.aa.co.nz/cars/buying-a-car/car-buying-guide/new-cars/new-car-prices/hyundai/

$34k for Kia. https://www.aa.co.nz/cars/buying-a-car/car-buying-guide/new-cars/new-car-prices/kia-new-car-prices/

Servicing is going to be similar pricing from a dealer on a new car. Let's assume you save $2000 per year, that's 17-21 years to pay back the diference in purchase cost? Yeah nah.

Ok, I stand corrected. However, at 34k-40k to upgrade ICE to EV means that EV is a no go for everyone. Yes, everyone. Some may be napoy to pay a lot of money per year to be green. The option seems to be a nice pre owned for a second car. I imagine that pre owned 73k cars will remain a high priced car still, compared to an ICE. The R+D is recovered we can pay what they really cost to make, which should be little more than the ICE equivalent. (AS EV engine g=has to be MUCH cheaper, but add in batteries)

Sharesies

Affiliate link

Affiliate link: Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies.

Obraik

1617 posts

Uber Geek

#2253622 7-Jun-2019 10:27

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1906/S00096/bonus-malus-how-swedens-ev-scheme-makes-polluters-pay.htm

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2253632 7-Jun-2019 10:49

Yep, relates perfectly to NZ. :-)

Many buyers of new ICE, have no choice. If they can;t use an EV for their use case, they have no choice. Others cannot justify an extra 40k to get an EV. So you punish/sting them, so 10 ICE buyers subsidise 1 EV buyer who can already afford the EV. Makes no moral sense.

In a similar vein we could sting those that use the grid for electricity, so we can subsidise others to buy Solar PV, even though for most, Solar PV is not worth it, just as paying 40k more for a car is not worth the cost savings

Could we hike taxes for everyone so we can give more to the buyers of new EV?

Given the amount of hate we see for taxes, for new taxes, but its ok to have a new "tax" to help a few buy expensive EV's?

We should use this money to increase hydro, and reduce farm emissions. Petrol prices will provide an adequate motivation for EV, and as Ive mentioned many times, there are means that do not use the Consolidated Fund to incentivise businesses to go hard for EV's. The emission savings of residential school, shopping and work commute EV's is nowhere near worth it

jjnz1

1293 posts

Uber Geek

#2253646 7-Jun-2019 11:04

Obraik:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1906/S00096/bonus-malus-how-swedens-ev-scheme-makes-polluters-pay.htm

Haha man, my new Pathfinder is 240g/km.. that would cost me mega bucks every year..

However I think this is a fantastic way to incentivize new EV owners!

Senecio

1549 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2253656 7-Jun-2019 11:14

That really isn't new for Europe? Most of Europe's car taxation has been based on CO2 emissions for years. These are the CO2 based tax bands that have been in place in Ireland since 2008

The car that I was driving in Dublin (Skoda Yeti 2.0 Tdi) produced 157g/km which just put me into band D. Had I bought the manual instead of DSG it would have been 154g/km and band C.

The problem with CO2 based tax is that it drives that who don't want an EV in diesels which we now know spew out considerably more dangerous NOx's. That's the position that Europe is now trying to extricate itself from with some cities planning to impose diesel bans or an additional tax similar to London's congestion tax.

Obraik

1617 posts

Uber Geek

#2253658 7-Jun-2019 11:21

tdgeek:

Yep, relates perfectly to NZ. :-)

Many buyers of new ICE, have no choice. If they can;t use an EV for their use case, they have no choice. Others cannot justify an extra 40k to get an EV. So you punish/sting them, so 10 ICE buyers subsidise 1 EV buyer who can already afford the EV. Makes no moral sense.

Again, this is for new ICE vehicles, not second hand. The idea is that with the subsidy the EV would become the affordable option for the buyer. We've had this discussion a few times now.

tdgeek:

In a similar vein we could sting those that use the grid for electricity, so we can subsidise others to buy Solar PV, even though for most, Solar PV is not worth it, just as paying 40k more for a car is not worth the cost savings

Could we hike taxes for everyone so we can give more to the buyers of new EV?

Given the amount of hate we see for taxes, for new taxes, but its ok to have a new "tax" to help a few buy expensive EV's?

We should use this money to increase hydro, and reduce farm emissions. Petrol prices will provide an adequate motivation for EV, and as Ive mentioned many times, there are means that do not use the Consolidated Fund to incentivise businesses to go hard for EV's. The emission savings of residential school, shopping and work commute EV's is nowhere near worth it

Petrol cost savings provide a "trickle of incentive" to new buyers but that's not providing much impact overall. As Sweden noticed, when adding proper subsidies on the sticker price the take up of EVs increased quite a lot. Most emissions come from vehicles and as Greater Auckland says, a significant amount of that is from commuters. You're right in saying that not all of "emissions taxes" should be going straight to EV purchases, it should also be used to improve public transport so more people don't need a car.

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2253670 7-Jun-2019 11:40

Obraik:

tdgeek:

Yep, relates perfectly to NZ. :-)

Many buyers of new ICE, have no choice. If they can;t use an EV for their use case, they have no choice. Others cannot justify an extra 40k to get an EV. So you punish/sting them, so 10 ICE buyers subsidise 1 EV buyer who can already afford the EV. Makes no moral sense.

Again, this is for new ICE vehicles, not second hand. The idea is that with the subsidy the EV would become the affordable option for the buyer. We've had this discussion a few times now.

tdgeek:

In a similar vein we could sting those that use the grid for electricity, so we can subsidise others to buy Solar PV, even though for most, Solar PV is not worth it, just as paying 40k more for a car is not worth the cost savings

Could we hike taxes for everyone so we can give more to the buyers of new EV?

Given the amount of hate we see for taxes, for new taxes, but its ok to have a new "tax" to help a few buy expensive EV's?

We should use this money to increase hydro, and reduce farm emissions. Petrol prices will provide an adequate motivation for EV, and as Ive mentioned many times, there are means that do not use the Consolidated Fund to incentivise businesses to go hard for EV's. The emission savings of residential school, shopping and work commute EV's is nowhere near worth it

Petrol cost savings provide a "trickle of incentive" to new buyers but that's not providing much impact overall. As Sweden noticed, when adding proper subsidies on the sticker price the take up of EVs increased quite a lot. Most emissions come from vehicles and as Greater Auckland says, a significant amount of that is from commuters. You're right in saying that not all of "emissions taxes" should be going straight to EV purchases, it should also be used to improve public transport so more people don't need a car.

You need to pay attention. I never stated it was for second hand vehicles. Dont make things up to make your point seem more valid. Its clear that you want your subsidy to put in your pocket so that you save money.

Yes we have had this discussions a few times now and you continue to avoid the real issues. If the EV costs 40k more , the 10k subsidy wont help much. Thoise that can afford one will buy one, why throw them 10k?

What points that I bolded, that you are ignoring again, are invalid?

Petrol at 2-30 per litre is not a truckle, as you have previously stated, its just a bonus.

Not much impact? There are waiting lists for EV's, that shows there is no need for incentives

Greater AKL is wrong. Commuters do low annual mileage. You need to target businesses who run high mileage if you are serious about emissions. Those will then be on the pre owned market after 3 years, leaving consumers a lower cost option which is far cheaper than a new EV minus 10k

But if anyone has already ordered one, the subsidy is a GREAT IDEA. But that's heavily biased, and not in the best interests of being green, best to give that subsidy to businesses whose vehicles are often running a lot of the day

Obraik

1617 posts

Uber Geek

#2253735 7-Jun-2019 13:09

tdgeek:

Obraik:

tdgeek:

Yep, relates perfectly to NZ. :-)

Many buyers of new ICE, have no choice. If they can;t use an EV for their use case, they have no choice. Others cannot justify an extra 40k to get an EV. So you punish/sting them, so 10 ICE buyers subsidise 1 EV buyer who can already afford the EV. Makes no moral sense.

Again, this is for new ICE vehicles, not second hand. The idea is that with the subsidy the EV would become the affordable option for the buyer. We've had this discussion a few times now.

tdgeek:

In a similar vein we could sting those that use the grid for electricity, so we can subsidise others to buy Solar PV, even though for most, Solar PV is not worth it, just as paying 40k more for a car is not worth the cost savings

Could we hike taxes for everyone so we can give more to the buyers of new EV?

Given the amount of hate we see for taxes, for new taxes, but its ok to have a new "tax" to help a few buy expensive EV's?

We should use this money to increase hydro, and reduce farm emissions. Petrol prices will provide an adequate motivation for EV, and as Ive mentioned many times, there are means that do not use the Consolidated Fund to incentivise businesses to go hard for EV's. The emission savings of residential school, shopping and work commute EV's is nowhere near worth it

Petrol cost savings provide a "trickle of incentive" to new buyers but that's not providing much impact overall. As Sweden noticed, when adding proper subsidies on the sticker price the take up of EVs increased quite a lot. Most emissions come from vehicles and as Greater Auckland says, a significant amount of that is from commuters. You're right in saying that not all of "emissions taxes" should be going straight to EV purchases, it should also be used to improve public transport so more people don't need a car.

You need to pay attention. I never stated it was for second hand vehicles. Dont make things up to make your point seem more valid. Its clear that you want your subsidy to put in your pocket so that you save money.

Yes we have had this discussions a few times now and you continue to avoid the real issues. If the EV costs 40k more , the 10k subsidy wont help much. Thoise that can afford one will buy one, why throw them 10k?

My point of highlighting the new aspect because you're making it seem like buying a new vehicle is the only option and someone will be put out if there were to be an emissions tax put on them. If they can't afford the emissions tax then second hand vehicles are still an option.

Giving an example of an EV costing $40k more is a bit excessive. If we go for the Leaf category, a new one costs $58k. Without a subsidy that's around $20k more than a similar Corolla but if we apply your $10k subsidy then it's now $10k more than the Corolla. You're now at a price difference where the other advantages of owning an EV (low maintenance, no fuel costs, etc) start to also factor into the comparison. The point of a subsidy is to appeal to those who wouldn't otherwise consider an EV. My main push for a subsidy is for that reason - I want to see people getting EVs beyond just the EV enthusiasts such as myself.

tdgeek:

What points that I bolded, that you are ignoring again, are invalid?

Tbh, I didn't treat your bolded statements as serious statements but as being facetious. Since you insist though:

"In a similar vein we could sting those that use the grid for electricity, so we can subsidise others to buy Solar PV, even though for most, Solar PV is not worth it, just as paying 40k more for a car is not worth the cost savings"

Why, when most of our grid is renewable? I do think that new builds in our sunnier areas should be required to include solar on their roofs, ideally with battery storage. Reducing emissions is the more important aspect of buying an EV, the reduced costs are a nice to have.

"Could we hike taxes for everyone so we can give more to the buyers of new EV?

Given the amount of hate we see for taxes, for new taxes, but its ok to have a new "tax" to help a few buy expensive EV's?"

We're better off funding EVs from the purchase of vehicles that produce emissions as that is going to have better public acceptance. You're not taxing everyone, you're taxing those that are making an optional decision

"We should use this money to increase hydro, and reduce farm emissions. Petrol prices will provide an adequate motivation for EV, and as Ive mentioned many times, there are means that do not use the Consolidated Fund to incentivise businesses to go hard for EV's. The emission savings of residential school, shopping and work commute EV's is nowhere near worth it"

As I mentioned in my previous reply, yes, some of the emissions tax should go to other things beside EVs such as improving public transport to reduce the need for cars. Improving our renewable energy generation would be another good use for it.

tdgeek:

Petrol at 2-30 per litre is not a truckle, as you have previously stated, its just a bonus.

Not much impact? There are waiting lists for EV's, that shows there is no need for incentives

Greater AKL is wrong. Commuters do low annual mileage. You need to target businesses who run high mileage if you are serious about emissions. Those will then be on the pre owned market after 3 years, leaving consumers a lower cost option which is far cheaper than a new EV minus 10k

But if anyone has already ordered one, the subsidy is a GREAT IDEA. But that's heavily biased, and not in the best interests of being green, best to give that subsidy to businesses whose vehicles are often running a lot of the day

As Sweden showed, people care more for immediate savings on the sticker cost than what they can save in petrol. When you bring down the cost of the vehicle to be closer to the cost of an ICE vehicle then those other savings start to affect peoples decisions. You keep mentioning waiting lists like it means something. Firstly, being on a waiting list doesn't mean you're buying the car. Secondly, there are waiting lists because production of these cars hasn't started yet. The numbers on the waiting list are also only a small fraction of overall new car buyers - it's not a substantial amount.

You also mention Greater AKL is wrong but where's your evidence? Greater AKL isn't the only one saying that commuting is one of the biggest contributors to carbon emissions.

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2253785 7-Jun-2019 13:20

If you think "Tbh, I didn't treat your bolded statements as serious statements but as being facetious. " that says it all, they are quite a serious and similar. That you feel they are facetious, is that if you feel that a car going to and from school is the be all and end all of ending emmissions, well, seriously?

Ill read your biased I want free money reply later when I can be bothered. You dont seem interested in emissions, even though you will reply with three pages confirming so. No, I don't feel that giving 10k so you can take your child to school 5 days a week will save the world. Now, if your vehicle was running round most of the day racking up many many km per day, yes there are emissions we can and should save there. But not for school or shops or work commutes. Thats like you being paid money that comes from other taxpayers to get solar installed so you can run your fish tank

Obraik

1617 posts

Uber Geek

#2253852 7-Jun-2019 14:04

tdgeek:

If you think "Tbh, I didn't treat your bolded statements as serious statements but as being facetious. " that says it all, they are quite a serious and similar. That you feel they are facetious, is that if you feel that a car going to and from school is the be all and end all of ending emmissions, well, seriously?

Ill read your biased I want free money reply later when I can be bothered. You dont seem interested in emissions, even though you will reply with three pages confirming so. No, I don't feel that giving 10k so you can take your child to school 5 days a week will save the world. Now, if your vehicle was running round most of the day racking up many many km per day, yes there are emissions we can and should save there. But not for school or shops or work commutes. Thats like you being paid money that comes from other taxpayers to get solar installed so you can run your fish tank

It's an easy way out for you to accuse me of only being in it to get a discount. Commuting is more than just "doing the school run" but getting to and from work. According to Stats NZ, in a sample of 6306 they did on traveling to work the vast majority (4,864 of the sample) did so by driving and drove an average of 11.5km one way (so 23km back and forward, assuming the same route was taken). If we use an emissions calculator and assume a medium car, that's 1,249kg of carbon emissions per person for a 5 day work week over 52 weeks. In this sample those sampled people who said they drove contributed 6,075,136‬kg of carbon emissions. If you expand that out to the whole country based on that % break down of each mode of transport and consider that in 2014 NZ's total emissions was 81.1 tonnes, that doesn't seem like an insignificant contributor.

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2253863 7-Jun-2019 14:23

Less than 10%?? No, its not significant. If you wish to look at absolute numbers, the number 6 is significantly larger than the number 3. You cannot use a number, say 6 million kg of carbon and say that's significant. Off course its a large number. So is the other 93% So, its very clear we need to chase the big number. And not a 7% subset. As far as transport is concerned lets focus on those that run over and well over 23km a day, 5 days a week. That includes EV's and it includes other transport forms that reduce net emissions, let alone the many other non transport based emissions. We dont need to waste 10k per vehicle in a very small subset.

Obraik

1617 posts

Uber Geek

#2253886 7-Jun-2019 15:13

tdgeek:

Less than 10%?? No, its not significant. If you wish to look at absolute numbers, the number 6 is significantly larger than the number 3. You cannot use a number, say 6 million kg of carbon and say that's significant. Off course its a large number. So is the other 93% So, its very clear we need to chase the big number. And not a 7% subset. As far as transport is concerned lets focus on those that run over and well over 23km a day, 5 days a week. That includes EV's and it includes other transport forms that reduce net emissions, let alone the many other non transport based emissions. We dont need to waste 10k per vehicle in a very small subset.

Yes you're right, 6mil is a fraction...but a 6,036 sample of all workers is also a fraction of the total workers in NZ. I thought it was clear that the 6mil figure was for the sample size?

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2253992 7-Jun-2019 17:58

Obraik:

tdgeek:

Less than 10%?? No, its not significant. If you wish to look at absolute numbers, the number 6 is significantly larger than the number 3. You cannot use a number, say 6 million kg of carbon and say that's significant. Off course its a large number. So is the other 93% So, its very clear we need to chase the big number. And not a 7% subset. As far as transport is concerned lets focus on those that run over and well over 23km a day, 5 days a week. That includes EV's and it includes other transport forms that reduce net emissions, let alone the many other non transport based emissions. We dont need to waste 10k per vehicle in a very small subset.

Yes you're right, 6mil is a fraction...but a 6,036 sample of all workers is also a fraction of the total workers in NZ. I thought it was clear that the 6mil figure was for the sample size?

6 Mill is big. Its significant. Its ripe for Marketing 101 or 201

But its not relevant if you are into reducing emissions per dollar. Which is what we should be aiming for. I want an EV, I can afford it. Cash. And I'd love a 10k bonus.

frednz

1431 posts

Uber Geek

#2254179 8-Jun-2019 09:59

Obraik:

My point of highlighting the new aspect because you're making it seem like buying a new vehicle is the only option and someone will be put out if there were to be an emissions tax put on them. If they can't afford the emissions tax then second hand vehicles are still an option.

Giving an example of an EV costing $40k more is a bit excessive. If we go for the Leaf category, a new one costs $58k. Without a subsidy that's around $20k more than a similar Corolla but if we apply your $10k subsidy then it's now $10k more than the Corolla. You're now at a price difference where the other advantages of owning an EV (low maintenance, no fuel costs, etc) start to also factor into the comparison. The point of a subsidy is to appeal to those who wouldn't otherwise consider an EV. My main push for a subsidy is for that reason - I want to see people getting EVs beyond just the EV enthusiasts such as myself.

Examples of EVs that cost about $40k more than their petrol equivalents are the 64 kWh Hyundai Kona and the 64 kWh Kia Niro. The new Leaf is only 40 kWh, so you would expect that to cost less than a 64 kWh EV.

A few NZ people have already bought 64 kWh EVs that cost double the amount of their petrol equivalents, but this big price differential is also putting off a lot of people buying EVs. Sure, a Govt incentive of $10,000 would help, but the manufacturers seem to be charging huge amounts to cover the cost of batteries and research and development, so surely EV prices should start coming down in the next year or two.

So, in considering incentives, we have to bear in mind the size and range of EVs that are available in NZ and whether in the long term buyers will be satisfied with the range provided by 40 kWh EVs. I think 64 kWh will become the minimum that a lot of buyers will be prepared to accept, and in these circumstances, the price gap between petrol cars and EVs may remain high for quite some time.

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2254199 8-Jun-2019 10:31

frednz:

Obraik:

My point of highlighting the new aspect because you're making it seem like buying a new vehicle is the only option and someone will be put out if there were to be an emissions tax put on them. If they can't afford the emissions tax then second hand vehicles are still an option.

Giving an example of an EV costing $40k more is a bit excessive. If we go for the Leaf category, a new one costs $58k. Without a subsidy that's around $20k more than a similar Corolla but if we apply your $10k subsidy then it's now $10k more than the Corolla. You're now at a price difference where the other advantages of owning an EV (low maintenance, no fuel costs, etc) start to also factor into the comparison. The point of a subsidy is to appeal to those who wouldn't otherwise consider an EV. My main push for a subsidy is for that reason - I want to see people getting EVs beyond just the EV enthusiasts such as myself.

Examples of EVs that cost about $40k more than their petrol equivalents are the 64 kWh Hyundai Kona and the 64 kWh Kia Niro. The new Leaf is only 40 kWh, so you would expect that to cost less than a 64 kWh EV.

A few NZ people have already bought 64 kWh EVs that cost double the amount of their petrol equivalents, but this big price differential is also putting off a lot of people buying EVs. Sure, a Govt incentive of $10,000 would help, but the manufacturers seem to be charging huge amounts to cover the cost of batteries and research and development, so surely EV prices should start coming down in the next year or two.

So, in considering incentives, we have to bear in mind the size and range of EVs that are available in NZ and whether in the long term buyers will be satisfied with the range provided by 40 kWh EVs. I think 64 kWh will become the minimum that a lot of buyers will be prepared to accept, and in these circumstances, the price gap between petrol cars and EVs may remain high for quite some time.

I agree. 64 kWh is a sweet spot. Its expensive though. I dont feel its money well spent to subsidise 10k on those. Its also unfair to get that subsidy from ICE buyers

The 40k on this is bizarre as Ive seen other EV;s that have two kWh options and the cost to the higher kWh is not that much. It seems to be mainly R+D recovery.

I favour getting businesses on board, as those cars will hit the second hand market in 3 years and every year after that. Maybe in 3 or 4 years the R+D will reduce, making new cheaper, and used cheaper. Thats the point when we are on the bell curve and EV really takes hold. The first round of business used ones will be re sold as many will now look at a new EV, so we also then have even cheaper used EV's, then, many can afford as the price range is now quite wide.

1 | ... | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | ... | 60