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 | ... | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | ... | 60

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2263046 23-Jun-2019 19:33

Obraik:

I'm surprised figuring out a way not to impact low income households is a struggle. Going the Sweden way and putting the feebate on new/new to NZ cars and then collecting on those cars on a yearly basis would have very little impact on those low income households since buying true second hand cars would be exempted from it.

Why surprised? NZ is nor Sweden

Your fee bate is flawed as Ive advised and not replied to. People will buy near new. No fee bate. As EV sales rise, there are less and less new ICE purchases.

We ALL want climate change positive moves, but you need to be realistic

MightyApe

Affiliate link

Affiliate link: You will find anything you want at MightyApe.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2263067 23-Jun-2019 20:42

tdgeek:
Appalling? Thats BS.

What do you suggest? Its not cool to say we want to hklelp bit no money/ Thats NZ, we are small, not Brunei.

If you feel that we can and shoukd have a BIG EV policy, I have bio issue with that. Give everyone 20,000 cash, no issue, but tell me how we pay for it.

I get tired of climate change wannabees feeling that we just do THIS and that fixes everything. If you want the Govt to print off money, just say so. Believe it or not, and despite that we all want to, we cant just make anything happen.

Please tel me what National will do? I am well aware of their 353 polices on climate change.... (as if) We all want climate change initiatives, but you seem to only want to participate in anti Govt rant. Surprising given the Opposition climate change stable.

There is another forum topic for that

Plenty of things that we can do to help the environment that dont involve spending lots of money.

Blanket policy of approving all hydro generation construction consents. (same with all other renewable generation). Private sector will pay for the construction costs themselves.

Get rid of NOx emissions rules. As to make an engine that has low NOx emissions, means that it will have higher carbon emissions than otherwise.

Scrap the Electricity Low User Regulations. As they artificially inflate electricity prices. Which both makes fossil fuels cheaper in comparison. And they are an indirect tax on people who own EVs.

Reform the RMA. So people can live closer to their workplace. Less roading emissions, less traffic congestion, makes public transportation more viable.

Get rid of stupid council rules. Why do I need to get a building consent just to insulate the walls of my house? And rules around things like site coverage, carports, garages etc. Make it more expensive for people to install provision for home EV charging.

5 easy things, that only require law / rule changes. No new government spending needed. And in fact, they will also give direct and indirect cost savings to both the government and the private sector. Which in turn means that you can then implement further changes to reduce carbon emissions (ones that will cost money to implement). As the savings from the first lot will help offset the cost.

But the problem, is that politicians are terrible for sticking to blind ideologies. Instead of being pragmatic, and accepting that trying to achieve 0 emissions is a completely unobtainable goal. Unless we go back to the stone age. If politicians were willing to start being pragmatic. There are lots of ways to reduce emissions, and still make a worthwhile difference to the environment.

frednz

1431 posts

Uber Geek

#2263069 23-Jun-2019 20:51

I was talking recently to a group of people about EV incentives and one person said he had never bought expensive cars and always bought NZ new for under $30,000. To him a car is merely a means to get from A to B and he is a company director of quite a large company. He said he could easily afford a NZ new EV but he just couldn't see the point of doing this, even if the Govt were to introduce good buyer incentives. But he did say that, when new EV prices were around $30,000 for 400km range, then of course he would buy an EV because he is a Greenie at heart. So, to many people, the NZ new EV market is out of reach price wise and no amount of incentives is going to make any difference for years to come!

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2263070 23-Jun-2019 20:52

Aredwood:
tdgeek:

Appalling? Thats BS.

What do you suggest? Its not cool to say we want to hklelp bit no money/ Thats NZ, we are small, not Brunei.

If you feel that we can and shoukd have a BIG EV policy, I have bio issue with that. Give everyone 20,000 cash, no issue, but tell me how we pay for it.

I get tired of climate change wannabees feeling that we just do THIS and that fixes everything. If you want the Govt to print off money, just say so. Believe it or not, and despite that we all want to, we cant just make anything happen.

Please tel me what National will do? I am well aware of their 353 polices on climate change.... (as if) We all want climate change initiatives, but you seem to only want to participate in anti Govt rant. Surprising given the Opposition climate change stable.

There is another forum topic for that

Plenty of things that we can do to help the environment that dont involve spending lots of money.

Blanket policy of approving all hydro generation construction consents. (same with all other renewable generation). Private sector will pay for the construction costs themselves.

Get rid of NOx emissions rules. As to make an engine that has low NOx emissions, means that it will have higher carbon emissions than otherwise.

Scrap the Electricity Low User Regulations. As they artificially inflate electricity prices. Which both makes fossil fuels cheaper in comparison. And they are an indirect tax on people who own EVs.

Reform the RMA. So people can live closer to their workplace. Less roading emissions, less traffic congestion, makes public transportation more viable.

Get rid of stupid council rules. Why do I need to get a building consent just to insulate the walls of my house? And rules around things like site coverage, carports, garages etc. Make it more expensive for people to install provision for home EV charging.

5 easy things, that only require law / rule changes. No new government spending needed. And in fact, they will also give direct and indirect cost savings to both the government and the private sector. Which in turn means that you can then implement further changes to reduce carbon emissions (ones that will cost money to implement). As the savings from the first lot will help offset the cost.

But the problem, is that politicians are terrible for sticking to blind ideologies. Instead of being pragmatic, and accepting that trying to achieve 0 emissions is a completely unobtainable goal. Unless we go back to the stone age. If politicians were willing to start being pragmatic. There are lots of ways to reduce emissions, and still make a worthwhile difference to the environment.

Could not agree more. And it wont happen by the looks. The current liberal Govt is far braver than conservative National, but nothing is happening, so that's it, it seems I feel that all the climate change talk we will see will be talk, meetings, agreement, big words, bit little will actually happen.

Obraik

1617 posts

Uber Geek

#2263073 23-Jun-2019 20:54

frednz: I was talking recently to a group of people about EV incentives and one person said he had never bought expensive cars and always bought NZ new for under $30,000. To him a car is merely a means to get from A to B and he is a company director of quite a large company. He said he could easily afford a NZ new EV but he just couldn't see the point of doing this, even if the Govt were to introduce good buyer incentives. But he did say that, when new EV prices were around $30,000 for 400km range, then of course he would buy an EV because he is a Greenie at heart. So, to many people, the NZ new EV market is out of reach price wise and no amount of incentives is going to make any difference for years to come!

Yeah, you'll never convert those people and that's not who it's intended for. Generally, the subsidies are to sway those that were already buying a new vehicle so rather than buying a new ICE they buy a new EV because the cost is competitive with the ICE option.

Buying second hand like the person you talked to is still better than buying something brand new or buying a newly imported vehicle as at least it's still reducing the emissions of making a new vehicle and then shipping it to NZ.

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2263074 23-Jun-2019 20:55

frednz: I was talking recently to a group of people about EV incentives and one person said he had never bought expensive cars and always bought NZ new for under $30,000. To him a car is merely a means to get from A to B and he is a company director of quite a large company. He said he could easily afford a NZ new EV but he just couldn't see the point of doing this, even if the Govt were to introduce good buyer incentives. But he did say that, when new EV prices were around $30,000 for 400km range, then of course he would buy an EV because he is a Greenie at heart. So, to many people, the NZ new EV market is out of reach price wise and no amount of incentives is going to make any difference for years to come!

That what I feel. Many many of us are green. Many can afford double the price just to be green, but many of us would not do that. Many cannot afford it. If an IVE is 30,000 and the EV is 40, MANY will go for the EV to get the green side bit it also does need to be viable financially

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2263076 23-Jun-2019 21:01

Obraik:

Yeah, you'll never convert those people and that's not who it's intended for. Generally, the subsidies are to sway those that were already buying a new vehicle so rather than buying a new ICE they buy a new EV because the cost is competitive with the ICE option.

Buying second hand like the person you talked to is still better than buying something brand new or buying a newly imported vehicle as at least it's still reducing the emissions of making a new vehicle and then shipping it to NZ.

So an $80,000 Kona which is now $70,000 makes it competitive with the $40,000 Kona? My maths has 30,000 reasons why thats not the case

Your flaw, is your obsession.

Not intended for? The example given was someone who can afford it (intended for) but who sees that the premium is too great.

BUT there is no issue in the short term as there is a waring list so n need for subsidies. If EV demand dried up, the revisit it IMHO.

frednz

1431 posts

Uber Geek

#2263081 23-Jun-2019 21:17

tdgeek:

Obraik:

Yeah, you'll never convert those people and that's not who it's intended for. Generally, the subsidies are to sway those that were already buying a new vehicle so rather than buying a new ICE they buy a new EV because the cost is competitive with the ICE option.

Buying second hand like the person you talked to is still better than buying something brand new or buying a newly imported vehicle as at least it's still reducing the emissions of making a new vehicle and then shipping it to NZ.

So an $80,000 Kona which is now $70,000 makes it competitive with the $40,000 Kona? My maths has 30,000 reasons why thats not the case

Your flaw, is your obsession.

Not intended for? The example given was someone who can afford it (intended for) but who sees that the premium is too great.

BUT there is no issue in the short term as there is a waring list so n need for subsidies. If EV demand dried up, the revisit it IMHO.

The Hyundai Kona you refer to is a 64kWh EV with a range of around 450km, and any NZ-new EV that has a 400km+ range costs over $70,000.

So, perhaps the new 40kWh Nissan Leaf with a range of around 250km and soon on sale as NZ-new for $60,000 is a better example. This EV would "only" cost around $20,000 more than a comparable Nissan petrol car.

So, if this were to cost $50,000 after buyer incentives, then the difference between this and the "comparable" $40,000 petrol car of $10,000, could eventually be made up through savings on maintenance and running expenses.

It all comes down to range, and if you're prepared to settle for an EV range of less than 300km, then NZ-new prices are "slightly" more reasonable.

Anyway, I didn't really want to reopen the whole rather repetitive EV incentives debate again, but I did think the latest statements from James Shaw would be of interest.

jjnz1

1293 posts

Uber Geek

#2263092 23-Jun-2019 22:29

frednz:
tdgeek:

Obraik:

Yeah, you'll never convert those people and that's not who it's intended for. Generally, the subsidies are to sway those that were already buying a new vehicle so rather than buying a new ICE they buy a new EV because the cost is competitive with the ICE option.

Buying second hand like the person you talked to is still better than buying something brand new or buying a newly imported vehicle as at least it's still reducing the emissions of making a new vehicle and then shipping it to NZ.

So an $80,000 Kona which is now $70,000 makes it competitive with the $40,000 Kona? My maths has 30,000 reasons why thats not the case

Your flaw, is your obsession.

Not intended for? The example given was someone who can afford it (intended for) but who sees that the premium is too great.

BUT there is no issue in the short term as there is a waring list so n need for subsidies. If EV demand dried up, the revisit it IMHO.

The Hyundai Kona you refer to is a 64kWh EV with a range of around 450km, and any NZ-new EV that has a 400km+ range costs over $70,000.

So, perhaps the new 40kWh Nissan Leaf with a range of around 250km and soon on sale as NZ-new for $60,000 is a better example. This EV would "only" cost around $20,000 more than a comparable Nissan petrol car.

So, if this were to cost $50,000 after buyer incentives, then the difference between this and the "comparable" $40,000 petrol car of $10,000, could eventually be made up through savings on maintenance and running expenses.

It all comes down to range, and if you're prepared to settle for an EV range of less than 300km, then NZ-new prices are "slightly" more reasonable.

Anyway, I didn't really want to reopen the whole rather repetitive EV incentives debate again, but I did think the latest statements from James Shaw would be of interest.

Well said.

I think this forum has highlighted that there are people who very strongly oppose financial government incentives, and there are people who would welcome them because they believe it is a positive thing for the country.

Both sides have very good merits and ultimately for this to get any traction it will come down to public pressure, as well as which solution is perceived to have the highest impact in reducing our carbon footprint.

Rightly or wrongly I believe we will just follow the rest of the world because it's easy, and try and reduce our emissions by encouraging more EVs.

It will be interesting to see which levers the government pull if they are not the financial ones...

wsnz

630 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2263584 24-Jun-2019 19:10

Given the current pricing, availability, and lack of subsidies, I do agree with TDGeek's analysis. It's simply not economic for the majority of the population at this point in time.

That will change due to (potentially) a combination of tax payer subsidies to EV owners, increased choice of models and manufactures, associated lower price points etc. But right now for most, it doesn't make sense.

We do however need those trail blazers to help reduce the costs for the rest of us.

Obraik

1617 posts

Uber Geek

#2263598 24-Jun-2019 19:37

wsnz:

Given the current pricing, availability, and lack of subsidies, I do agree with TDGeek's analysis. It's simply not economic for the majority of the population at this point in time.

That will change due to (potentially) a combination of tax payer subsidies to EV owners, increased choice of models and manufactures, associated lower price points etc. But right now for most, it doesn't make sense.

We do however need those trail blazers to help reduce the costs for the rest of us.

Oh yeah, without a subsidy it's pretty hard to convince a new car buyer to spend the extra on an EV instead. However, many of us in this thread would like the government to take some action around this so more people buying a new vehicle will choose an EV over a ICE...something more substantial than simply declaring a climate emergency at least :)

Obraik

1617 posts

Uber Geek

#2264280 25-Jun-2019 16:27

A committee tasked by the government with coming up with a way to make the electrical grid 100% renewable has instead come back and concluded "don't bother, focus instead on electrifying transport and heating"

""The committee therefore recommends that the Government prioritises the accelerated electrification of transport and process heat over pursuing 100 per cent renewable electricity by 2035 in a normal hydrological year," the report said."

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/113730079/experts-warn-100-renewable-electricity-target-will-hurt-new-zealands-wider-climate-goals

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2264354 25-Jun-2019 18:30

Obraik:

A committee tasked by the government with coming up with a way to make the electrical grid 100% renewable has instead come back and concluded "don't bother, focus instead on electrifying transport and heating"

""The committee therefore recommends that the Government prioritises the accelerated electrification of transport and process heat over pursuing 100 per cent renewable electricity by 2035 in a normal hydrological year," the report said."

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/113730079/experts-warn-100-renewable-electricity-target-will-hurt-new-zealands-wider-climate-goals

Im not even going to read that right now. There is a person here who knows more about electricity than most of us put together. If you want the best EMISSION saving per dollar you invest in making us 100% renewable. Its not about EV or anything, what is the best bang for buck?

An EV like an ICE is made of many emissions. If EV took off we will burn ore coal. You could even argue we burn coal to supply EV, as we burn coal now in summer when lakes are low and in winter due to demand and when catchment is low (as its frozen) If someone came up with the ideal formula Im happy, but too many here want EV AS THEY WANT EV

Obraik

1617 posts

Uber Geek

#2264420 25-Jun-2019 19:38

tdgeek:

Im not even going to read that right now. There is a person here who knows more about electricity than most of us put together. If you want the best EMISSION saving per dollar you invest in making us 100% renewable. Its not about EV or anything, what is the best bang for buck?

An EV like an ICE is made of many emissions. If EV took off we will burn ore coal. You could even argue we burn coal to supply EV, as we burn coal now in summer when lakes are low and in winter due to demand and when catchment is low (as its frozen) If someone came up with the ideal formula Im happy, but too many here want EV AS THEY WANT EV

Maybe you should have a read of the article before you commenting on it, eh? ;)

Also, at 7:35pm on a cold winters night and just 3% of the power being generated is coming from coal, as shown on Transpowers live data

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2264516 25-Jun-2019 19:57

Obraik:

A committee tasked by the government with coming up with a way to make the electrical grid 100% renewable has instead come back and concluded "don't bother, focus instead on electrifying transport and heating"

""The committee therefore recommends that the Government prioritises the accelerated electrification of transport and process heat over pursuing 100 per cent renewable electricity by 2035 in a normal hydrological year," the report said."

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/113730079/experts-warn-100-renewable-electricity-target-will-hurt-new-zealands-wider-climate-goals

I do agree somewhat with the article. But I would have to read the source report to be able to comment properly. As it is to do with who should pay for the costs of meeting peak electricity demand.

Currently, due to the Low user Regulations. The cost of peak time electricity is exactly the same to end consumers, as all other electricity. This means no incentive to reduce peak demand, and the power industry is forced to simply raise their prices to cover the cost of meeting that peak demand. And since fixed fees are capped at 33c per day, Per unit costs have to increase to cover that cost.

Yet you get people like the person in this below article who complain when the power industry tries to get rid of the Low User Regulations.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/102708888/way-to-be-cleared-for-big-electricity-players-to-prey-on-lowincome-households?rm=m

He has never considered "Uneconomic Bypass". And has also failed to consider that consumers are making decisions based on the marginal cost of electricity (If I plug in this heater, how much would it cost me?). Vs (If I start my unflued LPG heater, how much would it cost me?). And the biggie - He has failed to realise that the main source of competition to power companies are actually companies that sell fossil fuels. Not companies that sell solar panels and batteries. And EVs mean that petrol companies are also becoming a source of competition to power companies. The claim that all Low users are also all low income is also a complete fallacy.

The power industry is definitely motivated by profits in wanting the Low user Regulations gone. Reason - Because they will be able to better compete against fossil fuels for the end consumers energy spending. As they would be able to offer time of use pricing plans, capacity based plans etc. So that the marginal cost for off peak power would be so cheap, that you would be mad to use fossil fuels for any task that could be done with off peak power. And that would be solely from a financial point of view. And even better considering the emissions reductions.

Lots of people are getting gas hot water, simply as when compared to the cost of power that has been artificially inflated due to the Low User Regulations, Gas is cheaper. Compare the carbon emissions and the pricing for gas hot water Vs electric hot water on ripple control. Since gas is cheaper. We are effectively paying people to emit carbon. And it is also a terrible case of uneconomic bypass. As people are switching from electric to gas hot water, despite the infrastructure already available to supply electric hot water.

We have a negative carbon tax!!!! Yes we are doing the equivalent of paying people to emit carbon!

1 | ... | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | ... | 60