Nissan LEAF - General

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Nissan LEAF - General

1 | ... | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | ... | 260

1467 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 429
Inactive user

#1950338 1-Feb-2018 20:51

shk292:

tripper1000:

shk292:

It's telling that none of the EV advocates have raised a single argument, fact or figure to attempt to answer my points.

Hmmm, OK, on this point:

shk292:

But until then, I disagree with my tax $$ being spent to make your EV cheaper

It would be YOUR tax dollars making YOUR EV cheaper.

Don't forget, your tax dollars were your wage dollars before they were IRD's tax dollars. Wouldn't you like to be able to spend some more of YOUR money on YOUR car?

In the past we (NZ) spend YOUR (well, your grand-dad's) tax dollars building dams, the national grid, the national highway system, the railways, ports and telephone systems, and I think we're all better for it.

So, convince me the numbers stack up

I have no problem with paying taxes and that money being spent by the govt (partly because I'm a government servant).

But if we have $$ to spend on CC, are we better trying to reduce it or mitigate its effects?

And if it's the former, is the subsidy of EVs the best, or even a good way to spend the money? How about a scrappage scheme for old, thirsty cars - how would that stack up against EVs? Or electrifying the Northern busway? Or "virtual trams"? Or subsidising house insulation?

Yes, EVs are neat technology and I will probably buy one as a 2nd/3rd car in the next 3-4 years. But I don't expect taxpayers, most of whom have less disposable cash than me, to subsidise this choice unless it can be shown that it is the best bang for $ in terms of CC expenditure

https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/blogs/6-things-to-know-about-earths-6th-mass-extinction

Are you a cost accountant or something? Can't you see beyond pure monetary issues? Don't you believe that the Earth's 6th mass extinction, as discussed in the above article, is actually taking place now?

Look, if Earth has had 5 mass extinctions from "natural" events, then can't you see that human activity is a prime cause of a likely 6th mass extinction and that subsidising EVs is a step in the right direction to perhaps slow it down?

shk292

2915 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2040

Lifetime subscriber

#1950359 1-Feb-2018 21:26

frednz:

https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/blogs/6-things-to-know-about-earths-6th-mass-extinction

Are you a cost accountant or something? Can't you see beyond pure monetary issues? Don't you believe that the Earth's 6th mass extinction, as discussed in the above article, is actually taking place now?

Look, if Earth has had 5 mass extinctions from "natural" events, then can't you see that human activity is a prime cause of a likely 6th mass extinction and that subsidising EVs is a step in the right direction to perhaps slow it down?

No, I'm an engineer who is sometimes responsible for spending significant sums of taxpayer money and I'm used to doing this based on reasoned business cases, not on feel-good hunches.

And you're the second person who has argued against a point that I very clearly didn't make. I did not claim CC was not happening, or that it wasn't a problem, or that we shouldn't spend money on it. I'm simply saying that if the money available to spend on it is finite, then we should ensure we spend it in the best way possible. And I'm far from convinced that this is by subsidising people to buy EVs.

I'll leave it at that. Please no-one else imply I'm denying climate change or the need to do something about it. But the next time someone argues that EV purchases should be subsidised by taxpayers' money, please provide a reason why

happyfunball

287 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 112

#1950419 2-Feb-2018 06:59

shk292:

1 - reducing emissions in NZ has no direct effect on reducing sea level rises in these places

2 - even disregarding 1, nobody has yet shown on this thread that subsidising relatively affluent people to drive EVs is the best way of spending taxpayers' money to reduce emissions

3 - similarly, nobody has shown that spending money to reduce emissions is more cost effective than spending money to mitigate the effects of any possible sea level rises, And this is especially important given 1 above

I'm not saying these things (2 & 3) can't be proven - I have an open mind and welcome some numbers being provided. But until then, I disagree with my tax $$ being spent to make your EV cheaper

Perfect is the enemy of the good.

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 429
Inactive user

#1950514 2-Feb-2018 09:00

shk292:

frednz:

https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/blogs/6-things-to-know-about-earths-6th-mass-extinction

Are you a cost accountant or something? Can't you see beyond pure monetary issues? Don't you believe that the Earth's 6th mass extinction, as discussed in the above article, is actually taking place now?

Look, if Earth has had 5 mass extinctions from "natural" events, then can't you see that human activity is a prime cause of a likely 6th mass extinction and that subsidising EVs is a step in the right direction to perhaps slow it down?

No, I'm an engineer who is sometimes responsible for spending significant sums of taxpayer money and I'm used to doing this based on reasoned business cases, not on feel-good hunches.

And you're the second person who has argued against a point that I very clearly didn't make. I did not claim CC was not happening, or that it wasn't a problem, or that we shouldn't spend money on it. I'm simply saying that if the money available to spend on it is finite, then we should ensure we spend it in the best way possible. And I'm far from convinced that this is by subsidising people to buy EVs.

I'll leave it at that. Please no-one else imply I'm denying climate change or the need to do something about it. But the next time someone argues that EV purchases should be subsidised by taxpayers' money, please provide a reason why

https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/news/97198599/electric-vehicles-can-we-become-the-norway-of-the-southern-hemisphere

Here's a quote from the above article which explains why EV purchases should be subsidised by taxpayers' money:

There's a lesson to be learned in all of this for New Zealand. Statistics and surveys show that the Norwegian acceptance of EVs is not necessarily for environmental reasons - but economics. Norway's government offers generous subsidies for EVs (and imposes restrictions on the use of conventional vehicles), and that's primarily why the locals buy the cars.

Recent surveys showed that 72 per cent of buyers are choosing their electric cars for economic reasons, and just 26 per cent for environmental reasons.

And statistics from neighbouring Denmark support this. They suggest that if the subsidies weren't in place, this takeup of EVs might disappear. In 2015 Denmark reinstated registration taxes on EVs after some years of exemptions - and sales last year fell 68 per cent.

So what does all this tell us? How about this: in stark contrast to the situation in Norway, so far our takeup of new electric vehicles has largely been for environmental reasons. The electric vehicles on offer here new are simply too expensive for the reasons to be otherwise.

That also explains why close to half all EV sales so far in New Zealand have been used Nissan Leafs imported from Japan and the UK, the prices for which are probably benefiting from financial incentives offered in their home markets.

All this means the key to mass acceptance of new EVs is for the Government to stump with financial incentives.

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1678

Lifetime subscriber

#1950577 2-Feb-2018 10:02

The issue of subsidies for EV is that it runs the risk of opening the floodgates of subsidies for all sorts of things.

NZ isn't a green country.

I don't have faith in governments not to start funding things in business interests which don't mirror those of the environment.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953

Lifetime subscriber

#1950624 2-Feb-2018 10:21

Indeed. It's the perennial problem with politicians picking winners. They're a) not qualified and b) beholden to their own special interest groups rather than the country as a whole.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

WyleECoyoteNZ

1055 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 372

#1950651 2-Feb-2018 11:42

A review (UK) of the Next generation Nissan Leaf by Auto Express (rival to Autocar). A short video, just over 5 minutes long

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLcL5SemC_M

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#1950725 2-Feb-2018 13:49

A big part of the lack of EV uptake by the general population in NZ, is simply that there are no EV Utes available. And the only electric SUV is the Tesla Model X. No EV van to match the Toyota Hiace (which is the perfect size for numerous tradies)

Any EV subsidies would be better spent on more public charging stations. As currently when driving an ICE car, there are very few areas of NZ where you need to actively plan your fuel stops. As there are petrol stations practically everywhere. Getting a high enough density of EV chargers will be a big help.

MarkH67

522 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 320

#1950729 2-Feb-2018 13:58

Aredwood: Any EV subsidies would be better spent on more public charging stations.

EV subsidies would mean more EVs, more EVs means more public charging stations. The reality is that both need to be jointly encouraged.

happyfunball

287 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 112

#1950731 2-Feb-2018 14:03

shk292:

I'm simply saying that if the money available to spend on it is finite, then we should ensure we spend it in the best way possible. And I'm far from convinced that this is by subsidising people to buy EVs.

I'll leave it at that. Please no-one else imply I'm denying climate change or the need to do something about it. But the next time someone argues that EV purchases should be subsidised by taxpayers' money, please provide a reason why

Perhaps one issue with your stance is that you are pre-supposing its possible to know how to 'spend it in the best way possible'. I'm skeptical of that. Can you prove that we know the best way to spend money on combatting climate change? If so, what is the best way?

Until that happy day, perhaps we should back methods that we are sure will help in the battle against climate change. It doesn't have to be the 'best', just an improvement.

Moving from ICE cars to EVs in NZ will reduce our vehicle emissions. I think the idea of EV subsidies is that it would encourage EV uptake and thus lower emissions. That would be my reason for advocating it.

Action on climate change is a collective issue, no single person is going to make much of a dent. It will take a huge effort by many people around the world to make a difference. Lets cheer those on who are trying, even if its a small step in the right direction.

wellygary

8810 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5287

#1950748 2-Feb-2018 14:53

happyfunball:

I think the idea of EV subsidies is that it would encourage EV uptake and thus lower emissions. That would be my reason for advocating it.

And there is the rub,

At the moment EVs are perfect commuter vehicles, great for short trips into town,

Now the question is should we be encouraging "vehicle commuting"-

now you will argue that changing ICE commuters into EV commuters is a good thing , and that is true,

But if you spent the same money on making PT travel easier and cheaper (even EV PT- rail and Electric buses) you might achieve an even larger reduction in emissions by getting people out of their cars in the first place.

- and surely the largest emission reduction/$ should be the end game

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

happyfunball

287 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 112

#1950771 2-Feb-2018 15:37

wellygary:

But if you spent the same money on making PT travel easier and cheaper (even EV PT- rail and Electric buses) you might achieve an even larger reduction in emissions by getting people out of their cars in the first place.

- and surely the largest emission reduction/$ should be the end game

How is riding on a diesel bus better than driving an EV? Unless its an electric bus or train its not an improvement. I live in Wellington, there are 0 electric buses here. The buses are horrible polluters with clouds of toxic smoke trailing them everywhere. EV's are a difference we can make right now, electric buses are going to take a while.

I agree that the focus should be on emissions, but we can't ignore the future and what we know will happen - that elephant in the room; self-driving cars.. Eventually self driving cars will replace trains and buses, which will drastically improve traffic flow and travel times. So why invest in outdated technologies like PT?

I think we should skip the electric PT step except on the most dense corridors, the costs won't justify the < 15 years of use we will get from it.

wellygary

8810 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5287

#1950776 2-Feb-2018 15:46

happyfunball:

How is riding on a diesel bus better than driving an EV?

Because the cost of converting one ICE commuter to an EV commuter might equate to converting 5 (or 10 or more) ICE commuters into ICE PT commuters.... so you remove 5 vehicles from the commute for a marginal increase in bus emissions, thus having a larger net reduction in emissions than one commuter becoming an EV commuter

The pool of funds is limited so surely shouldn't we see if there are other cheaper options to reduce emissions, rather than

"EV subsidies for everyone" - which in reality usually turns into EV subsidies for the wealthy

happyfunball

287 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 112

#1950809 2-Feb-2018 16:39

wellygary:

Because the cost of converting one ICE commuter to an EV commuter might equate to converting 5 (or 10 or more) ICE commuters into ICE PT commuters.... so you remove 5 vehicles from the commute for a marginal increase in bus emissions, thus having a larger net reduction in emissions than one commuter becoming an EV commuter

The pool of funds is limited so surely shouldn't we see if there are other cheaper options to reduce emissions, rather than

"EV subsidies for everyone" - which in reality usually turns into EV subsidies for the wealthy

I see your point, but we can't forget that in order to get rid of ICE, we need to encourage EV uptake. We need rising EV ownership to lower EV production and cost, there is no way around that. So the $ spent on EV's now are an investment in the future, and future emission reductions. Conversely buying more ICE buses and encouraging their use pushes the EV future further away and discourages people from buying EVs. We need to build the future we want. It won't be cheap or easy but we need to get going and forget the old paradigms.

MarkH67

522 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 320

#1950811 2-Feb-2018 16:41

wellygary:
But if you spent the same money on making PT travel easier and cheaper (even EV PT- rail and Electric buses) you might achieve an even larger reduction in emissions by getting people out of their cars in the first place.

- and surely the largest emission reduction/$ should be the end game

Why not do both? For those able to use public transport then great, encourage less vehicles on the road.
For me: I travel from Morrinsville to Cambridge at 3am, there will never be a public transport option for me. By using a 2nd hand EV I am able to reduce my fossil fuel consumption by 1000 litres a year. I regard that as a good thing.

1 | ... | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | ... | 260