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 | ... | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | ... | 60

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#2264528 25-Jun-2019 20:28

Obraik:

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

There is actually a far more important point to note from that page right now. It says that there is only 6MW of wind generation currently, out of an installed capacity of 658MW of wind generation. So effectively Zero wind generation now. And Zero solar generation because it is night time at the moment. This is why you still need lots of Hydro and Geothermal generation. And claims by the Green party and others that we could go 100% renewable solely from solar and wind are a complete fantasy.

There is not much coal being used at the moment. As there is lots of water in the hydro lakes, we are over halfway through winter now. So it is very unlikely that we would have a power shortage in the next 6 months. Therefore the dam owners are offering lots of hydro generation into the wholesale market for very cheap prices. And the HVDC cable has over 800MW running North at the moment.

As a contrast, have a look at what happened earlier this year.

Low lake levels that were quickly dropping. Outages on the Natural gas network. There were very real fears that we might have an electricity shortage. And lots and lots of fossil fuels were being burnt, to help save water in the hydro lakes for the upcoming winter.

But then that big storm happened. The lakes got filled almost overnight. False alarm - We no longer have any risk of shortage anymore. Except we burnt lots of fossil fuels that we didn't need to (with the benefit of hindsight). As if we had known that that storm was going to happen, then the lakes could have been pretty much emptied beforehand. Instead of needing to burn lots of fossil fuels, just in case it doesn't rain.

If managed correctly, building lots more coal generation could actually reduce carbon emissions. As it would enable hydro to be used at max output. As you won't have to worry about low rainfall and saving water "just in case". As the coal generation would be your "just in case" backup instead.

Obraik

2167 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1347

#2264615 25-Jun-2019 21:08

Aredwood:

Obraik:

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

There is actually a far more important point to note from that page right now. It says that there is only 6MW of wind generation currently, out of an installed capacity of 658MW of wind generation. So effectively Zero wind generation now. And Zero solar generation because it is night time at the moment. This is why you still need lots of Hydro and Geothermal generation. And claims by the Green party and others that we could go 100% renewable solely from solar and wind are a complete fantasy.

There is not much coal being used at the moment. As there is lots of water in the hydro lakes, we are over halfway through winter now. So it is very unlikely that we would have a power shortage in the next 6 months. Therefore the dam owners are offering lots of hydro generation into the wholesale market for very cheap prices. And the HVDC cable has over 800MW running North at the moment.

As a contrast, have a look at what happened earlier this year.

Low lake levels that were quickly dropping. Outages on the Natural gas network. There were very real fears that we might have an electricity shortage. And lots and lots of fossil fuels were being burnt, to help save water in the hydro lakes for the upcoming winter.

But then that big storm happened. The lakes got filled almost overnight. False alarm - We no longer have any risk of shortage anymore. Except we burnt lots of fossil fuels that we didn't need to (with the benefit of hindsight). As if we had known that that storm was going to happen, then the lakes could have been pretty much emptied beforehand. Instead of needing to burn lots of fossil fuels, just in case it doesn't rain.

If managed correctly, building lots more coal generation could actually reduce carbon emissions. As it would enable hydro to be used at max output. As you won't have to worry about low rainfall and saving water "just in case". As the coal generation would be your "just in case" backup instead.

Yeah that's kind of what the report concluded. We could get to 100% renewable but the cost to get there and the gain from doing it isn't going to be great as actually tackling what is causing the main contribution to our carbon emissions right now, which is transport and heating.

While I don't agree with the idea of building more coal plants (and I'm sure you're just using it as an example), it is a fact that even if all our power was generated by coal making the switch from ICE vehicles to EVs would still reduce our carbon output. Of course, we'd be better off just adding some more renewable based power generation should we need to add more. There are also better ways we could use our solar and wind generation so they can be used to fill in the gaps or take pressure off the hydro lakes.

Looking to buy a Tesla? Use my referral link and we both get credits

Obraik

2167 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1347

#2264616 25-Jun-2019 21:10

Something I think that's been overlooked in this thread is that an "EV incentive" would unlikely to be specific to EVs. It would include all zero emissions vehicles, which Hydro vehicles would be part of.

Looking to buy a Tesla? Use my referral link and we both get credits

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2264661 25-Jun-2019 21:25

Obraik:

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

Oh, so tonight is representative of every night? As I said, there is expertise yours and mine, that says that NZ going 100% renewable is a better investment. But, thats based on emission reduction, which is what most of us want

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2264665 25-Jun-2019 21:30

Obraik:

Something I think that's been overlooked in this thread is that an "EV incentive" would unlikely to be specific to EVs. It would include all zero emissions vehicles, which Hydro vehicles would be part of.

Hydro vehicles? Hydrogen? Thats been blown away

Obraik

2167 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1347

#2264669 25-Jun-2019 21:37

tdgeek:
Oh, so tonight is representative of every night? As I said, there is expertise yours and mine, that says that NZ going 100% renewable is a better investment. But, thats based on emission reduction, which is what most of us want

For the most part, yes it is.

You're welcome to read the article and tell the independent committee employed by the government how they're wrong :)

Looking to buy a Tesla? Use my referral link and we both get credits

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2264738 26-Jun-2019 07:21

Obraik:
tdgeek:

Oh, so tonight is representative of every night? As I said, there is expertise yours and mine, that says that NZ going 100% renewable is a better investment. But, thats based on emission reduction, which is what most of us want

For the most part, yes it is.

You're welcome to read the article and tell the independent committee employed by the government how they're wrong :)

Sure will as an independent committee that favours your free money will always be right? How is the value to spend $10,000 plus free RUC to reduce emissions on one car for 5 return trips to work? You don't need a calculator to work that out. Especially when 20% off those km are coal fired. It is beyond ridiculous. But NZ cannot afford that anyway. You will find that businesses will achieve support, which is where it obviously should be. This reminds me so much of the guy in the politics thread that wanted to vote National. His ONLY reason was the $40 per week tax cut. Whether National was better or not for the country made no difference. he was voting for his tax cut only

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2264744 26-Jun-2019 07:54

Obraik:

Yeah that's kind of what the report concluded. We could get to 100% renewable but the cost to get there and the gain from doing it isn't going to be great as actually tackling what is causing the main contribution to our carbon emissions right now, which is transport and heating.

While I don't agree with the idea of building more coal plants (and I'm sure you're just using it as an example), it is a fact that even if all our power was generated by coal making the switch from ICE vehicles to EVs would still reduce our carbon output. Of course, we'd be better off just adding some more renewable based power generation should we need to add more. There are also better ways we could use our solar and wind generation so they can be used to fill in the gaps or take pressure off the hydro lakes.

It said the cost to get the last 1-3% was expensive

Solar and wind is too small

I fully agree with reducing all emissions, and yes that incudes your 5 day commute. But you cannot possibly support funding that when if you look at the roads after you get to work, traffic is continual, all day, every day, business is happening via transport.

To run these off electricity we need more generation. This year we might reduce FF generation, but we always use it, as the last 87 years shows. Add industrial heat , add business transport, and yes even your 23km commute, we will run out of water. Last year we ran low and used FF summer and winter, ask those on Flick Electric

Yes, ideally run everything we can off electricity, its obvious what financial support should be offered for and what it shouldn't be offered for, thats basic math

old3eyes

9158 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1365

Subscriber

#2264789 26-Jun-2019 09:06

Aredwood:

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!

Gas may be cheaper but the $36 / month line rental kills it unless you use it for everything. When my gas hot water tank dies it goodbye to gas.

Regards,

Old3eyes

Obraik

2167 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1347

#2264877 26-Jun-2019 10:26

tdgeek:

Sure will as an independent committee that favours your free money will always be right? How is the value to spend $10,000 plus free RUC to reduce emissions on one car for 5 return trips to work? You don't need a calculator to work that out. Especially when 20% off those km are coal fired. It is beyond ridiculous. But NZ cannot afford that anyway. You will find that businesses will achieve support, which is where it obviously should be. This reminds me so much of the guy in the politics thread that wanted to vote National. His ONLY reason was the $40 per week tax cut. Whether National was better or not for the country made no difference. he was voting for his tax cut only

Nah, 20% of our electricity doesn't come from coal. Most of the remaining generation that isn't from renewables is from gas.

I'm not going to spend another page or two of replies going over why I (and plenty of others) want a EV subsidy and explaining how removing ICE vehicles goes a long way to reducing our carbon emissions. If you want to actually read those replies this time, feel free to venture back through the pages of this thread. Or you know, continue to accuse me of just wanting my free money, whatever works for you.

Looking to buy a Tesla? Use my referral link and we both get credits

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2264888 26-Jun-2019 10:42

Obraik:

tdgeek:

Sure will as an independent committee that favours your free money will always be right? How is the value to spend $10,000 plus free RUC to reduce emissions on one car for 5 return trips to work? You don't need a calculator to work that out. Especially when 20% off those km are coal fired. It is beyond ridiculous. But NZ cannot afford that anyway. You will find that businesses will achieve support, which is where it obviously should be. This reminds me so much of the guy in the politics thread that wanted to vote National. His ONLY reason was the $40 per week tax cut. Whether National was better or not for the country made no difference. he was voting for his tax cut only

Nah, 20% of our electricity doesn't come from coal. Most of the remaining generation that isn't from renewables is from gas.

I'm not going to spend another page or two of replies going over why I (and plenty of others) want a EV subsidy and explaining how removing ICE vehicles goes a long way to reducing our carbon emissions. If you want to actually read those replies this time, feel free to venture back through the pages of this thread. Or you know, continue to accuse me of just wanting my free money, whatever works for you.

FF then

I know what you want a subsidy, you don't need to repeat that, we know why. Id like more EV's too, but the ones that matter. I want ICE to be replaced by EV;s too, as well as as many other emission causing issues to be replaced by green energy, we are in agreement. But paying $10,000 plus free RUC to save one car emissions driving to work and back is a POOR investment, thats VERY expensive CO2. Or shall I say very expensive and not much CO2 savings to show for it . Its all been said

Dell

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

Obraik

2167 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1347

#2264917 26-Jun-2019 11:31

tdgeek:

FF then

I know what you want a subsidy, you don't need to repeat that, we know why. Id like more EV's too, but the ones that matter. I want ICE to be replaced by EV;s too, as well as as many other emission causing issues to be replaced by green energy, we are in agreement. But paying $10,000 plus free RUC to save one car emissions driving to work and back is a POOR investment, thats VERY expensive CO2. Or shall I say very expensive and not much CO2 savings to show for it . Its all been said

Yeah, we've been over that too. I don't think anyone has suggested the government just simply gives out $10k. The suggestions put forward have been about either making purchases of new ICE vehicles subsidize purchases of new EVs (yes, I know with more EVs purchased over ICE the less funds are available for the subsidy - it's not meant to be a permanent subsidy), removing GST off the cost of EVs and there's probably a few other suggestions that have been lost in the pages.

A significant chunk of our emissions comes from vehicles. All vehicles. That's not something I've made up, that's what countless studies and governments around the world have said. No one in this thread has suggested that the only thing we do to combat climate change in New Zealand is slap on an EV incentive and call it done. Switching the vehicle fleet to EVs is just one lever in the system we need to develop as a country to fight climate change which is now at the point where we can't just say "oh, we'll just focus on this aspect and come back to the other stuff at a later date" - all contributors to climate change need to be rapidly reduced and for the vehicle side of this, that means fast tracking people into EVs.

Looking to buy a Tesla? Use my referral link and we both get credits

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2264933 26-Jun-2019 11:52

Your making stuff up. I have always supported EV's, and all manner of emissions being removed. I have even posted my suggestions to get more EV's in NZ and in a manner that will greatly increase the used stock, and at a low cost to the Government. But that gets conveniently ignored. I guess when RUC goes back on that will be another drama? We are at 10,000 which is 0.25%, and with little on offer here which is rapidly changing and the waiting lists that show pre existing demand, the residential sector is primed and ready. Get businesses on track, with add a lot of mileage and more benefits. We could well hit 76000 in 2 years

Obraik

2167 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1347

#2264941 26-Jun-2019 12:07

tdgeek:

Your making stuff up. I have always supported EV's, and all manner of emissions being removed. I have even posted my suggestions to get more EV's in NZ and in a manner that will greatly increase the used stock, and at a low cost to the Government. But that gets conveniently ignored. I guess when RUC goes back on that will be another drama? We are at 10,000 which is 0.25%, and with little on offer here which is rapidly changing and the waiting lists that show pre existing demand, the residential sector is primed and ready. Get businesses on track, with add a lot of mileage and more benefits. We could well hit 76000 in 2 years

What "stuff" am I making up?

No one has said your idea for businesses is bad - what most people are saying is that any EV subsidy also needs to include private buyers.

Looking to buy a Tesla? Use my referral link and we both get credits

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2264944 26-Jun-2019 12:19

Obraik:

tdgeek:

Your making stuff up. I have always supported EV's, and all manner of emissions being removed. I have even posted my suggestions to get more EV's in NZ and in a manner that will greatly increase the used stock, and at a low cost to the Government. But that gets conveniently ignored. I guess when RUC goes back on that will be another drama? We are at 10,000 which is 0.25%, and with little on offer here which is rapidly changing and the waiting lists that show pre existing demand, the residential sector is primed and ready. Get businesses on track, with add a lot of mileage and more benefits. We could well hit 76000 in 2 years

What "stuff" am I making up?

No one has said your idea for businesses is bad - what most people are saying is that any EV subsidy also needs to include private buyers.

You're putting forward suggestions for various CC measure in reply to my posts, implies that I do not support that, and that I do not support consumer EV's.

My point is quite clear, I support all measures to reduce emissions. If the bulk of emissions was from consumers commuting to work, then I would support measures for that. Consumers commuting does cause emissions, but of the 3.8 million light class vehicles we have, there are many more vehicle demographics that are emitting more CO2 than that. Add in buses, light trains all of which can be electric, they reduce emissions as they take cars off the road. A poster here gave a list of measures that would do more. I can get more used EV's on the road than your subsidy will, hence more consumers driving them

Its about spending X$ and reducing more emissions for the dollar. As in lil ol NZ $ are very very limited. You cannot argue that climate change is more important, if we have no $, we have no changes.

1 | ... | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | ... | 60