Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60
679 posts

Ultimate Geek


  #2276299 14-Jul-2019 13:11
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

Obraik:
I think incentivising an ICE vehicle sends the wrong message and also ultimately doesn't make a difference. Someone comparing an ICE vehicle out of the subsidy band vs one that is will be unlikely to be swayed to the subsidised ICE because it's in a completely different category to the vehicle they're considering. Anything in the ICE subsidy band is going to be low performing and likely small. Basically, what I'm saying is I don't see the subsidy on ICE vehicles attracting new buyers of that vehicle class - you're just making it cheaper for someone that was already going to buy it.

EVs on the other hand are attractive as an option to nearly all ICE buyers because they work differently and out perform the ICE vehicles in their class. Driving them has negligible impact on the environment and they're quite a lot cheaper to run. The only stopping point with them at the moment is their price difference. By further reducing the price of an ICE vehicle over the EV option you're potentially making people pick that ICE vehicle over the EV when they might have gone with the EV.

 

Wrong message? It sends the message to reduce emissions.

 

Who said its about bringing out of the subsidy band ICE into the subsidy band? No one. 

 

The subsidy will be small but so is the price. Its far more likely to bring in a new buyer that would be a buyer of a pre owned vehicle. Your 8k subsidy went bring in any new buyers

 

Yes YIU ARE MAKING IT CHEAPER FOR SOMEONE WHO WAS ALREADY GLING TO BUY IT. Im glad you have now seen the light. 

 

What I bolded, what a crock! The difference between a subsidised ICE and a subsidies EV is night and day price wise. Night and day. 

 

 

 

Conclusion is that I favour attempt to reduce emissions, you do not. You favour a subsidy on cars that the buyers will buy anyway.Im disappointed that a move that will reduce  emissions and has no bearing on EV purchases as the price difference is night and day is not supported. That says it all and whoever said recently, EV evangelists was correct. The rest of us, most of which are also keen on EV's are climate evangelists.

 

 

Let me break it down a bit more for you since it seems like you've latched on to a sentence and are now quoting it out of context, while also getting emotional.

 

Subsidising EVs will convince people to buy them who previously wouldn't have due to the price difference - there is clear evidence that this works because it's been done in a number of countries around the world. However, subsidising a class of ICE vehicle isn't going to attract buyers from other ICE classes because people buying the non-subsidised ICE aren't suddenly going to be convinced to downgrade to a lesser ICE vehicle.  eg. Subsidising an EV is convincing people to pick the item in column B row 2 instead of column A row 2.  Subsidising an ICE is trying to convince people to pick the item from column A row 2 instead of column A row 5.  That's very unlikely to happen. If you're not convincing people to buy a lesser ICE vehicle then you're not going to be reducing emissions, are you?   

 

By making the ICE option now even cheaper, you've further made the EV option less of a consideration because that's now basically negated the whole point of subsidizing the EV option has it hasn't done anything to close the gap between the EV and ICE.

 

Buying a preowned vehicle isn't a bad choice, especially if that preowned vehicle is an EV.  Given that the subsidy for buying the new Swift is going to be the same as the subsidy offered on preowned EVs, subsidising the ICE option has now also reduced the likelihood that the buyer is even going to buy that.  That's not to mention that subsidies are also being given to second hand ICE vehicles too.

 

I'm glad the government is doing something, but currently New Zealand is the only one half assing the push to zero emission vehicles.

 

 




1371 posts

Uber Geek


  #2276303 14-Jul-2019 13:22
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

frednz:

 

Yes, the whole idea is to reduce the number of ICE vehicles on our roads, not to encourage people to keep on buying them! In fact, some people are saying that, rather than subsidise the cost of petrol vehicles, it would be better to spend that money on the Govt buying up old gas guzzling vehicles and scrapping them.

 

No other country in the world subsidises the cost of lower emitting petrol vehicles and I'm amazed that "TDGeek", after months of repeatedly arguing why the Government shouldn't subsidise electric vehicles, is now in favour of the Government subsidising some purely petrol vehicles! 

 

And I agree that someone who owns a larger ICE, such as a Range Rover, is not going to rush off and buy a Swift simply because his Range Rover has got more expensive while the Swift has been discounted by a small amount. 

 

 

No, the idea is to reduce emissions. 

 

 

The idea has always been to reduce emissions, this hasn't just happened because the Government finally issued a Discussion Paper on it. This is the whole reason why nearly everybody who has posted on this thread for the last several months has been in favour of Government incentives for EVs and also in favour of various forms of penalties that will discourage people from buying petrol vehicles. Yet despite this, some people now think it's a good idea for Government subsidies to be given on low emitting vehicles that run purely on petrol.

 

Anyway, this is a relatively small group, so it pays to read around a bit and see what a few others on internet have been saying about this issue:

 

There is absolutely no way an ICE should get a price reduction. What should happen is that all ICE receive an extra fee but low emission ICE get a smaller increase. It is perverse what the Government is suggesting. EVs would also get a higher rebate if this was how it was implemented. More importantly, the Government should be incentivising BEV passenger services and installing ultrafast charging to support them. This policy does neither.

 

The whole scheme is going to make buying and running petrol cars and particularly petrol hybrids much cheaper to buy and cheaper to run than EVs. If allowed to come into force in its present form will likely kill off the entire EV movement in NZ.

 

It’s a poorly thought out policy. There is no way we should be giving subsidies to people buying Suzuki Swifts, Nissan Tiidas etc. We don’t want to encourage people to go and buy these cars. Instead of buying a Suzuki Swift, it would be better to go and get a Toyota Prius C. Same size and a Hybrid. Will save heaps of fuel and is very low on emissions. Only Hybrids, PHEV and EV’s should receive the subsidy.

 

What emission reductions do you think this EV package will accomplish? Hint: None; our vehicle emissions will continue to rise. That is not 'good'. It is atrocious. There were no extra incentives for passenger services to go BEV which are, by far, the best way to reduce emissions. There was no investment in ultrafast charging infrastructure. NZ is not doing what others realise is necessary.

 

Well perhaps people are simply over reacting to this whole supposed climate emergency situation? Yet city after NZ city are declaring climate emergencies and as far as I can tell NZ is the only country in the world that has proposed giving discounts for buying some ICE vehicles in the hope that people will buy these in preference to higher polluting ICE vehicles. It just sends a terrible message that it's ok to buy ICE vehicles, and if you avoid the heaviest polluting ones, we'll give you a discount! You've gotta be kidding, surely? I think this proposal is so wacky that it could easily command headlines all around the world as to how nutty we are in Godzown!

 

 

 

 

 

 


 
 
 
 


19911 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2276346 14-Jul-2019 15:09
Send private message

Obraik:

 

tdgeek:

 

Obraik:
I think incentivising an ICE vehicle sends the wrong message and also ultimately doesn't make a difference. Someone comparing an ICE vehicle out of the subsidy band vs one that is will be unlikely to be swayed to the subsidised ICE because it's in a completely different category to the vehicle they're considering. Anything in the ICE subsidy band is going to be low performing and likely small. Basically, what I'm saying is I don't see the subsidy on ICE vehicles attracting new buyers of that vehicle class - you're just making it cheaper for someone that was already going to buy it.

EVs on the other hand are attractive as an option to nearly all ICE buyers because they work differently and out perform the ICE vehicles in their class. Driving them has negligible impact on the environment and they're quite a lot cheaper to run. The only stopping point with them at the moment is their price difference. By further reducing the price of an ICE vehicle over the EV option you're potentially making people pick that ICE vehicle over the EV when they might have gone with the EV.

 

Wrong message? It sends the message to reduce emissions.

 

Who said its about bringing out of the subsidy band ICE into the subsidy band? No one. 

 

The subsidy will be small but so is the price. Its far more likely to bring in a new buyer that would be a buyer of a pre owned vehicle. Your 8k subsidy went bring in any new buyers

 

Yes YIU ARE MAKING IT CHEAPER FOR SOMEONE WHO WAS ALREADY GLING TO BUY IT. Im glad you have now seen the light. 

 

What I bolded, what a crock! The difference between a subsidised ICE and a subsidies EV is night and day price wise. Night and day. 

 

 

 

Conclusion is that I favour attempt to reduce emissions, you do not. You favour a subsidy on cars that the buyers will buy anyway.Im disappointed that a move that will reduce  emissions and has no bearing on EV purchases as the price difference is night and day is not supported. That says it all and whoever said recently, EV evangelists was correct. The rest of us, most of which are also keen on EV's are climate evangelists.

 

 

Let me break it down a bit more for you since it seems like you've latched on to a sentence and are now quoting it out of context, while also getting emotional.

 

Subsidising EVs will convince people to buy them who previously wouldn't have due to the price difference - there is clear evidence that this works because it's been done in a number of countries around the world. However, subsidising a class of ICE vehicle isn't going to attract buyers from other ICE classes because people buying the non-subsidised ICE aren't suddenly going to be convinced to downgrade to a lesser ICE vehicle.  eg. Subsidising an EV is convincing people to pick the item in column B row 2 instead of column A row 2.  Subsidising an ICE is trying to convince people to pick the item from column A row 2 instead of column A row 5.  That's very unlikely to happen. If you're not convincing people to buy a lesser ICE vehicle then you're not going to be reducing emissions, are you?   

 

By making the ICE option now even cheaper, you've further made the EV option less of a consideration because that's now basically negated the whole point of subsidizing the EV option has it hasn't done anything to close the gap between the EV and ICE.

 

Buying a preowned vehicle isn't a bad choice, especially if that preowned vehicle is an EV.  Given that the subsidy for buying the new Swift is going to be the same as the subsidy offered on preowned EVs, subsidising the ICE option has now also reduced the likelihood that the buyer is even going to buy that.  That's not to mention that subsidies are also being given to second hand ICE vehicles too.

 

I'm glad the government is doing something, but currently New Zealand is the only one half assing the push to zero emission vehicles.

 

 

 

 

I can fully decipher those that support lower emissions and those that see EV as a discount No emotion here, its quite clear what the motives are

 

EV subsides are common, uptake is still low. Prices are too high that's obvious. You are intentionally misleading who says that ICE owners will downgrad to get a small subsidy? Is that all you can offer. If I can afford a Tesla , 8k is peanuts. If I can afford a 22k Swift, the subsidy is meaningful.You are saying to the bulk of the populous that you cant afford an EV, you drive a heap pf Sh%t, buy a Swift save lots of CO2. Oh, if you are into reducing emissions that is.

 

Does a small;l subsidy on a 22k Swift really get a Tesla buyer second thinking his purchase? Come on, this is a joke. Two different markets. a leaf and a Swift are two different markets. If you feel the the subsidy will help get EV's everywhere is short order, fine. Thats has no bearing on the lower emissions Swift helping out. 

 

The Govt is doing something, its has not released an EV policy. It has released a lower emissions policy. Albeit that this will have  a miniscule effect on emissions anyway. And until we are importing EV;s at the rate of 50% of our imports, thats years away, many years away. Id suggest 15 minimum Although I do see a timing oijt where that will take off . That will depend on manufactures removing R+D, any subsidy will make little or no difference. We don't have a subsidy here, but we have 15,000 EV's even though until very recently you cannot actually buy them here. Yes, subsidies worked well... 

 

You will also note that elsewhere EV takeup is low, even though subsidies have existed for a while. Norway excepted, who built their EV directly on FF. EV takeup cant be incented by small subsidies on what is an artificially high price. Id even go as far to say that Hybrids will take off, they make sense, as the premium is low, fuel savings are high, great idea. 

 

 

 

 


19911 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2276347 14-Jul-2019 15:20
One person supports this post
Send private message

frednz:

 

tdgeek:

 

frednz:

 

Yes, the whole idea is to reduce the number of ICE vehicles on our roads, not to encourage people to keep on buying them! In fact, some people are saying that, rather than subsidise the cost of petrol vehicles, it would be better to spend that money on the Govt buying up old gas guzzling vehicles and scrapping them.

 

No other country in the world subsidises the cost of lower emitting petrol vehicles and I'm amazed that "TDGeek", after months of repeatedly arguing why the Government shouldn't subsidise electric vehicles, is now in favour of the Government subsidising some purely petrol vehicles! 

 

And I agree that someone who owns a larger ICE, such as a Range Rover, is not going to rush off and buy a Swift simply because his Range Rover has got more expensive while the Swift has been discounted by a small amount. 

 

 

No, the idea is to reduce emissions. 

 

 

The idea has always been to reduce emissions, this hasn't just happened because the Government finally issued a Discussion Paper on it. This is the whole reason why nearly everybody who has posted on this thread for the last several months has been in favour of Government incentives for EVs and also in favour of various forms of penalties that will discourage people from buying petrol vehicles. Yet despite this, some people now think it's a good idea for Government subsidies to be given on low emitting vehicles that run purely on petrol.

 

Anyway, this is a relatively small group, so it pays to read around a bit and see what a few others on internet have been saying about this issue:

 

There is absolutely no way an ICE should get a price reduction. What should happen is that all ICE receive an extra fee but low emission ICE get a smaller increase. It is perverse what the Government is suggesting. EVs would also get a higher rebate if this was how it was implemented. More importantly, the Government should be incentivising BEV passenger services and installing ultrafast charging to support them. This policy does neither.

 

The whole scheme is going to make buying and running petrol cars and particularly petrol hybrids much cheaper to buy and cheaper to run than EVs. If allowed to come into force in its present form will likely kill off the entire EV movement in NZ.

 

It’s a poorly thought out policy. There is no way we should be giving subsidies to people buying Suzuki Swifts, Nissan Tiidas etc. We don’t want to encourage people to go and buy these cars. Instead of buying a Suzuki Swift, it would be better to go and get a Toyota Prius C. Same size and a Hybrid. Will save heaps of fuel and is very low on emissions. Only Hybrids, PHEV and EV’s should receive the subsidy.

 

What emission reductions do you think this EV package will accomplish? Hint: None; our vehicle emissions will continue to rise. That is not 'good'. It is atrocious. There were no extra incentives for passenger services to go BEV which are, by far, the best way to reduce emissions. There was no investment in ultrafast charging infrastructure. NZ is not doing what others realise is necessary.

 

Well perhaps people are simply over reacting to this whole supposed climate emergency situation? Yet city after NZ city are declaring climate emergencies and as far as I can tell NZ is the only country in the world that has proposed giving discounts for buying some ICE vehicles in the hope that people will buy these in preference to higher polluting ICE vehicles. It just sends a terrible message that it's ok to buy ICE vehicles, and if you avoid the heaviest polluting ones, we'll give you a discount! You've gotta be kidding, surely? I think this proposal is so wacky that it could easily command headlines all around the world as to how nutty we are in Godzown!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess if you want to copy and paste ideas that support your own, and make them out to be standard, thats ok.

 

If you feel that its unwise to have people buy a new ICE as they cannot afford a new EV and that this will reduce emissions, thats ok. I support reduced emissions. The people you dont support can drive their smokey, inefficient, worn out ICE car for a lot longer. Its not incompatible with your EV cheque.

 

Did you know that if I buy a new Mustang, the Govt move doesn't affect me, no emissions saved. I'm buying it anyway. Another few k on the price is a non issue. When I buy a Tesla, the Govt move doesnt affect me, no emissions saved. Im buyingit anyway. Thats the flaw with incentives, the politicians need to be seen to be dong something but the vast majority of it is non incentive. Its happening anyway. Building a charging network is a massively better way to incent. And thats why people are keen on EV's. They will pay these silly prices. In time when demand drops the manufacturers will remove the R+D and we have a viable premium. Look at many many new products that hit the market at high levels.




1371 posts

Uber Geek


  #2276426 14-Jul-2019 17:13
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

I guess if you want to copy and paste ideas that support your own, and make them out to be standard, thats ok.

 

 

There must be very strong reasons why no country in the world has ever provided discounts for the purchase of "low emitting" petrol vehicles like the Suzuki Swift.Therefore, in case readers of this thread want to know what several people think these reasons are, I provided a list of some of them.

 

I'm not making out these ideas to be "standard", I'm merely putting them forward so that readers may be better informed as to why the NZ proposal has not been favoured overseas and is therefore very unlikely to make it into law here.

 

So, the reasons I've published must have majority support overseas, but for purely academic interest, I have no objections to anyone putting forward a list of reasons as to why they think this proposal has merit.


679 posts

Ultimate Geek


  #2276427 14-Jul-2019 17:18
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

Obraik:

 

Let me break it down a bit more for you since it seems like you've latched on to a sentence and are now quoting it out of context, while also getting emotional.

 

Subsidising EVs will convince people to buy them who previously wouldn't have due to the price difference - there is clear evidence that this works because it's been done in a number of countries around the world. However, subsidising a class of ICE vehicle isn't going to attract buyers from other ICE classes because people buying the non-subsidised ICE aren't suddenly going to be convinced to downgrade to a lesser ICE vehicle.  eg. Subsidising an EV is convincing people to pick the item in column B row 2 instead of column A row 2.  Subsidising an ICE is trying to convince people to pick the item from column A row 2 instead of column A row 5.  That's very unlikely to happen. If you're not convincing people to buy a lesser ICE vehicle then you're not going to be reducing emissions, are you?   

 

By making the ICE option now even cheaper, you've further made the EV option less of a consideration because that's now basically negated the whole point of subsidizing the EV option has it hasn't done anything to close the gap between the EV and ICE.

 

Buying a preowned vehicle isn't a bad choice, especially if that preowned vehicle is an EV.  Given that the subsidy for buying the new Swift is going to be the same as the subsidy offered on preowned EVs, subsidising the ICE option has now also reduced the likelihood that the buyer is even going to buy that.  That's not to mention that subsidies are also being given to second hand ICE vehicles too.

 

I'm glad the government is doing something, but currently New Zealand is the only one half assing the push to zero emission vehicles.

 

 

I can fully decipher those that support lower emissions and those that see EV as a discount No emotion here, its quite clear what the motives are

 

EV subsides are common, uptake is still low. Prices are too high that's obvious. You are intentionally misleading who says that ICE owners will downgrad to get a small subsidy? Is that all you can offer. If I can afford a Tesla , 8k is peanuts. If I can afford a 22k Swift, the subsidy is meaningful.You are saying to the bulk of the populous that you cant afford an EV, you drive a heap pf Sh%t, buy a Swift save lots of CO2. Oh, if you are into reducing emissions that is.

 

Does a small;l subsidy on a 22k Swift really get a Tesla buyer second thinking his purchase? Come on, this is a joke. Two different markets. a leaf and a Swift are two different markets. If you feel the the subsidy will help get EV's everywhere is short order, fine. Thats has no bearing on the lower emissions Swift helping out. 

 

The Govt is doing something, its has not released an EV policy. It has released a lower emissions policy. Albeit that this will have  a miniscule effect on emissions anyway. And until we are importing EV;s at the rate of 50% of our imports, thats years away, many years away. Id suggest 15 minimum Although I do see a timing oijt where that will take off . That will depend on manufactures removing R+D, any subsidy will make little or no difference. We don't have a subsidy here, but we have 15,000 EV's even though until very recently you cannot actually buy them here. Yes, subsidies worked well... 

 

You will also note that elsewhere EV takeup is low, even though subsidies have existed for a while. Norway excepted, who built their EV directly on FF. EV takeup cant be incented by small subsidies on what is an artificially high price. Id even go as far to say that Hybrids will take off, they make sense, as the premium is low, fuel savings are high, great idea. 

 

 

I see you've ignored my point and chose to bring up the whole Tesla vs Suzuki Swift angle instead. A Swift and a Tesla, even the entry level Model 3 are not from the same class so let's be realistic and compare a Swift to something like a Leaf.

 

As of right now, there are over 600 EVs on Trademe that are $20k or less, some of which are only two years old. Wouldn't you agree that it would be better to get those that are buying something like a Swift to instead buy one of those?  Wouldn't you agree that from an emissions point of view we'd be better off convincing people to buy one of those instead of a brand new Swift?  

 

Your last point is not correct either. Last year, Sweden implemented a similar feebate system, however their incentives only count towards EVs. After introducing that, EV sales went from making up less than 5% of sales to nearly 20%.  They were also harsher on ICE vehicles than the NZ government is planning to be and not only charging a levy on purchase, but also each year after.


19911 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2276440 14-Jul-2019 17:56
Send private message

frednz:

 

tdgeek:

 

I guess if you want to copy and paste ideas that support your own, and make them out to be standard, thats ok.

 

 

There must be very strong reasons why no country in the world has ever provided discounts for the purchase of "low emitting" petrol vehicles like the Suzuki Swift.Therefore, in case readers of this thread want to know what several people think these reasons are, I provided a list of some of them.

 

I'm not making out these ideas to be "standard", I'm merely putting them forward so that readers may be better informed as to why the NZ proposal has not been favoured overseas and is therefore very unlikely to make it into law here.

 

So, the reasons I've published must have majority support overseas, but for purely academic interest, I have no objections to anyone putting forward a list of reasons as to why they think this proposal has merit.

 

 

I did  a Google early on, one country incents clean diesel. Most countries have a low takeup, why is that? 

 

This proposal has merit as it incents lower emissions. Im not sure why Hybrids don't get the 8k. That baffles me. Now, if we were overrun with EV volume, of all ranges from Swifts to Rangers, at near price parity, I would be targeting punitive penalties. PUNITIVE.I would screw ICE owners. But until that occurs, you are just chasing your own cheque, with no regard to CO2 

 

While I dont support this fake subsidy, it will happen as the government, finally , has to be seen to be doing something. But it will make no difference to climate change, surely we all know that. That is the problem. What CO2 does a car emit, that goes to work 5 days a week? Which, according to this expert thread, is what most of the CO2 is caused by. We will pay $8000 per car to find that out. Thats a lot of dollars per minimal CO2. 

 

If this Govt was serious about climate change, and should National win back power that will reduce further, and rightly so, as we do not have the EV's in volume, nor in models to actively support an aggressive switch to EV's. Its that simple. You may feel I disagree, but the issue is you want what we can likely do on 10 to 15 years time. But you want your cheque now. 

 

What about RUC?  Pure EVs cost about 30c per lire equivalent to charge. Add RUC and that's one dollar. $1 per litre. Thats about half or less than half, petrol.Good savings. But not radical savings, not when you spend an extra $40,000 for a EV Kona , less $8000. So, I guess RUC will be an issue? But RUC has nothing to do with CO2, its about roads. Now we all know that we want roads to be better but we dont want road taxes. So what happens when EV running costs for fuel are only about half petrol? Less viable. Get a Hybrid, better value, by far. 

 

The real issue is price parity. We can manage a higher price for EV as there is a fuel cost saving component. Great. That is important. 

 

My issue is that what you want is incompatible with now. Other countries have had subsidies forever. And still the uptake is low. yes, Norway is about 50% EV subsides by an unbelievable amount of emissions they exported. 

 

I want an EV but I'm not buying a bottle of milk for $10 where everywhere else its $4. I cannot recover that. You want all of us to buy a car that is very very costly to run. Thats why globally there is low uptake. Its on the manufacturers. Yes, they do need to recover R+D. Right now as I have already said, over and over, they cannot produce volume. So as this low volume is being bought, they have no need to reduce R+D, i.e. amortise it over a larger volume of sales. They are the problem. When they can do a big volume, the world wont be awash which people paying 80k for a 40k Kona, they will then spread the R+D the we have  a45k Kona, buy it. 

 

Why are some counters backing off subsides? Is CO2 less important? The did the political good thing. Kicked it off, but as they know, it was a waste of time. NZ has no subsidies, yet our people bought imported, used cars. The demand is there.

 

If I bought a used Leaf, 24kWh, say 2015 once this comes in, do I get an 8k subsidy? Serious question.


 
 
 
 


19911 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2276446 14-Jul-2019 18:13
Send private message

Obraik:

 

 

 

I see you've ignored my point and chose to bring up the whole Tesla vs Suzuki Swift angle instead. A Swift and a Tesla, even the entry level Model 3 are not from the same class so let's be realistic and compare a Swift to something like a Leaf.

 

As of right now, there are over 600 EVs on Trademe that are $20k or less, some of which are only two years old. Wouldn't you agree that it would be better to get those that are buying something like a Swift to instead buy one of those?  Wouldn't you agree that from an emissions point of view we'd be better off convincing people to buy one of those instead of a brand new Swift?  

 

Your last point is not correct either. Last year, Sweden implemented a similar feebate system, however their incentives only count towards EVs. After introducing that, EV sales went from making up less than 5% of sales to nearly 20%.  They were also harsher on ICE vehicles than the NZ government is planning to be and not only charging a levy on purchase, but also each year after.

 

 

When you say, at least twice, that a ICE owner of a large car will not go to a subsided Swift, thats where you failed. Off course that wont, who said they will??? So I mentioned a Reals buyer doiwngrading to a Swift, same thing, fake.

 

How old are those 600 cars? You are comparing a brand new car against a used car. Right there you fail, just as Feed did by continually telling me to buy a Leaf instead in a Kona as its cheaper. I could by a 1974 6.6 litre Pontiac Firebird as thats cheaper again. You guys keep adding fake comparisons in order to make a sale.

 

From an emissions POV yes it would be better to buy an old, ill looked after lemon than a brand new Swift. Thats why some people buy new. You cannot compare new vs used.

 

Sweden I assume you are correct, I just googled. Sweden is very much like NZ, spread around..., they have super old cars as they are broke like most Kiwis. No. But thats not correct. And where did these cars come from? We cant buy them here. Notably with Sweden they have wifi everywhere because its geographically centralised. So every building has wifi for everyone. I only k ow that as we bought goods from Sweden in a prevues role I had. . Its not NZ. Again how can they buy EV's when you can't get them new? Thats hard. So, if NZ can get them new, as in 2019, we would by virtue of these subsidies get then up to 20%? 790000 cars? OR say in each year we bring in 35000 EV's? Id like to see that happen. As they are too costly to run. I have a mate with $50k worth of Solar PV, thats also too costly to run. Same scenario, very very similar. GREAT idea, finically a disaster. As are $80k bog standard cars that are EV's . Refer that to the manufacturer who is riding a wave of free cheques.

 

Right now, Hybrids seem the best choice, again for obvious reasons 


19911 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2276448 14-Jul-2019 18:18
Send private message

The bottom line here is that we all agree, but some are in a different timezone. If you are truly concerned about climate change. I live in the now, what will work now to combat climate change, I don't live in 2030/2035 where electric vehicles will dominate. The problem is now. 


679 posts

Ultimate Geek


  #2276474 14-Jul-2019 19:36
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

Obraik:

 

 

 

I see you've ignored my point and chose to bring up the whole Tesla vs Suzuki Swift angle instead. A Swift and a Tesla, even the entry level Model 3 are not from the same class so let's be realistic and compare a Swift to something like a Leaf.

 

As of right now, there are over 600 EVs on Trademe that are $20k or less, some of which are only two years old. Wouldn't you agree that it would be better to get those that are buying something like a Swift to instead buy one of those?  Wouldn't you agree that from an emissions point of view we'd be better off convincing people to buy one of those instead of a brand new Swift?  

 

Your last point is not correct either. Last year, Sweden implemented a similar feebate system, however their incentives only count towards EVs. After introducing that, EV sales went from making up less than 5% of sales to nearly 20%.  They were also harsher on ICE vehicles than the NZ government is planning to be and not only charging a levy on purchase, but also each year after.

 

 

When you say, at least twice, that a ICE owner of a large car will not go to a subsided Swift, thats where you failed. Off course that wont, who said they will??? So I mentioned a Reals buyer doiwngrading to a Swift, same thing, fake.

 

How old are those 600 cars? You are comparing a brand new car against a used car. Right there you fail, just as Feed did by continually telling me to buy a Leaf instead in a Kona as its cheaper. I could by a 1974 6.6 litre Pontiac Firebird as thats cheaper again. You guys keep adding fake comparisons in order to make a sale.

 

From an emissions POV yes it would be better to buy an old, ill looked after lemon than a brand new Swift. Thats why some people buy new. You cannot compare new vs used.

 

Sweden I assume you are correct, I just googled. Sweden is very much like NZ, spread around..., they have super old cars as they are broke like most Kiwis. No. But thats not correct. And where did these cars come from? We cant buy them here. Notably with Sweden they have wifi everywhere because its geographically centralised. So every building has wifi for everyone. I only k ow that as we bought goods from Sweden in a prevues role I had. . Its not NZ. Again how can they buy EV's when you can't get them new? Thats hard. So, if NZ can get them new, as in 2019, we would by virtue of these subsidies get then up to 20%? 790000 cars? OR say in each year we bring in 35000 EV's? Id like to see that happen. As they are too costly to run. I have a mate with $50k worth of Solar PV, thats also too costly to run. Same scenario, very very similar. GREAT idea, finically a disaster. As are $80k bog standard cars that are EV's . Refer that to the manufacturer who is riding a wave of free cheques.

 

Right now, Hybrids seem the best choice, again for obvious reasons 

 

 

The point I made earlier that a person buying an ICE vehicle from a subsidized category was already going to buy a vehicle from that category.  You're not going to be saving any emissions because you're not introducing a new buyer to that category. You don't seem to be understanding that, though.

 

The oldest (and cheapest, under $10k) of those 600 I mentioned are 2011 Leafs. Writing off all second hand vehicles as "ill looked after lemons" is ignorant, not to mention wasteful. Most people buying a car in NZ buy a second hand vehicle. The point was though, that the way the proposed subsidies works is that from a price point of view alone it makes second hand EVs appear less attractive than buying a brand new ICE vehicle.  That really isn't the message the government should be trying to portray.

 

Your last paragraph is hard to read but from what I can decipher, it sounds like you've also gone along and confused the Sweden numbers. 20% of new vehicles sold after the incentives/levies were introduced were EVs - they didn't convert 20% of their entire fleet to EVs.  I have no idea how "wifi everywhere" or "$50k of solar" is relevant to this discussion??? Are you also trying to claim that EVs are too costly to run? 


19911 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2276497 14-Jul-2019 20:18
Send private message

Obraik:

 

tdgeek:

 

Obraik:

 

 

 

I see you've ignored my point and chose to bring up the whole Tesla vs Suzuki Swift angle instead. A Swift and a Tesla, even the entry level Model 3 are not from the same class so let's be realistic and compare a Swift to something like a Leaf.

 

As of right now, there are over 600 EVs on Trademe that are $20k or less, some of which are only two years old. Wouldn't you agree that it would be better to get those that are buying something like a Swift to instead buy one of those?  Wouldn't you agree that from an emissions point of view we'd be better off convincing people to buy one of those instead of a brand new Swift?  

 

Your last point is not correct either. Last year, Sweden implemented a similar feebate system, however their incentives only count towards EVs. After introducing that, EV sales went from making up less than 5% of sales to nearly 20%.  They were also harsher on ICE vehicles than the NZ government is planning to be and not only charging a levy on purchase, but also each year after.

 

 

When you say, at least twice, that a ICE owner of a large car will not go to a subsided Swift, thats where you failed. Off course that wont, who said they will??? So I mentioned a Reals buyer doiwngrading to a Swift, same thing, fake.

 

How old are those 600 cars? You are comparing a brand new car against a used car. Right there you fail, just as Feed did by continually telling me to buy a Leaf instead in a Kona as its cheaper. I could by a 1974 6.6 litre Pontiac Firebird as thats cheaper again. You guys keep adding fake comparisons in order to make a sale.

 

From an emissions POV yes it would be better to buy an old, ill looked after lemon than a brand new Swift. Thats why some people buy new. You cannot compare new vs used.

 

Sweden I assume you are correct, I just googled. Sweden is very much like NZ, spread around..., they have super old cars as they are broke like most Kiwis. No. But thats not correct. And where did these cars come from? We cant buy them here. Notably with Sweden they have wifi everywhere because its geographically centralised. So every building has wifi for everyone. I only k ow that as we bought goods from Sweden in a prevues role I had. . Its not NZ. Again how can they buy EV's when you can't get them new? Thats hard. So, if NZ can get them new, as in 2019, we would by virtue of these subsidies get then up to 20%? 790000 cars? OR say in each year we bring in 35000 EV's? Id like to see that happen. As they are too costly to run. I have a mate with $50k worth of Solar PV, thats also too costly to run. Same scenario, very very similar. GREAT idea, finically a disaster. As are $80k bog standard cars that are EV's . Refer that to the manufacturer who is riding a wave of free cheques.

 

Right now, Hybrids seem the best choice, again for obvious reasons 

 

 

The point I made earlier that a person buying an ICE vehicle from a subsidized category was already going to buy a vehicle from that category.  You're not going to be saving any emissions because you're not introducing a new buyer to that category. You don't seem to be understanding that, though.

 

The oldest (and cheapest, under $10k) of those 600 I mentioned are 2011 Leafs. Writing off all second hand vehicles as "ill looked after lemons" is ignorant, not to mention wasteful. Most people buying a car in NZ buy a second hand vehicle. The point was though, that the way the proposed subsidies works is that from a price point of view alone it makes second hand EVs appear less attractive than buying a brand new ICE vehicle.  That really isn't the message the government should be trying to portray.

 

Your last paragraph is hard to read but from what I can decipher, it sounds like you've also gone along and confused the Sweden numbers. 20% of new vehicles sold after the incentives/levies were introduced were EVs - they didn't convert 20% of their entire fleet to EVs.  I have no idea how "wifi everywhere" or "$50k of solar" is relevant to this discussion??? Are you also trying to claim that EVs are too costly to run? 

 

t

 

My post didnt post so Ill summarise

 

If a person buys a subsidised Swift and if they were not going to buy new, then the will reduce emissions. Maybe some are buying new anyway, but then again every Tesla buyer or 80k Kona buyer or even 60k Leaf buyer was prompted due to the low subsidy. So a wasted subsidy

 

If you want to buy new you want to avoid a used car, of which lemons are a variety. Everyone knows that. But whatever Or will we get an 8k subsidy off a 2011 Leaf

 

Sweden differs to NZ, not repeating that again. Wifi everywhere examines that. Centralised country n to spread out like browns cows.

 

I am also telling you that EV's are too costly to run. Like Solar. Both are too costly so that the premium you pay makes savings irrelevant. Buy an 80k Kina, pop 40 not the bank for petrol, let alone depreciation. The math doesn't work. As it doesn't for most with solar also, so a sound comparison. 

 

I expect Hybrids will dominate in the short to medium term as they are close to price parity and offer the savings.

 

 


19911 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2276499 14-Jul-2019 20:25
Send private message

What is the anticipated takeup of EV's and Hybrids with the Government initiative? There are 15,000 here after a few years, the charging infrastructure is very good now




1371 posts

Uber Geek


  #2276519 14-Jul-2019 20:43
Send private message

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/394334/bridges-clean-vehicles-plan-would-cost-up-to-half-billion-dollars

 

Extract from above:

 

... Mr Bridges said the claim the scheme would be revenue neutral was incorrect.

 

"Even if you saw a doubling of EVs and small cars, which I think in itself is a pretty strong ask, on the numbers we've crunched there's four-to five hundred-million dollars in taxes coming in over subsidies and that's a sneaky half-a-billion dollar tax grab into the government's coffers."

 

He said even if imports of electric and low-emission cars doubles - putting an extra 26,000 on the roads annually - the scheme would raise more in taxes than it pays out in subsidies each year, adding up to between $400 million and $500m over the first five years.


679 posts

Ultimate Geek


  #2276525 14-Jul-2019 20:53
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

My post didnt post so Ill summarise

 

If a person buys a subsidised Swift and if they were not going to buy new, then the will reduce emissions. Maybe some are buying new anyway, but then again every Tesla buyer or 80k Kona buyer or even 60k Leaf buyer was prompted due to the low subsidy. So a wasted subsidy

 

If you want to buy new you want to avoid a used car, of which lemons are a variety. Everyone knows that. But whatever Or will we get an 8k subsidy off a 2011 Leaf

 

Sweden differs to NZ, not repeating that again. Wifi everywhere examines that. Centralised country n to spread out like browns cows.

 

I am also telling you that EV's are too costly to run. Like Solar. Both are too costly so that the premium you pay makes savings irrelevant. Buy an 80k Kina, pop 40 not the bank for petrol, let alone depreciation. The math doesn't work. As it doesn't for most with solar also, so a sound comparison. 

 

I expect Hybrids will dominate in the short to medium term as they are close to price parity and offer the savings.

 

 

 

 

Anyone who buys an EV due to the subsidy isn't a wasted use of the subsidy. Don't be absurd. Used vehicles imported that are older than three years get a $2600, if they're less than three years old they get the full $8000 discount.

 

Lol, your wifi example certainly does not rule out Sweden as being comparable to NZ. EVs are just as viable in NZ as they are in Sweden. 

 

EVs don't cost more to run, again don't be absurd. They cost more to buy new but you can't equate that to them costing more to run.




1371 posts

Uber Geek


  #2276526 14-Jul-2019 20:54
One person supports this post
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

I am also telling you that EV's are too costly to run. Like Solar. Both are too costly so that the premium you pay makes savings irrelevant. Buy an 80k Kina, pop 40 not the bank for petrol, let alone depreciation. The math doesn't work. As it doesn't for most with solar also, so a sound comparison. 

 

 

EV's are simply not too costly to run. Again, your 80k Kona and 40k gap over equivalent petrol Kona used to be a reasonable comparison point, but not any more, as demonstrated below:

 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/114066864/nissan-turns-over-a-new-leaf-in-nz

 

Short extract from above:

 

Nissan is keeping things simple with the Leaf, only bringing in a single high-spec model at $59,990.

 

With a far higher quality interior and superior ride comfort to the likes of the Hyundai Kona or Ioniq, the Leaf represents the best value for money we have seen in a mainstream EV in this country to date - sure, at $60K it isn't "cheap", but the premium you are paying over something equivalent with a combustion engine is far smaller than it has ever been before.

 

Put it this way, something with the same interior quality and equipment levels in the ICE-powered small hatch segment would set you back around the $50K mark (think the $49k Mazda3 Limited or $51k Lexus CT200h), so the EV premium is around $9 to $10K, depending on what you compare it to.

 

Now take the proposed discount off the $60,000 Leaf and you pay $52,000. If you use the above comparison vehicles, the discounted Leaf is getting very close in price to these.

 

 

 

 


1 | ... | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter and LinkedIn »



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Intel introduces 10th Gen Intel Core H-series for mobile devices
Posted 2-Apr-2020 21:09


COVID-19: new charitable initiative to fund remote monitoring for at-risk patients
Posted 2-Apr-2020 11:07


Huawei introduces the P40 Series of Android-based smartphones
Posted 31-Mar-2020 17:03


Samsung Galaxy Z Flip now available for pre-order in New Zealand
Posted 31-Mar-2020 16:39


New online learning platform for kids stuck at home during COVID-19 lockdown
Posted 26-Mar-2020 21:35


New 5G Nokia smartphone unveiled as portfolio expands
Posted 26-Mar-2020 17:11


D-Link ANZ launches wireless AC1200 4G LTE router
Posted 26-Mar-2020 16:32


Ring introduces two new video doorbells and new pre-roll technology
Posted 17-Mar-2020 16:59


OPPO uncovers flagship Find X2 Pro smartphone
Posted 17-Mar-2020 16:54


D-Link COVR-2202 mesh Wi-Fi system now protected by McAfee
Posted 17-Mar-2020 16:00


Spark Sport opens its platform up to all New Zealanders at no charge
Posted 17-Mar-2020 10:04


Spark launches 5G Starter Fund
Posted 8-Mar-2020 19:19


TRENDnet launches high-performance WiFi Mesh Router System
Posted 5-Mar-2020 08:48


Sony boosts full-frame lens line-up with introduction of FE 20mm F1.8 G large-aperture ultra-wide-angle prime Lens
Posted 5-Mar-2020 08:44


Vector and Spark teamed up on smart metering initiative
Posted 5-Mar-2020 08:42



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.