How would YOU get more EVs on the road

BoatMad

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by this?

It will require an amendment to the finance act , to remove BIK from EV company cars and also from the supply of electricity to employees for EVs

BoatMad

SafeSurfer wrote: »

From an environmental point of view I would like to see incentives for converting existing cars to EVs. Subsidising conversions would mean s lot more of the government spend being retained in Ireland than going to foreign auto manufacturers.

Also from a business point of view VAT on petrol should be reclaimable when used in a hybrid. Currently only VAT on diesel can be reclaimed.

NO , there should be No incentives for hybrids at all. They are by an large NEDC rule cheating devices and not EVs

BoatMad

unkel wrote: »

They're right. €10k subsidy on a new EV is ridiculous. Terrible value for money for the government too. The likes of me paying €3k per year in motor tax and excise plus VAT on my fuel, now they give me €10k to swap my ICE for an EV and from now on I only pay €150 per year in motor tax plus excise and VAT on my fuel?

They are going to lose out big time, with nothing much to show for it except another EV on the road and a harmless petrol car off the road. Much better to severely penalise diesel (stick rather than carrot). It is diesels off the road we need, not so much EVs on the road

I'm saying thanks anyway for the €10k

No, we need BOTH petrol and diesel off the road, Diesels have specific pollution issues but petrol is also a serious polluter.

the future of private motoring is Electric

The existing subsidies are extremely small beer, and your post simply dissent make sense. The tax payer in general is funding the subsidy , not just a motorist

BoatMad

s.welstead wrote: »

That's actually an excellent suggestion. I'd love to convert a old classic to EV. There's a guy over on SpeakEv converting a 911 which is a great idea. Put some classics back on the road with modern technology.

quite frankly , its a daft idea on anything other then a few oddities like you mention. Its not practical to do it on modern cars, EV are custom designed vehicles and are safety certified and EU regulated to be so

unkel

BoatMad wrote: »

the future of private motoring is Electric

Of course. But let's get realistic here. Even with severe penalties it will take some time to wean Ireland off the chape tax diesels that the green party forced on many of us. Let's concentrate on that. I'd rather see the government pay €10k scrappage in exchange for the certificate of destruction of a diesel car than the €10k subsidy for an EV buyer

BoatMad

KCross wrote: »

Interesting paper. Like most government incentive schemes there are always downsides and people who abuse it.... e.g. give a grant and the manufacturers/suppliers increase the price.

One thing that stood out for me in that report is that they based one of their main conclusions for emissions on the world average electricity mix. The world average has a mix of 40% coal fired power stations. It seems odd to me they didnt give the local Norway figures since Norway is what the entire paper is about. Norway's electricity is almost entirely hydroelectric so their conclusions are false for Norway.

I dont think those conclusions would apply to Ireland either because AFAIK we dont have anything near 40% coal in our electricity mix.

I wonder is there a political agenda in the paper? I think there is.



The figures around noise were interesting. Summary... at 50kmh the tyres make as much noise as the engine. At 90kmh the tyre noise exceeds the engine. They still said that in slow city driving there is a benefit.


Their final remarks.... "Our main conclusion is that the Norwegian EV subsidy policy should be ended as soon as possible, and that this policy certainly should not be implemented by other countries."

They recommend increasing taxes on personal transport and invest in public transport.

That paper makes a number of conclusions , not really supported by the data they reference. C02 per tonne comparisons against emissions trading pricing is really a totally artificial comparison. Its like saying cynaide is 10 dollars a litres and acid is 5 dollars a litre, so lets nots use cyanide and poison people with acid instead.


The Norwegian Gov found itself in exactly the same position that ,many other Govs did, that is (a) sweeping disincentives on ICE was not possible and (b) EV incentives have to be significant enough to cause user patterns changes


EVs are NOT a cure all for a nations " carbon footprint " ( and using greenhouse gases as a metric is very flawed, c02 is not a pollutant ) . EVs offer an opportunity to reduce localised pollution especially in dense urban traffic.

BY then focussing the production of transport energy in one place , i.e. electricity generators, a far greater reduction in environmental loading can be achieved as such plants are improved or moved to lower polluting varieties

zilog_jones

BoatMad wrote: »

NO , there should be No incentives for hybrids at all. They are by an large NEDC rule cheating devices and not EVs

You keep saying this but I don't know what point you're trying to make. Most of us here know the NEDC is a load of bollocks with little bearing on reality, both in terms of emissions and fuel consumption. EV range figures from NEDC tests are completely useless too. And hopefully it will be going soon. So who cares about the NEDC?

But you cannot deny that petrol hybrids legitimately produce less emissions than a petrol ICE-only car, and certainly less NOx and PM emissions than any diesel (assuming indirect injection, which is true for Toyota hybrids at least) - and can produce decent fuel economy.

Current EVs are still not a feasible alternative for a lot of people for various reasons.

BoatMad

unkel wrote: »

Of course. But let's get realistic here. Even with severe penalties it will take some time to wean Ireland off the chape tax diesels that the green party forced on many of us. Let's concentrate on that. I'd rather see the government pay €10k scrappage in exchange for the certificate of destruction of a diesel car than the €10k subsidy for an EV buyer

NO , because your idea would just change diesels to petrols , with little gain

weaning people of diesel is easy, increase the taxes on the fuel over 5 years., it's the only reason people here buy diesels.

EV must be positively subsidised to effect change, EV technology within 5 years will produce cars that meet 99% of private motoring needs, arguably even today an EV meets 50% of typical private motoring needs

cnocbui

unkel wrote: »

They're right. €10k subsidy on a new EV is ridiculous. Terrible value for money for the government too. The likes of me paying €3k per year in motor tax and excise plus VAT on my fuel, now they give me €10k to swap my ICE for an EV and from now on I only pay €150 per year in motor tax plus excise and VAT on my fuel?

They are going to lose out big time, with nothing much to show for it except another EV on the road and a harmless petrol car off the road. Much better to severely penalise diesel (stick rather than carrot). It is diesels off the road we need, not so much EVs on the road

I'm saying thanks anyway for the €10k

I was going to up thumb you, then I read the last sentence.

BoatMad

zilog_jones wrote: »

You keep saying this but I don't know what point you're trying to make. Most of us here know the NEDC is a load of bollocks with little bearing on reality, both in terms of emissions and fuel consumption. EV range figures from NEDC tests are completely useless too. And hopefully it will be going soon. So who cares about the NEDC?

But you cannot deny that petrol hybrids legitimately produce less emissions than a petrol ICE-only car, and certainly less NOx and PM emissions than any diesel (assuming indirect injection, which is true for Toyota hybrids at least) - and can produce decent fuel economy.

Current EVs are still not a feasible alternative for a lot of people for various reasons.

The NEDC is the basis on which economy , C02 and pollutants are measured. Therefore it is the NEDC that sets tax bands for cars over much of europe . Thats why it matters. Its not meant to have any " bearing in reality " because you cannot have on -road emissions limits in practice .


Low range hybrids are a NEDC rule cheater, because the NEDC test is done at low speed over a short distance. The Urban cycle can be completed by m,any hybrids on battery alone. This moves the car into a much lower emissions band and hence tax structure


On road, these cars spend huge amounts of time running in petrol mode. During all that time they are polluting exactly the same as a petrol car

Today EVs could provide motoring needs for 50% pf the private motoring public ( average travel distances are quite low in ireland ) , within 5 years it will offer models that will meet 80-90% of conventional private motoring needs

cnocbui

I completely disagree with whole premise of this thread.

Governments should not be in the business of market engineering. The ludicrous situation we presently have with a country full to the gills with diesels is precisely because of this kind of thinking, promulgated by that bleepty bleep, Gormley.

Let consumers make their own decisions.

KCross

cnocbui wrote: »

I completely disagree with whole premise of this thread.

Governments should not be in the business of market engineering. The ludicrous situation we presently have with a country full to the gills with diesels is precisely because of this kind of thinking, promulgated by that bleepty bleep, Gormley.

Let consumers make their own decisions.

A noble idea but the reality is a bit different though, isnt it?

The premise of the thread is to get EV's on the road in place of petrol/diesel. That wont happen without some intervention in the short-medium term.

Once EV's are accepted and consumers are buying them by default, then you can remove the incentives. If you leave things as they are nothing will change. Maybe you think thats OK?

Its a fine balance between encouraging consumers to "make the right decision" and interfering in the market.

isnottheword

cnocbui wrote: »

I completely disagree with whole premise of this thread.

Governments should not be in the business of market engineering. The ludicrous situation we presently have with a country full to the gills with diesels is precisely because of this kind of thinking, promulgated by that bleepty bleep, Gormley.

Let consumers make their own decisions.

Governments are in that business whether you like it or not - and that's not exclusive to Ireland. The UK made exactly the same mistake ref. diesel policy. Governments are there to legislate and to implement strategic policy for the good of the citizens of the country (aspirationally at least!).

Provision of infrastructure is the reason we all pay taxes. They need to support a fledgling EV infrastructure - to facilitate it taking on a life of it's own - which it will do with that assistance and development of the tech (the latter which by all accounts is in hand).

unkel

unkel wrote: »

They're right. €10k subsidy on a new EV is ridiculous. Terrible value for money for the government too. The likes of me paying €3k per year in motor tax and excise plus VAT on my fuel......................

I'm saying thanks anyway for the €10k

Did you not have to buy a Leaf or something similar though to get this €10k?

BoatMad

cnocbui wrote: »

I completely disagree with whole premise of this thread.

Governments should not be in the business of market engineering. The ludicrous situation we presently have with a country full to the gills with diesels is precisely because of this kind of thinking, promulgated by that bleepty bleep, Gormley.

Let consumers make their own decisions.

err, we have a whole taxation policy that applies to motoring , to every aspect of motoring

taxation is precisely a form of " market " ( and social ) engineering as it forces buyer/consumer behaviour

your argument therefore holds no logic as we are already in the situation


consumers are never " free to make their own decisions " because taxation is a fact of life

cnocbui

KCross wrote: »

A noble idea but the reality is a bit different though, isnt it?

The premise of the thread is to get EV's on the road in place of petrol/diesel. That wont happen without some intervention in the short-medium term.

Once EV's are accepted and consumers are buying them by default, then you can remove the incentives. If you leave things as they are nothing will change. Maybe you think thats OK?

Its a fine balance between encouraging consumers to "make the right decision" and interfering in the market.

You see, you are a perfect example of why this market engineering is such a bad idea. EV's aren't even remotely close to being practical or convenient for everyone; they do not have adequate range, they take too long to recharge and they cost too much, because if you are talking about all vehicles being EV, then the government has no option but to cease subsidising them and will actually have to tax them just as much as the vehicles they are replacing because the revenue is needed.

Intervention is what got us into this current diesel madness. Yes, I do think things don't have to change, except for all the diesels, a problem which should only be addressed by levelling the playing field with regard to the currently lopsided taxes. Change should come when it makes sense on it's own technical merits, not someone's concept of political correctness.

cnocbui

BoatMad wrote: »

err, we have a whole taxation policy that applies to motoring , to every aspect of motoring

taxation is precisely a form of " market " ( and social ) engineering as it forces buyer/consumer behaviour

your argument therefore holds no logic as we are already in the situation


consumers are never " free to make their own decisions " because taxation is a fact of life

Er, duh!

My point is that the taxation policy should be neutral. Vehicle registration and tax costs should simply be on vehicle weight and the fuel tax should simply be per litre or perhaps the BTUs per litre. If we had had that instead of gormlyism, we wouldn't be in this bad situation with regard to the preponderance of diesel vehicles.

isnottheword

cnocbui wrote: »

things don't have to change, except for all the diesels, a problem which should only be addressed by levelling the playing field with regard to the currently lopsided taxes. Change should come when it makes sense on it's own technical merits, not someone's concept of political correctness.

Ok, so you do believe in intervention - but only when you believe it to be right?


EV's are very close to being practical and convenient for everyone. Through implementation of some of the ideas presented in this very thread, they would become even more practical and convenient for more people. Furthermore, its acknowledged by all that the tech already exists - new iterations of EV's are on the way to deliver greater range, etc.

As regards price, all new cars are damned expensive. You can buy into an EV at various pricepoints. I didn't spend a fortune.

BoatMad

cnocbui wrote: »

You see, you are a perfect example of why this market engineering is such a bad idea. EV's aren't even remotely close to being practical or convenient for everyone; they do not have adequate range, they take too long to recharge and they cost too much, because if you are talking about all vehicles being EV, then the government has no option but to cease subsidising them and will actually have to tax them just as much as the vehicles they are replacing because the revenue is needed.

Intervention is what got us into this current diesel madness. Yes, I do think things don't have to change, except for all the diesels, a problem which should only be addressed by levelling the playing field with regard to the currently lopsided taxes. Change should come when it makes sense on it's own technical merits, not someone's concept of political correctness.

You premise is flawed as it presupposes that we somehow started of with a level playing field

In the early days of motoring, petrol was very cheap and the cars were very dear. but the rising economy and the practical advantages of private motoring over the PT that everyone had been using, meant that there was a huge swing to private motoring

The Gov of the day around they world responded by investing billions of taxpayers money in new roads to allow higher speeds and easier motoring


hence we have had Gov intervention from the very beginning


as we progressed through the recession of the 80s and " charlie Haughty , we are living beyond our means ", we began to dramatically raise taxes on motoring

This had the effect of spuring a quest for better economy and a trend towards buying smaller cars

another Gov intervention

Then we had the " well intentioned " Green initiative, but this was more spurred through the difference in diesel price then motor tax. and diesel is kept cheaper because of its influence in commercial road haulage . ( there was a still born project to introduce yellow commercial diesel in Europe )

Again more intervention in holding down costs to commercial users, that spilled into buying patterns amongst joe public

SO, we " are where we are". the current private fleet is a direct result of decades of " Gov intervention " .

promoting EVs is no different. There is a real and present issue with the level off pollutants from all forms of ICE. Its a policy of the state to reduce that pollution

The resulting subsidy is entirely consistent with that aim

BoatMad

cnocbui wrote: »

Er, duh!

My point is that the taxation policy should be neutral. Vehicle registration and tax costs should simply be on vehicle weight and the fuel tax should simply be per litre or perhaps the BTUs per litre. If we had had that instead of gormlyism, we wouldn't be in this bad situation with regard to the preponderance of diesel vehicles.

Th primary reason we have so many diesels , is nothing to do with the green party , because motor tax is not a huge factor in peoples buying decisions

Diesel price difference was predominantly driven in recent decades by representations from commercial industry to ensure that transport costs were kept in check

Then , Irish buyers noticed that overall economy of a diesel is better then its equivalent petrol ( true a few years ago but not as marked today )

combine lower fuel price ( a spill over from commercial decisions ) and better economy , = a boom in diesel sales

little in reality was as a result of the Green party, its initiatives are over played

My point is that the taxation policy should be neutral. Vehicle registration and tax costs should simply be on vehicle weight and the fuel tax should simply be per litre or perhaps the BTUs per litre.

On the other hand , living in the real world........ taxation is merely a means of raising revenue and is balanced by what can be raised for a given level of " pain" , nothing about taxation is equitable or reasonable/logical

cnocbui

isnottheword wrote: »

Ok, so you do believe in intervention - but only when you believe it to be right?


EV's are very close to being practical and convenient for everyone. Through implementation of some of the ideas presented in this very thread, they would become even more practical and convenient for more people. Furthermore, its acknowledged by all that the tech already exists - new iterations of EV's are on the way to deliver greater range, etc.

As regards price, all new cars are damned expensive. You can buy into an EV at various pricepoints. I didn't spend a fortune.

Can you not read and comprehend? "a problem which should only be addressed by levelling the playing field with regard to the currently lopsided taxes" That amounts to the undoing of intervention, or are you just trying to be 'cute'?

No EV's are not close to being practical for everyone, that is a lie. I actually love the idea of having an EV, but it has to be affordable and practical - which they aren't and can't be without a revolution in battery technology, which we haven't got yet. EV's are currently the swimmer who has dived into the pool before the gun has gone off.

grogi

BoatMad wrote: »

Th primary reason we have so many diesels , is nothing to do with the green party , because motor tax is not a huge factor in peoples buying decisions

Diesel price difference was predominantly driven in recent decades by representations from commercial industry to ensure that transport costs were kept in check

Then , Irish buyers noticed that overall economy of a diesel is better then its equivalent petrol ( true a few years ago but not as marked today )

combine lower fuel price ( a spill over from commercial decisions ) and better economy , = a boom in diesel sales

little in reality was as a result of the Green party, its initiatives are over played

No, I don't believe it is...

VRT is a substantial part of the retail price the customer pays for the vehicle, and it being based on CO2 figures highly promotes diesels. Diesels are equally economical around Europe, but it is Ireland that have the smallest price difference between petrol and diesel cars.

You have to be a very heavy user to offset that difference elsewhere, while in Ireland it takes only two-three years of medium usage. It is helped by motortax rates as well.

cnocbui

BoatMad wrote: »

Th primary reason we have so many diesels , is nothing to do with the green party , because motor tax is not a huge factor in peoples buying decisions

Diesel price difference was predominantly driven in recent decades by representations from commercial industry to ensure that transport costs were kept in check

Then , Irish buyers noticed that overall economy of a diesel is better then its equivalent petrol ( true a few years ago but not as marked today )

combine lower fuel price ( a spill over from commercial decisions ) and better economy , = a boom in diesel sales

little in reality was as a result of the Green party, its initiatives are over played



On the other hand , living in the real world........ taxation is merely a means of raising revenue and is balanced by what can be raised for a given level of " pain" , nothing about taxation is equitable or reasonable/logical

[snip]

isnottheword

cnocbui wrote: »

Can you not read and comprehend?

cnocbui wrote: »

Búll5hít

I think you need to stop back-seat modding.

If you have a problem with a post, report it.

cnocbui

isnottheword wrote: »

I think you need to cool off

This is a discussion forum (and part of the richness of it is that people will present different opinions) - not a sandpit.

A spade is a spade. When people state as fact bald and blatent untruths, then that isn't really discussion either.

But you are right, I shall leave you to your socialist ideals and your EV paradise and will withdraw.

Have fun with your threads on planning how to get from A to B and recounting how many hours you spend waiting for your practical vehicles to recharge and how careful you were with your speed, hills and the heater - yes I have read those threads.

Happy motoring/waiting.

BoatMad

cnocbui wrote: »

Búll5hít

leaving aside , you complete inability to articulate a counter argument .

It is the case that fuel pricing combined with better economy is the major reason diesels gained a foothold in Europe and particulary in Ireland and Portugal , where fuel price differences are not as marked or in fact diesel is dearer, diesels remain a minority , even though they have better economy and often tax advantages due to lower co2

equally its only now after many years of buying diesels that diesels in irelsn are close to 36% of the national fleet , with petrol having nearly a 2:1 advantage

what is different is in recent years new car Diesel purchases have led petrol 70:30

source http://www.acea.be/statistics/article/Passenger-Car-Fleet-by-Fuel-Type

The average in Europe is 40:60 to petrol


The key factor that attracted buyers in ireland , was the significant difference in fuel prices , coupled with the better economy of diesels at the time

This is allied to the fact that few buyers perform TCO calculations on car purchases seemingly separating mentality the purchase cost of the car , from the running costs , ( as most diesels for lower mileage consumers work out dearer )

Hence the surge in diesels in later years , but as I say , we are still below 40% overall

Little can be attributed to the green parties initiative, as modern petrol and diesels are all closer together in tax bands.

BoatMad

A spade is a spade. When people state as fact bald and blatent untruths, then that isn't really discussion either.

I can returned with statistics and argument, you have added nothing to support a misguided view

I should add , that the Green party initiative which resulted in the change to co2 based motor tax , was predominantly designed to forced owners of older cars to buy newer ones , not necessarily diesels

`there was then a boom sale period in the irish car market as a result as the owners if older high capacity engined cars ( diesel or petrol ) were " convinced" to replace them. The rush to diesel however was a function of the difference in running costs , attributed to a lower price per litre , ( around 10 cents ) as a result of petrol only budget changes and then later diesel increases

cros13

cnocbui wrote: »

Can you not read and comprehend? "a problem which should only be addressed by levelling the playing field with regard to the currently lopsided taxes" That amounts to the undoing of intervention, or are you just trying to be 'cute'?

Change your tone or corrective action will be taken, your choice.

BoatMad

goz83 wrote: »

Brilliant idea. Won't happen though

nor I suspect would the EV night rate go down below the current rate which by European standards is already quite low. Ireland has an unusual mix, with less night usage then many european countries ( less 24h heavy industries etc )

BoatMad

grogi wrote: »

No, I don't believe it is...

VRT is a substantial part of the retail price the customer pays for the vehicle, and it being based on CO2 figures highly promotes diesels. Diesels are equally economical around Europe, but it is Ireland that have the smallest price difference between petrol and diesel cars.

You have to be a very heavy user to offset that difference elsewhere, while in Ireland it takes only two-three years of medium usage. It is helped by motortax rates as well.

The difference between diesel and petrol is very pronounced in Ireland, in many countries the pricing is the same and in some cases diesel is dearer

The VFT advantages are largely lost to the irish buyers, and diesels are still dearer anyway. The problem is car buyers seperate purchase price from running costs , rather then doing TCO and comparing ( along with comparing cost of credit )

The result has been a shift to diesel

as I stated elsewhere its only a recent issue, 60% of road traffic is petrol , however its the new car purchases that are heavily skewed