Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Victoria follows South Australia and imposes electric car road tax

thedriven.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 388 posts

Re: Victoria follows South Australia and imposes electric car road tax

#251

Post by ohmaigad »

zemvpferreira wrote: post #110
xd wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said anything that implied gas wasn't an issue .. simply stating a truth bomb about EV's environmental and human costs; lithium mining being the biggest one.

I didn't downvote you and I think you bring a useful point to the discussion, but I also think you'd be better-received if you completed your argument. Please tell us, what is a good estimate for the impact of producing and EV on the planet? And how does it compare to a gas vehicle? If that's too much work I'd be glad to learn more about battery production, since that's the point of difference.

Polestar published their transparency report which states that their fully electric Polestar 2 compared to a Volvo XC40 will break even in CO2 emissions after 112k km (Global energy mix), 78k km (European energy mix) and 50k km (wind energy).

https://www.polestar.com/nl/electric-sustainability/transpar...

Re: Victoria follows South Australia and imposes electric car road tax

#252

Post by Baeocystin »

jholman wrote: post #241
Baeocystin wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Motorcycles, perhaps surprisingly, aren't all that much more efficient than regular gas cars. The tl;dr is that their aerodynamics are terrible, and their engines not tuned for fuel efficiency.

Hmn. Brief research seems to show that you're more correct than I would have expected, but also that it's less true than I think you imply. For example, https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10310 gives motorcycles as almost 2x as efficient as cars, almost 3x as efficient as "light truck / van". Given that enormous amount of metal that's not being hauled around, I would have expected a bigger difference. Nonetheless, for sing…

>Before any new car hits the showroom, the EPA runs an emissions evaluation and calculates a “CO2 equivalent” – a single number that represents GHGs CO2, NO X , HC, and CO. The CO2 equivalent units are in grams/mile, so a higher number means more GHGs and more climate damage. For a 2WD 2020 Ram 1500 HFE on the highway, that number is 340 g/mile. Unfortunately, motorcycle emissions data isn’t documented by the EPA. This is a real issue, because if the problem isn’t measured you don’t know what to fix.

>There are a few independent studies that shed light on the issue, however. One published in 2008 by Swiss researchers took real data from several motorbikes including a BMW R1150GS. The GS highway CO2 equivalent is a stunning 380 g/mile (17% worse than the Dodge)! They found that a 1993 Honda Shadow VX600 with only 583 ccs spews a whopping 408 g/mile. That is twice as much as a new Honda Civic!

>Other studies would suggest the problem is even worse. Global MRV tested out their portable emissions equipment in 2011 comparing 12-motorcycles to 12-cars of varying years (this was featured on an episode of Mythbusters). Motorcycles were almost universally terrible, with motorbikes from the 2000’s producing 3,220% more NOx and 8,065% more CO2 than cars of the same era. California has the largest motorcycle ridership in the country, and in 2008 the LA Times reported that while motorcycles accounted for 1% of all miles traveled, they were responsible for 10% of the state’s smog-producing emissions.

Taken from https://autowise.com/motorcycle-vs-car-emissions/ .

I've had my M1 since 1994, so I enjoy riding, so please don't take this as all negative. But it's important to look at the real data, which is much worse than people think with regards to emissions and pollution.

Re: Victoria follows South Australia and imposes electric car road tax

#253

Post by Dumblydorr »

jpollock wrote: post #7

In many countries, fuel taxes don't go into general revenues, they are ring-fenced and allocated for road maintenance. Even if they aren't, a reduction in revenue must be offset. The fact that they aren't charged taxes for use of the roads was the incentive. This is removing it in recognition that electric vehicles are now enough of a percentage of the fleet to affect tax revenue. New Zealand does the same, with dies…

These are island nations without their own fuel production and good renewable potential. Wouldn't they see it's in their best interest to maximize batteries to minimize fuel imports?

Re: Victoria follows South Australia and imposes electric car road tax

#254

Post by Dumblydorr »

jdhn wrote: post #9

I don't understand the opposition to this. These vehicles continue to use roads but don't pay any taxes that would help maintain roads if they were gas or diesel cars. How is that fair?

It's fair to incentivize EVs because they are far less damaging to the planet and local communities than gasoline vehicles. Gasoline vehicles get to pollute for free, why don't non-polluters get to use the road for free?

Either you're trying to minimize climate damage and disproportionate harms to vulnerable communities, or you're business as usual.

Re: Victoria follows South Australia and imposes electric car road tax

#255

Post by jholman »

Baeocystin wrote: post #252
jholman wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmn. Brief research seems to show that you're more correct than I would have expected, but also that it's less true than I think you imply. For example, https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10310 gives motorcycles as almost 2x as efficient as cars, almost 3x as efficient as "light truck / van". Given that enormous amount of metal that's not being hauled around, I would have expected a bigger difference. Nonetheless, for sing…

>Before any new car hits the showroom, the EPA runs an emissions evaluation and calculates a “CO2 equivalent” – a single number that represents GHGs CO2, NO X , HC, and CO. The CO2 equivalent units are in grams/mile, so a higher number means more GHGs and more climate damage. For a 2WD 2020 Ram 1500 HFE on the highway, that number is 340 g/mile. Unfortunately, motorcycle emissions data isn’t documented by the EPA. Th…

Ah, hmn, that is a very good point.

Per my previous comment, motorcycles are more efficient that cars, in terms of consumption of fuel. (though not as much as I'd have thought)

But they're also worse on emissions, which is the public harm that is of greater interest here.

And yikes, those numbers.

Re: Victoria follows South Australia and imposes electric car road tax

#256

Post by the8472 »

octodog wrote: post #195
josephcsible wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My opinion: The transition from ICE vehicles to EVs is a very large net benefit to society, so during this period when new ICE vehicles are still legal, we should be giving EVs special ("unfair") benefits to encourage people to switch. If this new tax results in people choosing to buy an ICE vehicle who would have bought an EV without it, that's a very bad outcome. As for the loss of revenue from the gas tax, I think…

Implementing the tax now makes sense because it brings ICE and EV into alignment now, while usage is relatively low, rather than suddenly introducing a tax down the proverbial road. To incentive switching the government has other policy tools at their disposal, such as a one-off subsidy at purchase time.

> Implementing the tax now makes sense because it brings ICE and EV into alignment now

It doesn't. ICE vehicles are effectively subsidized by not pricing in externalties. The playing field was never level, suddenly insisting that it ought to be is a selective demand for rigor.

Re: Victoria follows South Australia and imposes electric car road tax

#257

Post by AmericanChopper »

IronRanger wrote: post #105
horsawlarway wrote: post #6

I'm not really sure there's a good answer here. Fuel tax is 43 cents a litre. Australian cars right now avg about 13.1 litres per 100km. So you're looking at ~$5.6 per 100km for fuel tax. This tax is adding $2.5 tax per 100km for electric. Right now, EVs are absolutely creating an regressive tax situation with regards to fuel. Those who can afford to buy newer, efficient cars can usually save money on tax over those…

The solution is to tax vehicles by weight, and time and location of use. Melbourne, the State Capital of Victoria, has a big problem with congestion at peak hours. If road use charging like in Singapore or London was introduced, it would shift usage to non-peak hours, and raise sufficient revenue to offset fuel excise. But that's politically difficult - whereas applying a tax to EVs, which currently very few people u…

Singapore isn’t comparable to this situation at all. To simply purchase a car in Singapore you need to purchase something called a certificate of entitlement, which entitles you to own a car for 10 years. They’re sold by tender, with different tenders for different types of cars. But you’re looking at about $30k USD just to buy the right to then buy a car. Singapore is also a country where essentially the entire country is covered by mass transit.

Re: Victoria follows South Australia and imposes electric car road tax

#258

Post by scrumbledober »

chrismorgan wrote: post #133
adrianN wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia says damage is proportional to axle weight to the 4th power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_weight#cite_ref-13

I remember my dad telling me that when I was in my late teens. That it’s the fourth power startled me. To give an idea of what this means: For a 50 tonne semi-trailer with five axles, (⁵⁰⁄₅)⁴ = 10,000 units of damage. 2 tonne vehicle with two axles, 1 unit of damage. That one truck, only 25 times as heavy as a pretty heavy car, is doing 10,000 times as much damage to the road. Thus indeed if you have basically any he…

I noticed while driving to Tahoe the last time that the right lane on the mountain roads was absolutely trashed in the tire path. I assume this is mostly due to chain usage, but it was incredibly more present in the right lane where semis drive.

Re: Victoria follows South Australia and imposes electric car road tax

#259

Post by nordsieck »

Dumblydorr wrote: post #253
jpollock wrote: post #7

In many countries, fuel taxes don't go into general revenues, they are ring-fenced and allocated for road maintenance. Even if they aren't, a reduction in revenue must be offset. The fact that they aren't charged taxes for use of the roads was the incentive. This is removing it in recognition that electric vehicles are now enough of a percentage of the fleet to affect tax revenue. New Zealand does the same, with dies…

These are island nations without their own fuel production and good renewable potential. Wouldn't they see it's in their best interest to maximize batteries to minimize fuel imports?

> These are island nations without their own fuel production and good renewable potential. Wouldn't they see it's in their best interest to maximize batteries to minimize fuel imports?

Presumably that applies at the individual consumer level as well.

Re: Victoria follows South Australia and imposes electric car road tax

#260

Post by lmilcin »

jholman wrote: post #232
AlotOfReading wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how it works in your country, but in the US fuel taxes don't go to the general pot, they end up in a specific fund called the Highway Trust Fund that's specifically earmarked for transportation infrastructure and maintenance.

Even if it does, the amount of money allocated from the general fund toward transportation maintenance is surely lower than it would be if those fuel taxes were not there. Unless an earmark pays 100% of the costs of something, the earmark is totally an illusion. Even if it does pay 100% of the costs, it is often mostly an illusion. In practice, most earmarks fall into the former category, and thus are entirely about…

Yes, earmarking is smoke and mirrors.

The reality is, roads would be maintained the same way with or without earmarked tax revenue.

Post reply on HN