Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Guy Imports Model S into Singapore, Takes 1 Year for Licensing, +$15K

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
There seems to be an update to all this which makes less sense by the minute. The weirdest part in bold and underline.


SINGAPORE: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) appears to have applied the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) R101 correctly when assessing the carbon emission of a used Tesla Model S recently, said Mr Jean Rodriguez, Chief of the Information Unit at UNECE.

However, LTA also appears to be the only national regulator to have included power grid emission into the evaluation of electric vehicles’ (EVs) carbon footprint, he added.
In response to queries from Channel NewsAsia, Mr Rodriguez said in an email that R101 only specifies the way to measure the energy consumption of the vehicle, or “tank-to-wheel”.

The LTA had stated that the electric energy consumption of the imported used Tesla car was 444Wh/km. In a statement on Thursday, LTA confirmed that if the car was brand new, it would have enjoyed a rebate with the energy consumption rating of 181Wh/km.

However, Mr Joe Nguyen, the owner of the Tesla Model S in Singapore, had to pay a S$15,000 tax for having a non-fuel-efficient car instead.
Mr Nguyen had earlier questioned if LTA had applied R101 correctly. He said that R101 has nothing to do with CO2 emissions, and was why European countries “do not penalise EVs for CO2 as Singapore does”.
“CO2 testing is only for vehicles that actually emit gases; EVs have no engine and no tailpipe. Even trying to conduct an emissions test is a pure waste of time and money,” he said in an email.
As for the 0.5g CO2/Wh grid emission factor applied by the regulator, Mr Rodriguez said this refers to “well-to-wheel” and the rate depends on the means of electricity generation: “As far as we can read in follow-up stories, electricity in Singapore seems to be mostly generated by gas-powered plants, hence this rate looks to be within the range of accepted estimates.”

LTA had earlier clarified that the grid emission factor was to account for CO2 emissions during the electricity generation process, even if there are no tail-pipe emissions.


Mr Nguyen, an IT executive, had argued that this rationale from LTA appeared to be “logical at first”. However, when the regulator told him to declare that he will only charge his car at home and not at a public charging infrastructure, there appeared to be a double taxation issue at play. “I am already paying for any electrical distribution CO2 surcharge when I pay my electricity bill every month,” he said. “You would not charge someone CO2 emissions for owning an iPhone that they charge at home, would you?”

"LOGICAL"TO APPLY TO ALL VEHICLES

Mr Rodriguez said Singapore appears to be the only national regulator to have included power grid emission into its evaluation process. “We are not aware that this is currently applied in other countries,” he said, adding that such criterion is up to the national authorities to decide.

He did note that Singapore is not one of the contracting parties to the 1958 Agreement ratifying the harmonisation of vehicle regulations. Of the 62 countries, only six are from Asia Pacific: Malaysia, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea. “Various countries in the world use our UN regulations as reference in national legislation,” he said.
The UNECE executive added that since Singapore has applied grid emission in its evaluation process, “it would seem logical to use this approach across the board for all vehicles”.

The carbon dioxide emitted from transforming oil into petrol or gasoline is limited, said Mr Rodriguez, and is estimated at approximately 10 per cent of the CO2 generated by the engine when the car runs.

MORE TRANSPARENCY NEEDED: TESLA OWNER

Mr Nguyen said he did not take issue with UNECE standard LTA had adopted, but the lack of transparency on both its application and method of testing EVs.

“There is no documentation to be found on the process for electric vehicles. The UNECE Regulation is not mentioned and how it is applied. The correlation chart between power consumption and CO2 is not published anywhere. The equipment VICOM (which tested the Tesla) uses to measure is not documented anywhere. There is little to no transparency,” the IT executive said.

Tesla founder Elon Musk said that he had contacted Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong after Channel NewsAsia first reported on LTA’s clarification regarding how EVs are evaluated. A spokesperson for the Prime Minister’s Office had also confirmed that the conversation took place and that various agencies were looking into the matter, while the LTA on Thursday also confirmed that it has been in discussion with Tesla on the case.

UN body on Tesla: Singapore likely to be only nation factoring carbon emission from grid for EVs - Channel NewsAsia
 
IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW.

it was a "used Tesla". https://www.techinasia.com/singapores-lta-tesla-model-tested-car-efficiency "Singapore’s LTA says the Tesla Model S it tested was a used car, hence its low efficiency" and we all know that used tesla's are way less efficient than brand new tesla's.

banghead.gif


worth noting that I have 104k miles on my P85, and when I drive like a normal person (aka not mashing the "go" pedal), I still get around 280-300Wh/mi, which is exactly the same as I got on Day 1. has anyone told Singapore that if you leave your door open and the heat blasting while you're inspecting the car or something and then follow it up by driving around the block it'll show like 1000+Wh/mi but thats not representative of the car's actual efficiency? DOH you'd get the same inefficiency if you leave your ICE car running all day long it'll run out of gas eventually without driving anywhere..
 
Tesla have posted a comment on this here: ts.la/w1X

Here's how clean a Model S is in Singapore (and elsewhere)



We would like to clear up the situation concerning our customer in Singapore. The Model S that our customer imported into Singapore left our factory in 2014 with energy consumption rated at 181 Wh/km. As the Land Transport Authority has confirmed, this qualifies as the cleanest possible category of car in Singapore and entitles the owner to an incentive rather than a fine.
Model S achieves this result because CO2 emissions in gas-powered cars are far higher than in electric cars. In Singapore, electricity generation releases roughly 0.5kg CO2/kWh. Based on energy consumption in Model S of 181 Wh/km, this results in 90g CO2/km. Driving an equivalent gas-powered car like the Mercedes S-Class S 500 results in emissions of approximately 200g CO2/km. And because of oil extraction, distribution, and refining, approximately 25% more has to be added on top of that to calculate the real carbon footprint of gas-powered cars. That means an electric car like the Model S has almost three times lower CO2 per km than an equivalent gas-powered car. Moreover, as Singapore increases the percentage of grid power from solar and wind, the CO2 from electricity drops with each passing year.
We are having cooperative discussions with the LTA to ensure a proper understanding of these issues and to make sure that they are correctly testing our customer’s Model S. Based on the positive nature of those discussions, we are confident that this situation will be resolved soon.


Whilst I agree with this, I do find it slightly annoying that they feel the need to overplay it so much.

Firstly, why mention the S500? It invites comparison. Some would say that the E-class is more of a natural cross-shop than the S-class, and the new E-class is available with a 102g/km CO2 engine (depending on the testing method :wink:). Sure, it is slower to 60, but that is not the only way to measure a car.

Secondly, why add 25% for extraction, distribution etc. to gas cars, but not to the fossil-fuel used by the power station? Just don't mention it?
 
Tesla have posted a comment on this here: ts.la/w1X


Whilst I agree with this, I do find it slightly annoying that they feel the need to overplay it so much.

Firstly, why mention the S500? It invites comparison. Some would say that the E-class is more of a natural cross-shop than the S-class, and the new E-class is available with a 102g/km CO2 engine (depending on the testing method :wink:). Sure, it is slower to 60, but that is not the only way to measure a car.

Secondly, why add 25% for extraction, distribution etc. to gas cars, but not to the fossil-fuel used by the power station? Just don't mention it?
Mercedes S because it is the same size and weight as the Tesla.
25% is accurate for oil. Electricity is generated by coal which has much lower distribution cost and no refining.
 
Tesla have posted a comment on this here: ts.la/w1X

Thanks for that link. In it, I saw:
The Model S that our customer imported into Singapore left our factory in 2014 with energy consumption rated at 181 Wh/km.

I don't know that we've seen Tesla give a hard number for rated miles before. Using some quick math, I get:

1km = .62137 miles

181 / 62.137 * 100 = 291.29

So, if correct, rated range should be achieved at around 291wh/m (I'd been thinking it's 280 myself).
 
In Singapore, electricity is almost entirely generated by natural gas. See http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/152526/
"Imported natural gas fuels most of Singapore's power generation, with small amounts of coal and renewable resources fueling the rest."
That said, I think Tesla's statement is accurate.

NG has a lower total overhead than oil, but it still has a refining and transmission overhead, as does coal. I just wish Tesla would include well-to-wheel estimates for both cases, or not at all. Calling out oil costs but not NG costs (unnecessarily) reduces the value of the argument.

Maybe the comment was written by the same team who designed the MS "purchase price after savings" logic in the Design Studio :)
 
The 25% for extraction, refining, distribution etc. to gas cars is the equivalent of fossil-fuel used by power station for the electricity. The major difference here is the fuel used by the power station does not need much refinement as the gasoline at the pump does. The refinement process is usually the biggest part for 25% for gasoline. It is the fairness for EVs to add this in. To compare the life cycle of EV and ICE:

Tesla have posted a comment on this here: ts.la/w1X


Whilst I agree with this, I do find it slightly annoying that they feel the need to overplay it so much.

Firstly, why mention the S500? It invites comparison. Some would say that the E-class is more of a natural cross-shop than the S-class, and the new E-class is available with a 102g/km CO2 engine (depending on the testing method :wink:). Sure, it is slower to 60, but that is not the only way to measure a car.

Secondly, why add 25% for extraction, distribution etc. to gas cars, but not to the fossil-fuel used by the power station? Just don't mention it?

- - - Updated - - -

Per IPCC, NG generated electricity has a life cycle carbon emission rate of 0.49g CO2/Wh. This number includes the overhead of refining, transmission, building the power plant, everything.

NG has a lower total overhead than oil, but it still has a refining and transmission overhead, as does coal. I just wish Tesla would include well-to-wheel estimates for both cases, or not at all. Calling out oil costs but not NG costs (unnecessarily) reduces the value of the argument.

Maybe the comment was written by the same team who designed the MS "purchase price after savings" logic in the Design Studio :)
 
Electric vehicles powered 100% by electricity generated using coal are still cleaner than the cleanest ICE vehicles, and if you factor in powering them with solar and wind power, it renders the Singapore taxes virtually pointless, along with most if not all of the paperwork that he had to go through for his Model S. They need to change the rules so that EVs are favored.

Anyone want to take a trip over there to help educate the Singapore government and further the EV cause?
 
Secondly, why add 25% for extraction, distribution etc. to gas cars, but not to the fossil-fuel used by the power station? Just don't mention it?

The point is that the Singapore LTA is 'billing' the CO2 released during power generation to EVs, but not billing the CO2 used during fuel refining to the ICE vehicles. If they are going to do it, they should use the same approach (well-to-wheels) for both.
 
Electric vehicles powered 100% by electricity generated using coal are still cleaner than the cleanest ICE vehicles
Brown coal power stations produce at 1150 g CO2/KWh, hard coal units at 950 g CO2/KWh!

Let me do a fast calculation: a model S has a realistic TTW of 0,25 KWh/km, charge eff. (SuC): 0,8, powerline eff. 0,9: = WTW 400 g CO2/km (brown coal) or 330 g CO2/km (hard coal).

This is only CO2, a non toxic gas!. The exhaust gases of coal power even after treatment contain a lot of toxic chemicals like SOx, NOx, CO, PM, N2O, HCl, Hg, Ni, As, Cr, D, PCDD, PCDF, Th, U, etc.

If you look at SO2 only, a 'coal powered' model S would produce a ~200 times higher SO2 output than a comparable ICE powered by 10ppm gasoline!
 
I know this is a little off topic so I apologise but doesn't Singapore produce 95% of it's energy from natural gas not coal?

If you look at SO2 only, a 'coal powered' model S would produce a ~200 times higher SO2 output than a comparable ICE powered by 10ppm gasoline!

Is this after sulphur dioxide scrubbing or before? I understand that scrubbers can reduce the SO2 output by up to 97%.
 
Coal fire plants generate all kinds of toxic pollutants, true. Tailpipes of ICE vehicles also generate all kinds of toxic pollutants, in fact, the list is not quite different. But you also want to add in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), a group of carcinogens, for the ICE as ICE is the major source of PAHs. What makes the difference here is also the place where the pollutants are emitted. For EVs, the pollution source is usually in places where population density is low. For ICE, is the exact opposite. Accounting for population density, the actual harm of ICE to human health is likely to be much higher than that of coal powered EV, even if certain pollutants like SOx that EV emits more. However, this do raise another question of environmental justice. EV relying on the current coal dominated power grid is transferring pollution from urban areas to rural areas. Is this just? That's open to debate.

Brown coal power stations produce at 1150 g CO2/KWh, hard coal units at 950 g CO2/KWh!

Let me do a fast calculation: a model S has a realistic TTW of 0,25 KWh/km, charge eff. (SuC): 0,8, powerline eff. 0,9: = WTW 400 g CO2/km (brown coal) or 330 g CO2/km (hard coal).

This is only CO2, a non toxic gas!. The exhaust gases of coal power even after treatment contain a lot of toxic chemicals like SOx, NOx, CO, PM, N2O, HCl, Hg, Ni, As, Cr, D, PCDD, PCDF, Th, U, etc.

If you look at SO2 only, a 'coal powered' model S would produce a ~200 times higher SO2 output than a comparable ICE powered by 10ppm gasoline!
What about the PAHs, PMs, secondary PMs,
Brown coal power stations produce at 1150 g CO2/KWh, hard coal units at 950 g CO2/KWh!

Let me do a fast calculation: a model S has a realistic TTW of 0,25 KWh/km, charge eff. (SuC): 0,8, powerline eff. 0,9: = WTW 400 g CO2/km (brown coal) or 330 g CO2/km (hard coal).

This is only CO2, a non toxic gas!. The exhaust gases of coal power even after treatment contain a lot of toxic chemicals like SOx, NOx, CO, PM, N2O, HCl, Hg, Ni, As, Cr, D, PCDD, PCDF, Th, U, etc.

If you look at SO2 only, a 'coal powered' model S would produce a ~200 times higher SO2 output than a comparable ICE powered by 10ppm gasoline!
 
Coal fire plants generate all kinds of toxic pollutants, true. Tailpipes of ICE vehicles also generate all kinds of toxic pollutants, in fact, the list is not quite different. But you also want to add in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), a group of carcinogens, for the ICE as ICE is the major source of PAHs. What makes the difference here is also the place where the pollutants are emitted. For EVs, the pollution source is usually in places where population density is low. For ICE, is the exact opposite. Accounting for population density, the actual harm of ICE to human health is likely to be much higher than that of coal powered EV, even if certain pollutants like SOx that EV emits more. However, this do raise another question of environmental justice. EV relying on the current coal dominated power grid is transferring pollution from urban areas to rural areas. Is this just? That's open to debate.


What about the PAHs, PMs, secondary PMs,

Well said! Look for instance at someone walking to the side of the street. Would you rather have only EVs pass by or ICE vehicles, with all of their emissions? For me the answer is simple: EVs win this case every time.
 
That's pretty horrible.
I read an article about the chinese plans up to 2040. About 600 big coal power stations are planned.
Even in 2040 ~8% of all stations may run without scrubbing!!!

The only 2 'hopeful' statements in this article was that they will use hypercritical steam cycle in all new plants which should result in higher efficiency (~23% average nowadays) and try to extract uraninium from the coal ash as fuel for the nuclear power plants they plan to build at the same time (chinese coal ash contains ~200ppm U, which is higher than some uranium ore):mad:.
 
I read an article about the chinese plans up to 2040. About 600 big coal power stations are planned.
Even in 2040 ~8% of all stations may run without scrubbing!!!

The only 2 'hopeful' statements in this article was that they will use hypercritical steam cycle in all new plants which should result in higher efficiency (~23% average nowadays) and try to extract uraninium from the coal ash as fuel for the nuclear power plants they plan to build at the same time (chinese coal ash contains ~200ppm U, which is higher than some uranium ore):mad:.

They should convert the plans for those 600 coal power stations into solar and wind power farms instead! Chinese citizens will be thankful for all of the avoided air pollution.