Poor Singaporean! Hope Hong Kong will not follow suit with this one!
Just read this news, shocked! Electric car Tesla slapped with $15,000 tax surcharge!
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Return to Singapore
- Thread starter twinklejet
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Singapore
Tam
Well-Known Member
Energy Hog uncovered by UNECE R101 standards
I am not sure whether this topic is covered yet, so here's my question:
Has anyone thought about CO2 emission tests caused by Model S?
By now, you should have heard the Tesla Model S is classified as an equivalent of big gas guzzlers and is penalized with about almost US$11,000 (Singapore $15,000) by the government of Singapore.
It's hard to figure this out because prior to this case, according to Wiki, Singapore has been ranked number 1 as "Easiest place to do business" for the past 10 years since 2006.
It's very environmentally friendly as it's ranked fourth in the 2014 Environmental Performance Index.
It has the world's highest percentage of millionaires, with one out of every six households having at least one million US dollars in disposable wealth (excluding property, businesses, and luxury goods, because if included would increase the number of millionaires, especially as property in Singapore is among the world's most expensive.
It has been giving green car credits for EVs ranging from Singapore $15,000 to 30,000 (US$10,701.71-21,824.53) for Nissan Leaf, Mitsubishi, BMW i3, and even hybrid i8...
It claimed Tesla Model S consumes about 715 Wh/mile or 444Wh/km by using UNEC R 101 standards.
Elon tweeted that he talked the Singapore Prime Minister and an investigation will be done.
![2016-03-07-2[1].png](https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/attachments/2016-03-07-2-1-png.114386/ "2016-03-07-2[1].png")
Would you think that Singapore's position is valid?
It looks like the government is not opposing to EV cars. It just wants to discourage Energy Hog cars whether it's ICE or EV.
Non-Tesla EVs got green car rebates because for example, you don't see Nissan Leaf compete in a drag race, do you?
So could it be that it does it make sense that Tesla EV is an energy hog due to its fame for performance?
The less energy a car uses whether by gasoline or current Singapore electric grid, the less CO2 emission.
Thus, should Tesla deserve a CO2 emission penalty surcharge, if not globally, then in some environmentally conscientious places like Singapore.
I am not sure whether this topic is covered yet, so here's my question:
Has anyone thought about CO2 emission tests caused by Model S?
By now, you should have heard the Tesla Model S is classified as an equivalent of big gas guzzlers and is penalized with about almost US$11,000 (Singapore $15,000) by the government of Singapore.
It's hard to figure this out because prior to this case, according to Wiki, Singapore has been ranked number 1 as "Easiest place to do business" for the past 10 years since 2006.
It's very environmentally friendly as it's ranked fourth in the 2014 Environmental Performance Index.
It has the world's highest percentage of millionaires, with one out of every six households having at least one million US dollars in disposable wealth (excluding property, businesses, and luxury goods, because if included would increase the number of millionaires, especially as property in Singapore is among the world's most expensive.
It has been giving green car credits for EVs ranging from Singapore $15,000 to 30,000 (US$10,701.71-21,824.53) for Nissan Leaf, Mitsubishi, BMW i3, and even hybrid i8...
It claimed Tesla Model S consumes about 715 Wh/mile or 444Wh/km by using UNEC R 101 standards.
Elon tweeted that he talked the Singapore Prime Minister and an investigation will be done.
Would you think that Singapore's position is valid?
It looks like the government is not opposing to EV cars. It just wants to discourage Energy Hog cars whether it's ICE or EV.
Non-Tesla EVs got green car rebates because for example, you don't see Nissan Leaf compete in a drag race, do you?
So could it be that it does it make sense that Tesla EV is an energy hog due to its fame for performance?
The less energy a car uses whether by gasoline or current Singapore electric grid, the less CO2 emission.
Thus, should Tesla deserve a CO2 emission penalty surcharge, if not globally, then in some environmentally conscientious places like Singapore.
Last edited:
Given that the same (very rigidly defined and controlled) test done elsewhere yields a result of 181wh/km, compared to the Singapore result of 444wh/km, I would say that Singapore messed up the UNECE R101 test of this vehicle, and messed it up badly. A factor of 2.5 out is not experimental error, it is a monumental mistake.
The most humorous explanation I saw was that perhaps they multiplied by 1.6, rather than divided by 1.6, when converting miles to kilometres. Another possibility is that they simply forgot to divide by 2 as the UNECE R101 includes two test runs.
Whatever the cause of the mistake, this standardised test result is so different from the results of tests conducted elsewhere that it should never have been released without triple checking. If everyone else says water boils at 100C, and you measure it to boil at 245C, would you release that result or perhaps double-check your measurement methodology?
All in all, it just makes Singapore look bad, as the country is ridiculed in the media.
The other issue is that if Singapore wants to attribute CO2 released during electricity generation to the owner of the vehicle using that electricity, then they should do the same for other fuel types (including CO2 released during refinement and transportation of gasoline).
The most humorous explanation I saw was that perhaps they multiplied by 1.6, rather than divided by 1.6, when converting miles to kilometres. Another possibility is that they simply forgot to divide by 2 as the UNECE R101 includes two test runs.
Whatever the cause of the mistake, this standardised test result is so different from the results of tests conducted elsewhere that it should never have been released without triple checking. If everyone else says water boils at 100C, and you measure it to boil at 245C, would you release that result or perhaps double-check your measurement methodology?
All in all, it just makes Singapore look bad, as the country is ridiculed in the media.
The other issue is that if Singapore wants to attribute CO2 released during electricity generation to the owner of the vehicle using that electricity, then they should do the same for other fuel types (including CO2 released during refinement and transportation of gasoline).
Seriously scratching my head about how/why Singapore would do their own test rather than using published test results.
First, where did Singapore get a Tesla to test? According to the news reports, the car was imported from Hong Kong because Tesla has no presence in Singapore. This appears to be the first Tesla in Singapore, or the tax would not be recent news. So no car to test, unless the owner's car was used for the test.
Clearly the owner is a high net worth individual, not someone stretching to buy a Tesla. So seems like a bureaucrat took an opportunity to slap on an extra tax and hope it would be ignored. But the owner was savvy enough to get it in the news. And next a calculation error will be found. So sorry.
First, where did Singapore get a Tesla to test? According to the news reports, the car was imported from Hong Kong because Tesla has no presence in Singapore. This appears to be the first Tesla in Singapore, or the tax would not be recent news. So no car to test, unless the owner's car was used for the test.
Clearly the owner is a high net worth individual, not someone stretching to buy a Tesla. So seems like a bureaucrat took an opportunity to slap on an extra tax and hope it would be ignored. But the owner was savvy enough to get it in the news. And next a calculation error will be found. So sorry.
An owner purchased the car, imported it himself, and then went through the registration process in Singapore himself.
He was asked to send the car to a testing lab, VICOM (VICOM Ltd - Singapore's Premier Testing and Inspection Company), who presumably sub-contracted it to their subsidiary VETL (VETL). Either they or Vicom came up with the 444wh/km figure (under UNECE R101, aka NEDC).
From the LTA statement, they tested the car, got a result of 444wh/km, converted that to 222gCO2/km, and taxed appropriately.
The owner doesn't think he'll get his money back. He just loves Tesla, thinks EVs are perfect for Singapore, and is trying to raise publicity to drive change in his country.
Tam
Well-Known Member
Most pro-EV would be happy that EV does not emit any pollution. People die from carbon monoxide coming from ICE but never from an EV because it's zero emission. Thus, prior to this case, there's no place on earth was known to do an emission test on an EV.
Thanks to the Model S' owner Joe Nguyen, now we know there's one place that tests a zero emission Tesla and categorizes it as a huge polluter, penalizes it and proudly defended its action with no regret.
As mentioned by Wiki, there's a lot of millionaires in Singapore.
However, the problem is not about cash as millionaires can afford to pay the polluter fine with ease.
The problem here is science.
Paying a huge penalty in the amount of US$11,000 gives weight to the impression that what we have learned about Tesla as a zero emission is all wrong.
Yes, the problem here is science with a tested N = 1.
Meaningless and bad science. And I'm sure there's a lead foot tester in that room.
Use combined world wide stats. Heck the bureaucrats could use this forum (ref: avg wh/mile thread) to see what real world wh/mile is. And most posters are not driving like little old grandmas (they admit it!).
Honestly, they should be fired. Not for trying to steal Mr. Nguyen's money (expected). But for conducting bad science.
Meaningless and bad science. And I'm sure there's a lead foot tester in that room.
Use combined world wide stats. Heck the bureaucrats could use this forum (ref: avg wh/mile thread) to see what real world wh/mile is. And most posters are not driving like little old grandmas (they admit it!).
Honestly, they should be fired. Not for trying to steal Mr. Nguyen's money (expected). But for conducting bad science.
This is nothing to do with real world mileage. Your real world mileage may not be the same as mine. I know of users in my country who get 280wh/km average. I get 175wh/km average.
This is a standard test. UNECE R101 is the New European Driving Cycle (New European Driving Cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). It is a standard test used to determine fuel consumption, range, etc. Similar to the EPA test. Temperature controlled. Speed controlled. Strictly defined driving cycles.
The Singapore testers messed up the test. Pure and simple.
This is a standard test. UNECE R101 is the New European Driving Cycle (New European Driving Cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). It is a standard test used to determine fuel consumption, range, etc. Similar to the EPA test. Temperature controlled. Speed controlled. Strictly defined driving cycles.
The Singapore testers messed up the test. Pure and simple.
Tam
Well-Known Member
Sadly, after the intervention from Elon Musk, and in discussion with Tesla, Singapore has stood firm in defense of its numbers and policy.
It does not admit it made a mistake. It claims that the Tesla in question might have been deteriorated because it's a used car, not brand new.
It seems to suggest that it treats Tesla fairly because it just awarded a brand new imported EV car Peugeot Ion the rebate.
https://www.facebook.com/WeKeepYourWorldMoving/posts/1011633672240202
Land Transport Authority – We Keep Your World Moving
1 hr ·The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has been in discussion with Tesla on the recent case of an imported used Tesla Model S, which attracted a $15,000 surcharge under the Carbon Emissions Vehicle Scheme (CEVS).
All imported used cars, including used electric cars, have to be subject to emissions and fuel efficiency tests before they are allowed to be registered for use in Singapore. This is because the emissions and fuel efficiency of a used car, unlike a new car, can vary significantly depending on its prevailing condition, how it was previously driven and maintained, etc. The imported Model S was first registered in Hong Kong in 2014.
Based on tests run by VICOM Emission Test Laboratory (VeTL), Mr Nguyen’s used Model S had an electrical energy consumption of 444 Wh/km. An emissions factor of 0.5g CO2/Wh was then applied. This emissions factor, which is based on data provided by EMA, is consistently applied to electric and plug-in electric hybrid cars to account for the carbon emissions produced when the car is being charged. The outcome showed a carbon emissions level which placed this used car into the CEVS C3 surcharge band.
Electric cars are not carbon emissions free. They may not produce emissions from the tailpipe like conventional cars, but they take electrical power from the national power grid which has to burn fuel to produce the electricity, and in the process produces carbon emissions.
Tesla has informed LTA that based on the car’s original Certificate of Conformity, its energy consumption rating was 181 Wh/km when it left the Tesla factory on 28 June 2014.
LTA confirms that a brand new Tesla Model S would thus have fallen into the CEVS A1 band, and enjoyed a rebate. However, Mr Nguyen did not bring in a new Tesla Model S, but a used car, and as is the policy for the import of all used cars, must be individually subject to emissions and fuel efficiency tests since LTA would not know how much the car’s condition might have deteriorated.
We cannot make exceptions as it would not be fair to other car owners, and would have an impact on our environment-related policies.
LTA and VeTL will be working with Tesla engineers to look further into this case.
LTA welcomes electric vehicle manufacturers to bring clean and energy-efficient vehicles into Singapore.
An EV model which was previously imported brand new into Singapore is the Peugeot Ion which enjoyed rebates in the CEVS A1 band.
Last edited:
SG gov enjoys too much tax money from basically anything the public is willing to pay for (esp. vices like alcohol and tobacco). There's just no societal benefit for making Teslas cheaper to own. New ICE cars are already prohibitively expensive to own and older cars are not worth keeping on the road so that drives purchases towards newer cars (with newer emission standards).
As for the argument of replacing ICE cars with EV's, I believe there is a subsidy for other lower cost EVs (i3?).
The government is better off labeling it a "tesla tax" and just saying they want to tax expensive EV's because they know the people buying them can afford it.
Sadly, I could see HK following suit.
Last edited:
Excellent response by Tesla. Just the facts. The Singapore bureaucracy simply made a mistake, they don't understand the car.
By the way, I lived in Singapore from 1994 to 1997 and the government bureaucracy is very competent, professional, and efficient.
By the way, I lived in Singapore from 1994 to 1997 and the government bureaucracy is very competent, professional, and efficient.
Tam
Well-Known Member
I couldn't find anything on Tesla website but how did you find it?
Thanks so much for the update link!
Tam
Well-Known Member
As in any math problem, as long as all factors are accounted for, you would get the same answer whether it's from USA, Europe or Singapore.
There's no problem with a standardized test. Europe uses it so that is not a problem.
Tam
Well-Known Member
It's good that Tesla is working with Singapore to resolve the discrepancies in Energy Consumption (Tesla number is 181 Wh/km. Singapore number is 444 Wh/km.)
In the mean time, would you care to discuss some implications please?
What if Singapore is right?
Math is math and so if after all the math is all checked out correctly for Singapore to classify Tesla as a gross polluter, how would that affect Tesla sales worldwide and stock price?
Hypothetically, if Singapore is right, Tesla can use a firmware update to inflate Energy Consumption to Singapore's standard.
Problem would be solved.
That means it only affects 1 country and only 1 single car for that country.
Thus, the likelihood of affecting worldwide sales and stock price is negligible, don't you agree?
Maybe they couldn't run it in an absolute accurate way (n<>3, temp. >30°C?), but would really expect an significantly lower result?
The recharge is done with the single phase stepup charger at the given high level SOC.
Did anyone test a model S according to UNECE R101 ever before?
The value of 181Wh/km does not include AC charge, balancing or charge standby losses.
UNECE R101 is a test which simulates the daily behavior of a short distance commuter.
The total distance of 22km is very short for a big vehicle like the model S, letting the quotient of (parasitic losses) / (consumed net energy) being around 1.
Similar threads
