SA have announced they are now pursuing the road tax in 5 years or 30% takeup, and there will be an immediate EV $3k subsidy. Subject to parliament approval.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
State based EV road user charge (Overturned 18/10/23)
- Thread starter jamesgo
- Start date
These subsidies are laughable. Too little too late, lacking in foresight and vision, like much if not all of Australian policy. Donald Horne in his oft misquoted 1964 book "The Lucky Country" still nailed it best in the introductory sentence to the last chapter:
"Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people's ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise."
Applicable to COVID as much as it is to EVs. No taxes of any kind on any EVs. *THAT* would be a statement. S**t or get off the pot, pollie boy.
"Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people's ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise."
Applicable to COVID as much as it is to EVs. No taxes of any kind on any EVs. *THAT* would be a statement. S**t or get off the pot, pollie boy.
Um, a rather harsh assessment.
$3k is a lot to a lot of people, and way better than nothing. Restricting it to vehicles not subject to LCT solves the optics of giving tax breaks to the rich. I believe subsidies should be used sparingly as a policy tool and certainly not to advantage people who are already wealthy.
Means-testing should be generally used for any subsidy/tax break but if too messy/complicated restricted in other ways such as purchase price. Transferring tax dollars collected from those at the bottom of the pile to the already wealthy is simply obscene. There’s way too much middle- and upper-class welfare in this country.
Removal of stamp duty and replacing it with a RUC lowers the up-front cost by even more and is a clever move to protect future State Government tax streams. The Nats will start to get antsy though as EV adoption in regional areas grows, they will start agitating for ‘exemptions’ or ‘concessions’ for people who naturally drive longer distances more often. A battle for another day.
I’m no fan of the LNP but I think this is broadly good policy.
@Vostok, I disagree with this approach, significantly. Accelerating EV uptake should be a question of "Sachpolitik" (=non-partisan politics, issue-related politics), not pub tests or similarly ill conceived derangements of the mind.
We are trying to solve an environmental disaster caused by the masses and their mass consumption of goods that are hazardous to the environment. The propensity of the average person to make questionable choices driven by appendages in the nether regions needs to be factored into this equation - and this has absolutely nothing to do with the price of the EV one chooses to purchase. I'd even go so far as to postulate that putting higher end EVs into the middle classes reach by abolishing LCT would be smart for several reasons: They will keep the vehicle longer and likely will take better care of it, thus lowering the overall environmental impact even further. It also sends a message that EVs are not an elitist pursuit, but an ecological necessity that should not be encumbered by artificial tax loads. Back in the day when solar installations received subsidies, there was no means test to see if you're eligible for the subsidy - and that's exactly how it should be.
Emancipating the population from the prison of a class based society (or the perception thereof) is really not an issue we should be having to deal with today. Alas, if you're serious about fixing this problem in Australia, outlaw private and gender segregated schools. Those are vestiges from an Oliver Twist era that I had no idea still existed until I moved here. Australia has a lot of homework left to do.
We are trying to solve an environmental disaster caused by the masses and their mass consumption of goods that are hazardous to the environment. The propensity of the average person to make questionable choices driven by appendages in the nether regions needs to be factored into this equation - and this has absolutely nothing to do with the price of the EV one chooses to purchase. I'd even go so far as to postulate that putting higher end EVs into the middle classes reach by abolishing LCT would be smart for several reasons: They will keep the vehicle longer and likely will take better care of it, thus lowering the overall environmental impact even further. It also sends a message that EVs are not an elitist pursuit, but an ecological necessity that should not be encumbered by artificial tax loads. Back in the day when solar installations received subsidies, there was no means test to see if you're eligible for the subsidy - and that's exactly how it should be.
Emancipating the population from the prison of a class based society (or the perception thereof) is really not an issue we should be having to deal with today. Alas, if you're serious about fixing this problem in Australia, outlaw private and gender segregated schools. Those are vestiges from an Oliver Twist era that I had no idea still existed until I moved here. Australia has a lot of homework left to do.
@ZeeDoktor We are still notionally living in a democracy. If something isn’t broadly supported it’ll last until the next election. Think carbon tax. Sermonising about the end of the world is a quick way to marginalise yourself. Just ask those old guys walking around in sandwich boards.
@QBN_PC I'm contributing to the democratic discourse with my post by providing observations that may not be evident to most at first glance.
There's also nothing intrinsically democratic about pandering to the havenots by taking from the haves.
There's also nothing intrinsically democratic about pandering to the havenots by taking from the haves.
Last edited:
Well, if you genuinely believe that, then you should be advocating for a rapid reduction in the number of privately owned vehicles and endorse instead a more radical transition to mass-transit for private transport needs. EVs are way better than ICE, but many argue EVs just perpetuate dependence on private transport which still consume huge amounts of resources to build and still generate significant societal costs (road building, urban sprawl, sub optimal land use, waste upon disposal, people being killed in road crashes, etc).
The lowest-hanging fruit (by quite some distance) to tackle our environmental disaster is to de-carbonise our electricity generation. Which makes Federal LNP resistance to this truly bizarre. It’s the simplest, easiest and most cost-effective bang-for-buck sector to tackle. If one is not prepared to tackle that, then next comes transport, then agriculture. Both of which are much harder and will take longer to achieve meaningful reductions.
I don’t recall mentioning a pub test. I am in no way influenced by what people at drinking establishments think.
The only tax dollars collected from those at the bottom of the pile is typically GST as they are unlikley to be paying income tax. The bulk of income tax in australia is paid by the ‘wealthy’, all of whom are likley to be car buyers.
However I do agree that someone buying a car subject to ‘luxury‘ car tax is probably going to buy it regardless of the $3k subsidy.
You also have to apply for the subsidy in SA, same as the battery subsidy, so if you have the guilts…..dont apply.
RareEarth
Member
There is nothing bizarre about vested interests seeking to maintain the status quo via the opaque political donations system, jobs for life after politics etc. It has been going on for ever.
@Vostok I do believe efficient individual transport is far superior to any notion of public transport. Mass transit rarely goes where you want to go and when you want to go. Pretty much the only exception I've ever come across in Australia to this is the airport train from the Sydney CBD where I live to the airport. This goes door to door for me, and I'd never take the car to the airport for that reason. It does blow my mind (in an aneurism kind of way) every time I have to pay the station access fee at the airport which makes the trip uneconomical when there's two of us and a taxi would be cheaper. This ranks right up there in terms of general out of synchness with the times as the RUC for EVs before proper subsidies are in place.
Decarbonisation of the energy market is long overdue. We need to be investing into huge solar powered hydrogen industry inland where the sun always shines. But who is going to lead the way on this? Our pollies are firm in the hands of the fossil fuel industry. Our political landscape is a conflict of interest on wheels.
Decarbonisation of the energy market is long overdue. We need to be investing into huge solar powered hydrogen industry inland where the sun always shines. But who is going to lead the way on this? Our pollies are firm in the hands of the fossil fuel industry. Our political landscape is a conflict of interest on wheels.
I can see a place for ships, trucks, trains, where you need maximum uptime of the asset, but not for cars, where it isn’t cost effective.
Candleflame
Active Member
the beauty of hydrogen is, that it benefits just as much from EV technology as EVs.
I see a feature for big trucks with a hydrogen tank + maybe a 20-40kwh battery giving them a range of 800km or so.
The only issue that a big truck wont regen efficiently with such a small battery.
And where weight matters more, but volume matters less (you need 4-5x the volume compared to fuel even with compressed hydrogen)
If you've seen the Airbus renders of possible hydrogen aircraft, the back 20% has no windows.
But for cars, much easier to rollout charging stations compared to hydrogen stations.
And not to mention the greater inefficiency in the energy to hydrogen and back to energy process.
@GrimRe Hydrogen has the highest energy density per mass, and burns with oxygen to produce water (vapour) as the only waste product. It will be the main fuel in the not too distant future for fuel cells. It is transportable in bulk LPG style, and can be exported rather easily that way (as opposed to electricity). Toyota have been working on this for a long time for fuel cell systems. While a fuel cell produces relatively low power electrical output, it is enough to sustain cruise speed according to some sources, and while parked or when using less energy to drive, leftover power output from the fuel cell charges a buffer battery which in turn delivers the power needed for acceleration. The only problem that still needs addressed is hydrogen storage. But the Plasma Kinetics guys have a solution, and it's almost ready to roll (quite literally) by the looks of it:
Why am I not surprised @ZeeDoktor you think hydrogen has a future?
Hydrogen technology hasn’t been “banned”, but it has failed commercially for passenger vehicles. The only reason Toyota hasn’t given up on it for passenger vehicles yet is Japanese cultural resistance to “loss of face” to admit it got it wrong. Just about everyone else has realised it has no future and moved on.
Hydrogen fuel cells may play a role in the future for heavy haulage (trains, cross-country freight trucks), oceanic transport, and possibly aviation. Things that could function with very limited points-of-presence for refueling infrastructure, and probably struggle with battery-type storage as we know it today.
But passenger vehicles, utility vehicles, and light trucks? No.
As a (retired) scientist, I am well aware of the efficiency issues with Hydrogen. However, it's the first time I have seen the diagram presented by Vostok. It is a great diagram, accurate and conveys the message very well. There are also engines being converted to run directly on Hydrogen, as opposed to running on fuel cells., but apart from the possibility to prop up legacy machinery, they still do not get anywhere near the efficiency of a BEV.
On top of all this, we have a Federal Govt spruiking "Blue Hydrogen" which would be an environmental disaster on top of the efficiency wastage.
On top of all this, we have a Federal Govt spruiking "Blue Hydrogen" which would be an environmental disaster on top of the efficiency wastage.
However by Volume it needs 4-5x the space of fuel.
Even in the Toyota Mirai this means massive compromises to the tunnel, rear seats and boot.
Toyota Mirai 2021 review
In 2021 it has become crystal clear that the future of automotive lies in electric vehicles (EVs), but, because of Australia's unique geography, a tail pipe emission-free reality still seems so far away. What's a car brand to do? Well, if you're Toyota, you bring in a hydrogen fuel-cell electric...
www.carsguide.com.au
And also means you need 4-5x the fuel tankers and storage at filing stations.
For trains you probably need a fuel car (like the old days of coal cars) and equally no problems with space on ships.
@Vostok your first sentence has me thinking - why would you think I'm an H2 advocate?
I should have pointed out you should ignore the populist title of that video. On the face of it, the technology portrayed could have value despite the dumb title.
I'm familiar with the efficiency diagram you posted. However, to apply these calculations to energy cycles with virtually limitless resources may be interesting as an academic exercise, but is pointless because you're not running out of water, sunshine or PV/Wind power to split the H2O.
If (read: *IF*) a solid state technology becomes available to store H2 in an inert fashion and release when needed into a fuel cell (as shown in the video I linked above) then look no further. That has to be the future.
When it comes to H2 in tanks at passenger car scale, I agree with everyone else here: It's neither useful, practical, economical, or in any way sensible to do so.
But in terms of orienting Australia towards a future, I'd rather see my tax dollar go to an experimental, massive scale hydrogen project that may (or my not) go bust, than to centrelink for the coal workers.
And @doggy1 of course blue hydrogen is rubbish - I am talking about green hydrogen projects here.
I should have pointed out you should ignore the populist title of that video. On the face of it, the technology portrayed could have value despite the dumb title.
I'm familiar with the efficiency diagram you posted. However, to apply these calculations to energy cycles with virtually limitless resources may be interesting as an academic exercise, but is pointless because you're not running out of water, sunshine or PV/Wind power to split the H2O.
If (read: *IF*) a solid state technology becomes available to store H2 in an inert fashion and release when needed into a fuel cell (as shown in the video I linked above) then look no further. That has to be the future.
When it comes to H2 in tanks at passenger car scale, I agree with everyone else here: It's neither useful, practical, economical, or in any way sensible to do so.
But in terms of orienting Australia towards a future, I'd rather see my tax dollar go to an experimental, massive scale hydrogen project that may (or my not) go bust, than to centrelink for the coal workers.
And @doggy1 of course blue hydrogen is rubbish - I am talking about green hydrogen projects here.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
