Greens push to ban petrol cars

Via The Guardian:

The Greens have proposed introducing mandatory fuel efficiency standards, ending the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030, and imposing a four-year 17% tax on luxury petrol and diesel cars as part of an electric vehicle policy announced on Tuesday.

Under the proposal Australia would adopt a mandatory fuel efficiency standard of 105g of CO2 a kilometre by 2022, three years earlier than a proposal being considered by the federal government.

It would also cut tariffs and charges on new electric or zero-emissions vehicles, including the 5% import tariff, GST and stamp duty, in order to lower the purchase price to match new petrol or diesel cars, and offer three years free registration on new zero-emissions vehicles.

The tax breaks, as well as a $151m national fund to build up to 3,000 electric car charging stations, would be funded by a 17% tax on fossil fuel emitting cars with a purchase price of more than $65,000. That tax would be imposed on top of the existing 33% luxury vehicle tax for cars in that price range and is expected to generate $500m a year over a limited four-year run.

A University of New South Wales researcher, Gail Broadbent, who is studying electric vehicles at the university’s school of biological, earth, and environmental sciences, said the targets were achievable and would increase Australia’s sluggish adoption of electric vehicles, provided exemptions were included for remote Indigenous communities that were unlikely to have access to a charging station.

Transport makes up 27% of global emissions so this is inevitable. Good on The Greens for pushing it forward.

My take is subsidies (or carbon prices or both) will be needed. Although electric cars will save money over the long term they will probably remain a little more expansive up front. So the sticker price will act as a deterrent to change like it did with long-life light bulbs.

Whatever array of pricing changes are imposed they should slide away as the transition happens so that we don’t end up with the kind of lumpy subsidy problems thrown up by programs like the Renewable Energy Target. These create economic air-pockets, become easily disrupted politically and provide little certainty for industry.

Simply imposing a ban date on new petrol cars may be the way to go.

Comments

    • I once did some work for a mob: Nautilus
      undersea, deep undersea, mining of non ferrous mineral at thermal vents
      there is miles of that, just need to get the technology up to speed.

    • Yes, copper could be a problem. There are no ready substitutes. Silver is a better conductor than copper but costs a whole lot more and oxidizes readily. Aluminum is cheaper but it is not as conductive as copper and its soft. And it corrodes easily and you need thicker wires to carry the same amount of current.

      So copper is really in the sweet spot, relatively inexpensive and a very good conductor.

  1. Kormanator_T800

    More fake greenies who haven’t bothered to look at the numbers, but go with the warm fuzzy feeling instead.

    Many petrol cars (not diesel) are cleaner than electric cars in Australia.

    Here, the power for the green cars comes from dirty coal burning power stations, which emit more CO2 and particulates than clean modern cars do for the same energy.

    The batteries used in electric cars create much pollution when being made and need to be disposed of.

    • Don’t use coal power stations….

      EV’s on their worst day are still better than a nationwide fleet of CO2 spewing IC cars, at least as far as the environment’s concerned.

    • DarkMatterMEMBER

      There is no engineering reason why you can’t feed solar panels directly into the EV. That means car ports, Parking spots with a solar canopy, shopping centers. This is all infrastructure that has not been explored yet. We already have cheap solar panels, and the electronics for inverters is also quite ordinary.

      The other point is that EV charging can be pushed into the off peak times, which improves the efficiency of power stations. You can’t always be looking in the rear view mirror.

      • Solar panels tend not to work overnight.

        Agree with charging overnight though but that is hardly an Earth shattering insight for anyone with an EV.

      • DarkMatterMEMBER

        “Most people don’t have their car at home during the day.”

        Well, for a start, the car will often be there until 9:00. After that, it would not be rocket science to store some of the solar power rather than throw it away. Even with round trip losses in a intermediate battery you get some of it. Gravity header tanks could work. Temporary energy storage has not really been properly developed because we never had cheap solar panels before. You can’t say it won’t work until you actually try it.

        I drive about 12km to work every day. By my calculations, a 4kw panel over a week (including the weekend) would deliver about 40 kwh. Given that 1litre of petrol is about 10kwh, and electric motors are 3-4 times more efficient than IC, that would be close to self sufficient.

        The other thing is that by shifting work hours forward by 2 hours (11-7) with a 4kw panel, that is an extra 8kwh into the EV every day. That is not a particularly difficult adjustment for many people and would alleviate traffic congestion.

    • “More fake greenies who haven’t bothered to look at the numbers, but go with the warm fuzzy feeling instead.”
      No – but probably a fake astroturfing account?

      “Many petrol cars (not diesel) are cleaner than electric cars in Australia.”
      No, not a single car is cleaner than a purely EV car.

      “Here, the power for the green cars comes from dirty coal burning power stations, which emit more CO2 and particulates than clean modern cars do for the same energy.”

      1) Petrol is being refined via the same energy sources. It takes as much energy to refine petrol to drive 100km as it takes an EV to drive that distance. Once you also add in the CO2 emitted from burning the petrol the car will double the CO2 output.

      2) By 2030 the grid will be AT LEAST 50% renewable sources because of state level targets.

      “The batteries used in electric cars create much pollution when being made and need to be disposed of.”

      Batteries are recycled. Tesla batteries are completely recycled.

      • By 2030 the grid will be AT LEAST 50% renewable sources because of state level targets.

        Yep, that is if EV cars are not increased beyond negligible use as it is today.
        Make 10% of the cars go electric and calculate the electricity demand.
        Now make that 100% EV cars.

      • @djenka “Yep, that is if EV cars are not increased beyond negligible use as it is today. Make 10% of the cars go electric and calculate the electricity demand.Now make that 100% EV cars.”

        Zero additional power generation would be required – because about the same amount of power is required to refine petrol to travel 100km than it takes to power an EV to drive 100km.

        “You have enough electricity to power all the cars in the country if you stop refining gasoline,” says Musk. “You take an average of 5 kilowatt hours to refine [one gallon of] gasoline, something like the Model S can go 20 miles on 5 kilowatt hours.” (Elon Musk)

        https://www.businessinsider.com.au/elon-musk-and-chris-paine-explain-how-the-electric-car-got-its-revenge-2011-10?r=US&IR=T

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Zero additional power generation would be required – because about the same amount of power is required to refine petrol to travel 100km than it takes to power an EV to drive 100km.

        To be fair, we don’t refine the fuel here.

      • Zero additional power generation would be required – because about the same amount of power is required to refine petrol to travel 100km than it takes to power an EV to drive 100km.

        Do you really think that refineries are powered from the same grid that powers homes (or from renewables) and halt on refining would produce enormous power surplus?
        “50% renewable sources” relates to public grid.

        If you convert all the refineries to power plants (by stopping refining and using their generators to charge EV’s)… than your EV is just a more efficient and currently heck of an expensive way to use fossil fuel. Plus no more trucks, planes, trains (to some extent) ’cause they use refined fuel.

        EV is the way forward but it is silly to think that it is yet at level that can replace current fuels. Not yet, but going there.

      • “EV is the way forward but it is silly to think that it is yet at level that can replace current fuels.”

        But it is just as silly to say we will never generate enough electricity to power EV’s. I was trying to show that we won’t need huge increases in power generation. By 2030 most houses will have enough PV cells on their roof to power their own car – it probably only needs to be charged once a week (500k+ range) and it will probably be done on the weekend when the car is not being used.

      • EV is the way forward but it is silly to think that it is yet at level that can replace current fuels.

        I’d reckon EVs are functionally a drop-in replacement today for at least half the passenger cars on the road (ie: the second+ vehicles that the majority of households have).

      • @ Glamb
        But it is just as silly to say we will never generate enough electricity to power EV’s.
        I did not say that.
        I said that in case of a sudden onset of EV cars (e.g. ban of fossil fuel cars in the next 10-20yrs) the current power plants could not cope without major changes.

        I was trying to show that we won’t need huge increases in power generation. By 2030 most houses will have enough PV cells on their roof to power their own car – it probably only needs to be charged once a week (500k+ range) and it will probably be done on the weekend when the car is not being used.
        &“says Musk. “You take an average of 5 kilowatt hours to refine [one gallon of] gasoline, something like the Model S can go 20 miles (32km) on 5 kilowatt hours.””
        This is teh key to your confusion – 500km/week charge weekends etc.
        As much as this is the case for office work commuters, apply this to tradies, sales folks, couriers, on site tech etc and the 500km is easiliy 1 day’s need for them. Now as per Elon Musk, for a 500km run the batteries need to receive 80kWh and add 25% on top for the charging conversion and you get to 100kWh (chargers efficiency is usually 80% of consumed power). That’s daily for most of those folks that are not commuters. Pls compare that to your monthly electricity bill.

        When the time comes where every home will have power generation in excess of their need… well, we’ll have to assess again.
        5kWh/3.8L of fuel for refining currently comes from crude oil burning and it is not always converted to electricity (e.g. heat for steam).

        @ drsmithy

        I’d reckon EVs are functionally a drop-in replacement today for at least half the passenger cars on the road (ie: the second+ vehicles that the majority of households have).

        Indeed.
        Dunno if 50% but perhaps.
        I would see the fossil fuel car as the second vehicle (for weekend and longer trops – usually family) and overnight charged EV for commute, one per needy person, as the main. But EV would have to be (a small car) under $20k new and guaranteed 2000 full recharge cycles.

      • As much as this is the case for office work commuters, apply this to tradies, sales folks, couriers, on site tech etc and the 500km is easiliy 1 day’s need for them.

        500km at an average speed of 40km/h is over twelve hours. Tradies, salesmen, even couriers, are not doing those sort of distances in cities.

        I was driving taxis – probably the highest distance driven use case – twenty years ago, in Brisbane, and even then 500km in a 12hr shift was a lot outside of very busy Friday and Saturday nights.

  2. This is just what I would expect from rich inner-city out-of-touch Greens.

    three years free registration on new zero-emissions vehicles.

    Yes. That will certainly benefit rich elites and hurt poorer people who cannot afford to buy a new car every three years.

    • correct, complete bllsht.
      I would love to know the average wage of a so-called green supporter, I’m estimating $50k pa

    • Nothing so serious as that, they will just raise the costs of owning one; aka a monthly cruiser, instead of a daily commuter.

      • Nothing wrong with that.
        If EV’s can do the daily commute and short country trips.

        Saw a Tesla X the other day… when the guy accelerated at the traffic light it looked as we all stopped suddenly. Would put shame on most V8’s from non-European provenance

  3. Oh no! What about private jets and oil burning ships/trains?

    Why not ban 457 visas and coal power stations instead?

    Be interesting to see if they allow the importation of a Lamborghini in exchange for planting a mini forest to more than offset the CO2.

  4. “So the sticker price will act as a deterrent to change like it did with long-life light bulbs.”

    I hope that cars provide a better real life outcome than “long life” bulbs.

    Those bulbs fail all the time. ALL. THE. TIME!

    I have taken to writing the installation date on the base in permanent marker. Lucky to get 2 years of occasional use out of CFL and LED. Brand name, no name, no effing difference! Complete fraud.

    • DarkMatterMEMBER

      This is completely wrong. I have installed dozens of LED lights and the failure rate is negligible. In my small study, I use a 4 watt LED bulb in a Lamp Shade. Because it is only 4 watts, I never turn it off 24/7. So far 3 years and still good. In other LED light maybe one replacement, and I usually just get the Coles $6 ones.

      The other thing here is that over the last few years LED lights have moved to a passive circuit that is just a bridge rectifier and a capacitor used as a reactive load. The LEDs are on a filament of silica in series – so the bulb actually looks like an old 20th century filament bulb. These LED can be extremely cheap and no active components to break.

      If you get failures you should look for spikes on your supply from a A/C or similar. The Reactive Load LED bulbs should be immune to that anyway.

      • I never turn it off 24/7. So far 3 years and still good.

        Zactly, mate, most of the stuff that does not get to be turned on/off has seismically larger life span.
        Diesel locomotives don’t stop even for oil change. Start turning your light on and off and see the change. CFL globes are most sensitive until running temperature warm (first 30 sec or so).

    • chadszinowMEMBER

      Have had the opposite experience. I’ve converted my house. I used to replace a bulb from a certain 4 bulb fixture at least 1 every 3 months. New LEDs haven’t died in 3 years on that fixture and no issues elsewhere in the house.
      I’m not discounting your experience, just saying mine has been completely positive.

      • I’ve had a bad experience with cheap LED floodlights from China, but my new Philips ones are good so far

  5. greenscum picking on poor ICE drivers like me while going off on their 5 vacations every year to places like peru, madagascar, sri lanka and estonia. no one is raping this planet harder than the frequent flyer set.

    • It’s coming regardless of politics. The economics of electric vehicles will overrun the ICE crowd. The rate of uptake is the only unknown. The Greens are on the right track with the setting of a date. The Australian marketplace is too small and too spread out to adopt successfully at its own pace. The geographical limits of this will be the interesting part. I use a 4WD for work and am often hundreds of kilometers away from a petrol station. There will be users like myself who won’t initially find a like for like replacement with electric vehicles. That doesn’t mean that accelerating the shift where it is possible shouldn’t occur. It just means that it has to be thoughtfully done.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        I think a ban is unnecessary and overall a bad idea.

        * the economics of EVs will become pretty compelling fairly soon, especially for vehicles that rarely, if ever, get used for trips longer than a couple of hundred km (ie: most of them)
        * 2030 is WAY too soon (average vehicle age is ten years and has been basically forever)
        * there’s still going to be plenty of use cases for ICEs (like the one you state)

        In probably 5-10 years, only a minority of ICE cars will be being sold, and probably for relatively specialised use cases (mostly offroad use I’d guess). 5-10 years after that, the only people still using ICE cars will be those same corner cases and driving enthusiasts who want to enjoy their V8s (and will likely be limited in that enjoyment by petrol prices with no need for laws).

      • drsmithy,

        A ban may not be best, but a shove in the right direction will definitely be helpful. We’ve a fairly shoddy record of adopting new technologies. Market forces, and scale of economy, only really work in a few cities, which lead to the regional areas missing out unless the government gets involved. It may end up being different with the EV and autonomous vehicle change, but I’d be surprised.

      • Smithy, you have revealed yourself several times over the years as a car enthusiast, and I suppose you have a very fancy ICE car, fairly new, which would have low resale value if this ban took effect.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Smithy, you have revealed yourself several times over the years as a car enthusiast, and I suppose you have a very fancy ICE car, fairly new, which would have low resale value if this ban took effect.

        Yes, I’m sure my 2008 Golf will suffer crushing depreciation if petrol cars are banned by 2030.
        Hopefully it’ll be cars only so my 2006 Aprilia Tuono isn’t so badly affected.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        A ban may not be best, but a shove in the right direction will definitely be helpful.

        It’s not a particularly helpful shove, though.

        I doubt most people drive a ten year old car (on average) because they WANT to. They do it because they can’t afford to replace it any sooner. The majority are dependent on the second hand car market and EVs aren’t going to be hitting that in any serious volume until the mid-2020s at best, and likely even longer before they are hitting the cheap end of the market since they’re starting from a much higher price point (as another posted noted, there are no $15-20k EVs coming anytime soon).

        2030 is an unreasonable timeframe without what I imagine would need to be fairly substantial subsidies (actual subsidies, not just tax exemptions).

        Like I said, I don’t think anyone will need “incentivising” to get an EV over an ICE, all else being equal. The problem is all else is not equal and won’t be for probably at least another five, probably closer to ten, years. From a personal perspective, we’re going to have to get a second vehicle soon (probably this year) and much as we’d like to get an EV, there’s just nothing suitable out there. When we _replace_ our Golf in another few years, however, it will likely be replaced by an EV because the market will have moved on quite a bit (possibly the first new car we ever buy).

      • possibly the first new car we ever buy

        And it’ll be worth it, because EVs outlast ICE cars by a country mile (which also makes their higher price more acceptable, imo).

        A gas car’s internal combustion engine (ICE) is much more prone to failure than an EV’s motor, and that’s not surprising considering ICEs have hundreds of moving parts. Induction motors, on the other hand, only have a handful of parts, making them much simpler and easier to repair. The vastly fewer parts in an EV motor make the vehicle more reliable, so the drivetrain has a much lower chance of failure.

        After the engine, the force generated then goes through the rest of the transmission, starting with the clutch. The clutch exists in gas cars and allows it to change gears, which are housed in the gear box. Gas cars have anywhere from 6-10 gears to control the different speeds that drivers need to go. The gear box is necessary because ICEs have a very small band of peak efficiency. The RPM needs to be kept within that band for the car to run most efficiently, so the gears constantly have to shift up and down. This creates extra friction and a higher moment of inertia, which means more energy is required to keep everything spinning. Overall, these make gas vehicles much less efficient than EVs.

        EVs, on the other hand, only have one driving gear (a step-down transmission) because an electric induction motor is efficient from 0 RPM all the way up to around 6,000 RPM (which a car will never need to go). The opposite of ICEs, induction motors generate the vast majority of their torque, which is needed for acceleration, at 0 RPM, and are most efficient at power generation at high RPM, which is needed for cruising. In a frictionless world, it would be helpful—but still not necessary—for an EV to have multiple gears, as fuller advantage could be taken of the motor’s peak efficiency. But for the foreseeable future, adding gears would only complicate a simple, reliable system.

        More:

        Electric cars ‘will be cheaper than conventional vehicles by 2022’

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        As I’ve pointed out before, in practical terms there’s little difference here. Any vaguely properly maintained ICE vehicle will last 15-20 years minimum.

        I don’t have any stats, but I’d be willing to bet most vehicles these days leave the road permanently due to accident or redundancy rather than because they stop working.

  6. What a bunch of wankers. New small petrol cars are very efficient and probably more environmentally friendly than electric cars due to batteries/coal power stations. Problem is everybody is buying a large suv or ute even though most don’t need it, they just want to feel bigger and better than everyone else. They should tax the sh!t out of these cars unless you can prove you need it for work.

    • yep, and having to share the road / park beside those 4wd monstrosities is a nightmare. focus on getting those ugly pseudo-vans off our roads and getting the average car size down.

      • Excellent observation.

        SUV FUV – Fakin Useless Vehicle.
        Neither a car, neither an off-road, neither a bus, neither a stationwagon…

    • Relevant StakeholderMEMBER

      Yep, if they were serious they would mandate strict speed limits(sorry), vehicle drag coefficients and weights.

    • @Dan122 “New small petrol cars are very efficient and probably more environmentally friendly than electric cars due to batteries/coal power stations. “

      No they are not – even if the petrol magically appears in the tank!

      It takes as much energy to refine petrol to drive 100km as is does to drive an EV 100km Once you actually burn the petrol you end up emmitting AT LEAST twice the carbon as an EV.

      • Don’t you think a good start would be to encourage people to buy small cars instead of big trucks rather than go straight to EV? Anyway it will never go ahead anyway we all know that fake green voters only pretend to care for the environment while driving an X5, merc or Rangie to drop the kids off at school. They would never vote for EVs, theyre only for ugly people!

      • But if you are using renewable energy you can use as much as you want. Most people don’t want a small car – they have families. And a big SUV EV will sill have a MUCH smaller CO2 footprint than the smallest ICE because of the energy required to refine petrol.

  7. Are these electric cars going to use the power generated from coal plants to provide the electrical charging? Unless it is charging from clean energy, it is all smoke and mirrors. What about the toxic lithium battery after 7 years, will that be efficiently recycled using clean energy?

      • Except that’s not actually happening is it? And as long as everyone continues pretending we can just magically upgrade the grid to replace coal while increasing its capacity to cope with the additional loading at no cost in either money, resources or environmental damage, nothing’s going to change, is it?

      • replace coal while increasing its capacity to cope with the additional loading at no cost in either money, resources or environmental damage

        That’s the problem, the environmental damage, and as such, the economic impact of coal use is not currently accounted for; aka the lack of carbon pricing defacto subsidizes coal.

        Current cost blow-outs and energy investment chaos are the direct result of government policy. Privatisation and monopolization of not only Australia’s resources, but also it’s utilities, has led to massive gouging and exploitation of Australian taxpayers. Remove the emotion and look at is from a data based perspective…for me, it is blatantly obvious where Australia’s future lies.

        https://youtu.be/LZXUR4z2P9w

      • Sorry Brenton, all your arguments apply just as much to the mining, manufacturing and transport that live behind every alternative energy source around, especially for the nuclear option (regardless of what the cornucopians at TED think, there is not a single nuclear reactor anywhere that exists without massive public subsidies).
        If, as smithy says below, it’s easy to change fuels for an electric car, why haven’t we already?
        The elephant in the room is the idea that we live in an age of limits – we can no longer afford to replace the infrastructure we have with new technologies, if indeed those technologies even exist. And if we do try to change that infrastructure, what is it we are going to stop doing in order to find the energy/resources to make the change?
        And even if you can find the resources, how do you get around the vested interests in the old regime, when the only real power that governments seem to have today is the power to block change?

      • I’ve already answered you, LeMon3. Your analysis only holds up so long as one clings to a Climate Change denial viewpoint. The moment carbon emitting sources of energy are priced according to their impact upon the global environment/economy, is the moment every single coal/oil/gas is a cheap source of energy collapses.

        Hate to break it to you, but fossil fuels share a similar public outlay, hence their ongoing (losing) battle to compete against renewables on the fringe.

        Lol at the TED talk jab about “cornucopia.” TED is just a forum for noted individuals to convey ideas; you could have a proponent of nuclear in one talk and a detractor in the next.

      • Sorry Brenton, I’m obviously not making myself clear. I’m in no way defending coal fired power, nor am I a climate change denier – I live on a farm and see the results of climate change every year…
        I’m just trying to highlight that the fossil fueled leccie generation infrastructure is already paid for, whereas the change over to renewables/hydro/fusion/unicornfarts is probably beyond the capability of our society to manage, simply because all the energy we currently produce is in use for something and to build something as expensive as a new electricity generation/distribution system (and remember, by replacing ICEs, you’re going to need to at least double, perhaps triple the size of the grid, or a massively distributed generation system), you’re going to have to decide to stop using energy for something else *before* you can make the transition.
        Whoever you take that energy away from ain’t going to be happy and will do everything they can to stop you.
        Is that clearer?

    • It’s hard to get an honest analysis of all electric cars, let alone autonomous, but we could have had a part in it with our car factories and keep some manufacturing here. Sonnen that will setup in Adelaide for off grid home batteries, just import and assemble. We have many of the minerals here for RE magnets for elec cars, and batteries, yet as always we can’t ever seem to do that add value as it needs science/engineering, and we build houses and dig up stuff for export.

      The Green are fake as they are not a sustainable environment concerned party, only a bunch of globalists that need you obey them.

      • @nyleta thanks for that. There are many like this at our Uni’s currently, but lab to production is not what we do. There was a great fuel cell that came out of the CSIRO a few years ago, it had a small Vic gov grant and test setup. but didn’t will favour, and was, as you note, off shored to Germany, and has won many awards in the EU/UK. It was based on burning gas, and via the cll generate electricity for homes. It like Atlassian that developed the software tools here, yet listed in the US. They will probably eventually go 100% off shore as they claim not to be able to hire here, or get the right visa for people to come here. Yet one of my professors tells me few of the comp sci grads can get jobs here. I don’t know all the ins/outs but it why I left to follow my career due to lack of opportunity here.

    • drsmithyMEMBER

      It’s a lot easier to change the fuel source of your EV to something non-polluting, than your ICE.

      Centralised coal generation is probably less polluting and more efficient than an ICE, per km travelled, as well.

      • Smithy, you speak with all the confidence of someone who has never attempted to live off grid.Go get yourself a nice set of panels, batteries and a wind generator or two, then come back to me and tell me how easy it is to change fuels.
        I’ve been off grid 5 years now. The compromises are ginormous and way beyond the average joe’s ability to adapt…

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        I’m a little lost as to what “living off grid” has to do with anything.

        The point is that an ICE, is forever an ICE. Its pollution levels cannot be improved.

        An EV could be powered by coal today, hydro next year, solar the year after, and fusion twenty years hence.

        With a centralised power grid a change of centralised power generation improves the efficiency of millions of EV vehicles. The same improvement with ICE vehicles requires replacing millions of them (and the co-operation of their owners).

        I didn’t say it was “easy”, I said it was “easier“.

        Finally, even today the energy generated from coal power is probably less polluting than the same amount of energy generated from a typical petrol or diesel car engine.

      • Smithy, off the grid is relevant, because it replaces the words “could be” in the phrase “could be powered by…hydro,…solar…fusion” with the word “is” and then smacks you upside the head with the realities of changing the power source.
        None of those technologies you reference will ever power the society we live in now, they just don’t have the concentrated power of all that stored sunlight in coal/oil etc (and particularly don’t hit me with the fusion thing, I went to Sydney Uni over 30 years ago to study physics, ‘cos Harry Messel had just built a tokomak there – fusion was ten years away then and 15 years away now…)
        The catch, of course is that we can’t power everything (anything) off coal either, without further destroying ourselves and the planet.
        What to do? Buggered if I know…

      • None of those technologies you reference will ever power the society we live in now,

        No, those technologies WILL HAVE TO power the society we live in. There is no choice. Only brain-dead deniers think otherwise.

      • Stable, you’re right, they will power our society eventually. But it will be a much smaller, less mobile society than today and the transition will not be fun…

      • DarkMatterMEMBER

        The requirement for huge energy consumption is just a bad habit. Go back to the mid 20th century and people lived with much less. Now we have vastly better TV, internet (not in AU obviously) and communications than they could dream of. Lighting is almost free.

        Why the hell do we keep using Big Consumer Cities (that burn energy out of spite) as the yardstick for what we need for civilisation. Nobody in the West has tried being frugal for at least 50 years. If we had to, who knows what could be achieved.

  8. “Simply imposing a ban date on new petrol cars may be the way to go.”

    Indeed!
    I suggest we set it to be the date when electric cars can fully replace existing technology. You know… when EV can get one from SYD or MEL to CAN becomes viable without major stress of a flat battery. A simple return Sydney – Dubbo trip with no more than 30m total stops would suffice for starters.

    three years free registration on new zero-emissions vehicles.

    This too!
    when EV car become confirmed zero-emission.
    Like disabling charging from public grid until the grid is zero-emission, OR, compulsory purchase of zero-emission electricity for charging overseen by the federal entity (to make sure green sales do not exceed green power production)… and upfront paid battery recycling/de-pollution cost and not to forget upfront paid battery production/de-pollution cost

    At best, this Greens proposal is not even visionary, let alone step forward. Just a misdirected parroting for tv and paper headlines.
    Sure CO2 emission standards are the way to go, taxing of the vehicles not by the price tag but by the CO2/km tag…
    The realistic approach would be to promote hybrid cars and promote electric part increase in hybrids until 100% EV can become viable.

    Transport makes up 27% of global emissions
    And that includes cars only?
    Car emission is rising globally and it should be addressed but we ought to be realistic what level of pollution decrease targeting to the cars is based on merit and not on political desires or desired article headers

    • You know… when EV can get one from SYD or MEL to CAN becomes viable without major stress of a flat battery.

      Why make this outlier case the sine qua non of change? Illogical

      • sine qua non
        You just read this word someplace and rushed to use it, right?
        It is not an outlier but rather a key factor.

        Not everyone’s interest in car is to commute.
        When EV car can make it on a Friday pm before the long weekend or year break holidays down the Sydney southern coast going to the say Bateman’s Bay or similar… with 10’s of thousand other cars down the same road AND tow a trailer behind one may consider EV cars being reliant and of practical use.
        When such moment in tech advance arrives, you can tax new fossil fuel cars as much as you like.

      • You just read this word someplace and rushed to use it, right?

        Frack off, you total moron. Not everyone is an uneducated ass like you.

        Your posts are barely legible, your grammar execrable and your thoughts a jumbled mess. Go away and die.

      • Lovely dictionary mate, one can see your education from a mile. I can see it in your avatar too. Resemblance is stunning.

        So that’s what bothers you the most, the observation on pseudo philosophy rather than anything else in my commnet?

  9. Almost nobody makes a decision on a car on economic common sense. Image, status, cool, dreams etc are the go. Marketing owns the space here. If electric cars become the thing, then they’re on… personally i can’t wait to get one for city commuting and short trips etc. price isn’t going to be a big driver of this decision.

    (Also if it does come to pass, the smog smog/energy production for transport will be pushed to the provinces, that’s going to make the inner city even better/more expensive?)

  10. 2030 is way too soon. There isn’t an EV on the market right now that can compete on price with entry level vehicle models ($15k-$30k). If we expect it to take another 5 years to get the price down, the volume issues will send it straight back up.

    Don’t ban, subsidize.

  11. If most end up charging their cars using coal or gas we are really not winning here. Then we have problems like minerals for electric cars becoming scarce now:

    https://mashable.com/2018/03/11/apple-iphone-cobalt-batteries-electric-vehicles/#KSVq63v.Riqo

    Why not tax cars more based on fuel consumption and weight etc. and encourage better urban design so cars are not required. Petrol cars are not all evil, electric has big problems too and the energy has to come from somewhere.

  12. Did horses need to be banned? Or did people migrate to the superior option for their needs over time.

    Even Elon Musk says the the transition to EV will take time simply because the capacity to turn over the entire ICE fleet to EV would put a large strain on the system.

    • Horses were banned, yes. Mainly because they pooped in the street.

      “Many cities banned horses, because of manure and dead animals left in the road. (The stench alone was awful). In the countryside, they dominated until about 1939 when the Depression ended. (Exception: the Amish, who still drive them in small numbers today).”

    • +1000

      This all part of the: “Change couldn’t possibly come about without the Govt driving it” nonsense. Economics drives change. Every time.

      The Greens are hell-bent on claiming credit for (and frantically trying to front-run) an event that’s already taking place without their retarded intervention. All part of the ‘race to be relevant’. Lmfao.