New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES) explained, aka "ute tax" emissions scheme

[@L2SFBC]

Comments, Clarifications 1. Climate change is real. And we need to take care of the environment. Not going to discuss that here, plenty of others have done it already. 2. The actual legislation is different from the consultation paper, for example super credits are gone, trading has changed, definitions of vehicles have changed etc. 3. EVs are fantastic for many use cases and as times goes by, increasingly more. However, they are not yet ready to replace diesel 4x4s for long-range work and then we have the problem of charging at peak times eg holidays. Solid-state batteries will help. Other than that, the EV 4x4 is equal to or superior compared to a diesel, provided the software controlling the drivetrain is up to the mark. 4. Hybrids help meet emissions and again work well for roadcars. But if we look at long-range 4x4 there's a problem; a big battery eats into payload, pushing larger vehicles beyond 3500kg which is an international limit for passenger cars, and you lose space which is why many PHEVs don't have a spare. The bigger the battery, the better the economy, but the greater the weight, cost and loss of room. 5. Yes, it is a fleet average, I did explain that. That works well for say Hyundai but not for Ram or INEOS who have no low-emissions vehicles to counter their high-emissions. INEOS have the Fusilier on the way which may help, but people need to buy it. 6. Right now there are 4x4 EV use cases; essentially, anything short-range an EV could do the job and do it well. But you only need to look at the popularity of long-range tanks to see the issue. EVs cannot take long-range tanks, Cybertruck has an extra battery but it takes up a lot of storage space and weight. 7. It is possible to trade credits, so for example Ram could buy credits from Tesla. You would imagine this would be at less than the penalty rate of $100 per gram. Personally, I can't wait to replace my diesel Ranger with an EV, but I can't at the moment as there isn't one available and current tech won't do the job. I am seriously considering hybrid Ranger for 2025. Links etc: Support blog post - l2sfbc.com/nves

[@BrianRaynor]

Regarding Credit Trading, a press release from Chris Bowen dated 17th May states “The 2024-25 Budget includes provision of $84.5 million over five years to help establish the scheme, a regulator and facilitate credit trading between manufacturers"

[@johntinsley7563]

That number 1 comment has just lost you a viewer.

[@froggy0162]

Thanks for the clarification. Inios is going to be hit, but remember it’s the same in every other country it sells in - we might have been it a bit cheaper perhaps but we won’t be over paying for it as such. And it’s a pretty specialised vehicle, no one is going to be daily driving a Grendier! RAM “trucks” should frankly be banned… Obscene kiddie crushing piles of shite. But on economics alone they are so absurdly expensive anyway I don’t see the cost of some credits denting their demand.

[@nigelliam153]

If you look at historical climate you only have to go back around five thousand years when co2 was almost half of today’s value and temperature was around 3 degrees warmer than present. Ref NOAA - USA HadCRUT4 - UK The co2 myth is all politically driven to tax people.

[@apemaster6976]

@@johntinsley7563you’re actually braindead

[@aslkdfjhg]

The constant gas lighting in their claims is pretty ironic not gonna lie.

[@impactballoons4895]

There is a fourth option. Dump the government and dump the tax.

[@rossevans1774]

I'm not so sure the other mob would do anything different.

[@froggy0162]

This policy was proposed by the LNP years ago. The FCAI lobbied against it and they caved.

[@Unkownktm]

Everyone should just stop paying their taxes and rates etc, be hard for the government to lock up 20 mil people. Power of the people can be persuasive

[@paulbarry1044]

Fifth option for the Govt,try to reduce the number of vehicles on the road.That would also reduce traffic congestion.Instead of just putting a tax onto some vehicles.

[@impactballoons4895]

@@paulbarry1044 they will simply add taxes to achieve that aim too

[@Solo6amers]

Oh thanks Robert for the detailed explanation of NVES.

[@L2SFBC]

Very welcome

[@kevinkitchen3351]

Thank you Robert fir such an informative video. Keep in mind that a shorthaul flight emits approximately 500kg C02/person onboard. If a flight is not full, then the emission per person can easily double or triple. If the government was truly serious, it would be addressing all emitters. As a group of 4WDers, caravaners, and boaties, it is high time we ban together and start directly telling our local politicians our position and find out their position. Currently, Labour seems to be scared of the Greens & Teals and not thinking of us. If we look at the 'life-cycle' of an EV v our current cars, that is from the time resources are mined, manufacture with all its C02 & other chemicals & electricity, right through to decommissioning and recycling, I feel that EVs will not stack up environmentally. The mining of EV minerals is a very dirty affair, and so is air travel. I have already given my State & Federal sitting members a rev-up about this new 4WD tax and it's lack of equality over emiiters. Basically, I can buy my expensive EV, charge it overnight on fossil-fue electrcity, then fly off for a 20 hour flight generating an immense C02 emission but its world ending to drive a 4WD on a 2 hour trip. I'll be voting for the party that brings equity to the whole emission scheme. How many jobs in the camping, caravanning, boating and 4WD industry will be lost forever. Currently, there are no suitable EV replacements. EV 4WD companies like Rivian are going under. In Australia, we need reliable 4WDs as your and your family's life may depend on the reliability and range of your vehicle. It's time to stand up and not wait until it's too late. My humble comments.

[@L2SFBC]

I agree and in fact have a video on that exact topic showing two families, one drives a Prius and flies overseas, and the other drives a 4X4.

[@jerryfrench2981]

I recently bought an LC300 as I was thinking that I've just turned 60 & this will probably be the last plus 150K car I will be buying with retirement approaching. Having watched the video I'm feeling pretty good about the purchase. The vehicle should last me out. I also have a three year old Ranger ute for work which I will replace this year or next to avoid price rises. I have a RR sport that I kept as the trade in price offered was so low it didn't make sense to part exchange it on the cruiser. I'll just keep that until it becomes economically unviable. Great video - Thanks.

[@666dualsport]

The 300 series engine has major issues, it wont see you out

[@JerryFrench-v2z]

@@666dualsport 7 year warranty. I think Toyota are confident that the engine will go OK.

[@jerryfrench2981]

Thanks!

[@L2SFBC]

Much appreciated Jerry!

[@Bigcountry_littlelegs]

Glad we got a new jimny this year, and will be keeping my old ln106 hiluxs

[@cyclemoto8744]

Very well explained and as usual you avoided me doing any research other than watching your video. Thank you Robert. Cheers

[@L2SFBC]

Glad to help

[@iainhetherington4608]

This government is slowly destroying Australia ,depression around the corner.

[@tez69m]

I beg to differ. Large 4x4s are negatively affecting our communities. What for? To please young mens egos and validate their masculinity.

[@stabsfeldwebela4178]

@@tez69m seriously need to lay off the fear porn brother

[@andrefischer5025]

The lesson is - keep up the maintenance on your 4wd and make sure it lasts another 10,20…30 years. I also would bet that petrol & diesel fuel will go up in price progressively either as a consequence or forced by additional tax.

[@L2SFBC]

One way to achieve cleaner cars would be to tax petrol and diesel. However, that affects discretionary mileage as well as business mileage. I would prefer to see incentives to buy EVs, some of which we have now and have had, such as no LCT, lower tolls, parking, road tax etc - for the moment to spur demand, but at some point we'll need a mileage tax for EVs.

[@ChrisRyan_Oz]

@@L2SFBC Although I'm an advocate for EVs, I'd prefer not to see incentives to buy EVs directly. I'd prefer funds put into the charging infrastructure instead - expanding it, enforcing minimum uptime standards, common, simple payment platform, etc. The other thing that could be done is winding back the billions in fossil fuel subsidies paid each year to force the true costs to emerge. And as that's done, push money into those industries that could do assistance with improved EVs (e.g. agriculture vehicles, trucks, etc). After all, the government is trying to push doing more things in Australia - here's some opportunities. I agree we'll eventually need some form of mileage/usage tax for EVs. Perhaps when it comes in it should just apply across all vehicles no matter the type. A problem with this is that those in the regions are disproportionately affected by mileage based tax due to the distances involved. LCT removal for EVs is too limited. I'd be removing it completely for all BEVs no matter the price.

[@PazLeBon]

@@L2SFBC should ban ev til the cheap clean energy is available

[@Βόρειο_Σέλας]

@@L2SFBC Unfortunately EVs are not the answer to the problem, I have been in the EV charger business for a while and EVs are just line the iphones, disposable in simple terms.

[@einfelder8262]

@@L2SFBC Taxing petrol and diesel is guaranteed to slam inflation up - especially diesel. Every single item Aussies need to buy is directly affected by the price of diesel. New Zealand has just got sensible by introducing realistic mileage tax for EVs and hybrids - the Kiwi evangelists/early adopters are shedding tears of blood and screaming blue murder.

[@larryfine4719]

So we have an import duty (even though we don't produce cars any more), 10% GST, 33% luxury tax on over $76k (ICE vehicles) and now we get slugged with yet another tax. How much tax can you add onto a car?

[@archiekabooom2928]

And it won’t stop it keep on going until we vote these bastards out .

[@coopsnz1]

truck carbon tax 10% adding to transport cost too

[@timfreeman2603]

Thanks for the analysis, you saved me a bunch of reading. I’ve had 3x V8 LC’s and am currently driving a Tesla. By no means like for like but they are capable for sealed roads and average mileage 20,000km pa not in a capital city. I’ve only towed a box trailer 750kg since selling my camper. I don’t miss paying $250/tank every other week.

[@L2SFBC]

I can't wait to stop paying either!

[@chrisjohnson5776]

hardly a surprise. AU has always been a decade behind in engine standards, earning us a dumping ground for old tech since lagging the intro of ULP.

[@richardweerasinghe3296]

Thanks for making the video. We had a similar system over in NZ. It was too successful. Too many people moved to EVs. A new gov has come in and reversed the scheme. Key takeaways. 1. It will work to move people to EVs. 2. if not done right, it will be faster than anticipated and cause knock-on issues to infrastructure. 3. Without these incentives, manufacturers use these markets to offload their oldest, most polluting vehicles. So one positive is manufacturers will bring their best products to market.

[@L2SFBC]

I support NVES but it has to be proportional to the tech availability.

[@Brenttheaviator]

New Zealand had two schemes. The Clean Car Standard, which is basically the same as the NEVS scheme (but tougher targets), and is still in place, and the Clean Car Discount, in which people buying high emissions vehicles paid a fee, while people buying very low emission vehicles were paid a rebate. That was far more successful than anyone anticipated, proving that availability of low emission vehicles is not a problem. I'm not aware of any significant downsides to this scheme, and think it's absolutely crazy that it was scrapped. Average tailpipe emissions dropped to 93g/km across all vehicle classes in December 2023, just before it was scrapped. Now they're back up to 160g/km (150 for passenger cars), which will cost the country billions in additional fuel costs as well as carbon liabilities, despite the Clean Car Standard still being in place. The New Zealand CCS is significantly tougher than the NVES.

[@triphunter7641]

This is going to have a fundamental impact on the caravan industry, country tourism and the 4WD industry. Scares the hell out of me thinking what will be left.

[@rossevans1774]

The gradual reduction/end of fossil fueled recreational activities is going to have a greater effect on every person and all businesses than most will believe.

[@coopsnz1]

what about trucks that transport new cars & building materials

[@davidcox8943]

Well explained over view of what is to come. We drive a 1500 Ram towing our 4t van full time. For me updating our vehicle in the future may mean going to a 3500 that is classified as a truck or reverting back to the previous generation and repairing and rebuilding our vehicle rather than replacing. This ridiculous push to EVs will backfire on the government. We are seeing charging stations being place throughout remote Australia powered by diesel generators. This is insane.

[@L2SFBC]

Diesel powered EV stations make sense.

[@froggy0162]

You are an extreme edge case that’s not affected by this policy. Diesel powered chargers are still more efficient than using the diesel in a diesel car ;) And it’s not as if it’s the norm…

[@michaeldallimore8590]

Great explanation, many thanks for the video.

[@jebw]

Thankyou for a balanced presentation of the current situation. EVs are given a very non-critical card in most of the current spin. For instance I was having a discussion with friends where an EV owner said their home power charging tariff was $0.08/KWh. While a charging station close by was $0.60/KWh. For people unable to access off street parking, the charging station could be as expensive as fossil fuel for a vehicle already significantly more expensive than a conventianal ICE vehicle.

[@L2SFBC]

Yes, it could be, and that's another example of EVs not fitting everyone's use case. Apartment dwellers do find it hard to charge EVs. We need to fix that, the technology is there. I think that's better done by incenting EVs not penalising non-EVs.

[@PazLeBon]

@@L2SFBC ev is just a stop gap and a very long term costly one until we actually have cleean energy. right now we dont so ev's arent even renewabale anyway

[@apemaster6976]

As someone in this exact situation, my charging at home is free and charging at a station is about 60c/kwh. You are categorically wrong. I took my Tesla from Brisbane to Mackay, 12hr drive 1hr of which was charging. The best road trip I have taken in my life. And it cost me 50$, charging the most expensive way. In the past 7 months I’ve had the car I’ve done 30k km and it’s cost me a total of 100$ (that one road trip). Even at 60c/kwh (the most expensive possible way to charge), my car costs 36$ to charge 100% (500km). Still cheaper than a 2024 Camry petrol which does 6.8l/100km, at its cheapest possible petrol is 1.7$ meaning to do 500km $57.8 meaning my car costs almost half with the benefit of no maintenance and my car cost about 10k more than a Camry. A byd with similar range costs about 40k. Taking it to Townsville next month, and mount isa at the end of the year.

[@KevinHeadlam-Tasmania]

You have certainly started a very worthwhile discussion on this highly political topic and especially as it affects the Australians that live in regional areas. There is nothing in this proposal that accommodates hybrid technology or using alternative fuels (methane, ammonia, fuel cells, synthetic fuel) or really new alternative combustion engine technology. A concept like this proposal deserves a far wider community discussion about the nationwide transportation needs and requirements of an aging population across this vast and diverse country

[@L2SFBC]

Hydrogen would meet the targets as it is a ZEV (Zero Emissions Vehicle), albeit again at the tailpipe. Without wishing to drag up the whole hydrogen-electric debate, again there will be use cases where hydrogen is the best. And yes there is synthetic fuels. As I said in the video, I feel this is a pro-EV push not a low-emissions push.

[@PazLeBon]

@@L2SFBC very true, its outrageous to think that me, with my old car doing low annual miles will have more impact that ;any; new car. im also too old to re invest and should not be punished for this situation

[@rossevans1774]

None of the alternative fuels you mention satisfy the requirements of road users. Better to get any or all of the alternative fuels 'working' before penalising road users (the public), we have no alternative but to use fossil fuels.

[@PazLeBon]

@@rossevans1774 we do have them, just more expensive. i run bio on my mx5. way more bio oprion over here than uk tho

[@rossevans1774]

@@PazLeBon There are plenty of alternatives but none of them are up and running. Not all of us can afford a mx5 running on biofuel, it's just not a viable option for the public now. Till now electric vehicles(battery) are a failure. I've got friend that just paid $7000 for a new battery in his Hybrid with less than 80,000 km. And if you buy a battery only vehicle, where do you charge the thing? As you said they all cost more to buy and how far can you drive them, can they tow the boat or van? All these battery cars have their limitations. It is only when there is an electric vehicle that is affordable, practical, reliable and recharging is as simple as filling with petrol can we do away with the cars we have. Until then none of us should be penalised for buying fossil fueled cars.

[@GrenadierMichael]

Very clearly explained, Robert. There’s a whole other area that we should be considering, of course - namely the amount of emissions and other pollutants involved in the production of EVs.

[@L2SFBC]

Yes. NVES ignores lifecycle costs.

[@ChrisRyan_Oz]

@@L2SFBC Agreed, if it did it would penalise ICE even further. Both of you do realise that EVs may initially cost more to produce than ICE (the gap is closing), but within as a short period of time they produce less pollutants and emissions than ICE? Usually the follow up to this is that EVs draw their power from the grid and imply that it's dirty coal for that. Again, while that's true, the emission costs for the EV are less AND the grid is getting cleaner AND a number of EV owners charge their vehicle via renewables already (e.g. solar). While ICE vehicle can't avoid to continue polluting for its whole life and every km it does.

[@Rabs73]

30000km is the average payback period for an EV (for the battery) if you do at least some charging during the day when renewables supply a lot of the grid. Even less if you have solar. Modern batteries are lasting up to 600000km and they can be used as storage or recycled. No oil changes, very little brake wear etc. I own a petrol 4WD and an EV and the amount of misinformation is incredible. Both are excellent for what I use them for but the EV will produce over 100 tonnes less CO2 over its lifetime

[@jebw]

Tire wear for heavier EVs is higher. Road degradation is higher for heavier vehicles. Trucks pay more road usage charges based on weight.

[@ChrisRyan_Oz]

@@jebw some form of weight factor into the eventual EV usage charge would be a great idea. It would be a mechanism to help drive smaller or lighter vehicles and higher energy density batteries.

[@hoyks1]

Out here in the provinces, we generally buy the heavier vehicles because they last. The roads are crap and the wildlife is bigger, so the extra suspension travel soaks up the bumps and because there is more mass to them they can be built heavier so as no to shake themselves to bits. They are also able to be serviced, rather than disposable. We have full solar at our place with a house battery, as well as an EV. Taking it to work as a daily isn't practical as there is no where to charge it there and 550km weekly commute will run it flat. So I'd need to leave it at home for a sunny day to get 1/2 a charge and leave it on all weekend (fingers crossed for it to be sunny) to hopefully get it fully charged, or buy 2 EV cars and just drive them on alternate days. More often than not it also runs the house battery down trying to fill the car battery and we run out of power in the early evening. Green utopia is a way off yet...

[@L2SFBC]

That's the sort of use case that just won't work at the moment...but will in future. Great comment, thanks!

[@jeanmorreau5028]

I'm facing the same thing. Solar, battery, EV, but can walk to work, so don't need to use the car every day. I have a TOU tariff (amber) so can charge the car from the grid at cheap rates if I need to. Why don't you give that a go?

[@greatnorthernrailwaytother4711]

Thanks Robert for a well explained video. Keep up the good. Cheers Peter.

[@L2SFBC]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@andyg9991]

I have been arguing since this was announced that there is not a single ICE vehicle for sale anywhere in the world, including hybrids, that can meet the NVES targets, so it is a policy to force people into either keeping their older, less efficient vehicles, or force them into EV's. So much for cheaper cars. Another great video Robert As you say, there is nothing wrong with heading towards lower emissions vehicles, but for Australia, hybrids are the answer, not BEV's

[@L2SFBC]

Agreed!

[@andrefischer5025]

How hard would it be to convert a diesel to hydrogen?

[@andyg9991]

@@andrefischer5025 Would not be feasible, although hydrogen injected diesels do exist and they are great as fuel economy is increased and emissions are decreased.

[@froggy0162]

Once again, it’s a fleet average - it’s not applied to individual models!! Also, Australia is one the most urbanised countries in the world, it’s a complete fantasy that most people need big ranges.

[@andrefischer5025]

@@froggy0162 it’s not about “most people”, it’s a about those people who do need long ranges or heavy duty work vehicle not being offered any viable alternatives and the missing infrastructure outside of the urban centres. Not even going there how dirty the electricity is that used to charge the EVs. Where I live 99% comes from a gas plant….. I am all for reducing the environmental impact, personally I was hoping green hydrogen has a chance as to me EVs once you take battery production & disposal plus electricity generation into account seem to lose a big portion of their environmentally friendliness.

[@jasonwishart6800]

New hybrid and more efficient models are available overseas but the rapid ramp up means there’s little point importing them as they’ll only have a couple of years before being crippled by price. This will cause users to choose more carefully and maybe reverse the trend to larger suv and dual cab utes for mall crawling. A return to traditional sedans and wagons, that are lighter and more fit for purpose for on road use? Personally I will be keeping my Prado and STi for as long as I can!

[@AllInVehicleInspections]

Good report there sir, it's amazing how this is also a tax on the poorest Australians. Looking at the UK market, the Euro 6 vehicles are more expensive, they offer less choice, AND the fuel efficiency is worse on a Euro 6. But if you have money for a sports car who cares about adding 0.1%, but the goal is obviously to force people into ev by making the ice equivelant more expensive. So you won't save money on fuel unless you buy an expensive ev, there will be less incentive for ev manufacturers to reduce price to compete, and everyone will pay more for trades, services and food as they bump up the cost of everything by taxing work vehicles. It's a tax and a ban without admitting before an election they are taxing and banning cars.

[@larryjenkinson5525]

🇦🇺 Whilst not a fan of the SUV society, I also believe the carrot is more effective than the stick. With this country's lack of infrastructure and vast distances, how are EVs going to be practical for Country Australians? Do they just plug it into the back of a cow.....? Surely all the Coalition opposition has to do is promise to recind the law and no more Labor/Greens in Government.

[@HardstylePete]

If they dropped how small businesses can tax deduct against their utes, that would make dual cab utes far less tax efficient.

[@alanmacaulay6496]

I have the ford ranger v6. What this now means I won’t be selling say in 5 years but will be keeping the Ute a lot longer due to the cost of replacing. This defeats the act.

[@AnarchistBogan]

Havana effect will start happening in Australia (older cars on the road for longer)

[@davidroberts5199]

Good presentation. Question - How do PHEVs fit into this scheme? I’ve got a new Outlander PHEV. It’s obviously not a proper 4x4 but there are options coming that can provide enough daily EV driving range for most people, massively reducing emissions, but allow equal performance and petrol range for touring and off-road use. If the test is based on lab results over 100km or less then the cars will rate well. Mine has a figure of 1.3 l/100. It achieved that too over 10,000km including a couple of BNE-SYD trips.

[@L2SFBC]

Good question, will cover that soon, many are asking. Essentially they help but don't solve.

[@Bigcountry_littlelegs]

Well done with video well explained

[@L2SFBC]

Thank you!

[@defenderoff-road]

Hi Robert, Loved the Video and your explanation regarding the governments new taxes for 4X4 now that you have done that could you also do a comparison of the cost and pollution for the EV extra power station emissions, the pollution form Lithium batteries etc etc and then way up the pros and cons with NVES that would be the true comparison I believe.

[@L2SFBC]

hi - many others have done that, no need for me to replicate their work. Every time it's been done the result is the EV is worse initially, then over time the ICE vehicle catches up and ends up with greater lifecycle emissions. The only difference is where that crossover point occurs; that's dependent on mileage, size of battery, how the battery is charged etc etc.

[@HardstylePete]

it's an interesting way to achieve the goal. I think it's due to the reality there is no viable alternatives, if the prices of fuel went up, it would reduce demand but not by as much as people think. I can foresee diesel hatches and other fuel efficient small cars holding their value very well.

[@L2SFBC]

I'm not sure about small cars holding their value. Once EVs become cheap enough, you'll buy one to save fuel. But not yet. I just did the sums and for a local runabout I'm better off driving my Ranger than buying an EV as another car. But if I could get a viable EV for $5000...that equation would change, particuarly if I got incentives such as reduced rego. I think many people would love to have low cost local motoring.

[@joemcauliffe8792]

I live rural and am off grid with no chance of connecting to one. I tow a lot and long distances. How does a ev fit into this scenario? Sounds like I’ll be forced into buying an older less efficient vehicle at an increased price. Very unimpressed with the government’s model on this. But it seems like I also have zero chance of doing anything about it, unless of course I move to the city, give up towing and everything else I love about life in Australia.

[@L2SFBC]

Depends on how long those distances are and what you tow. Maybe a EV of today could suit you. Maybe not. Into the future, EVs will increasingly be able to do this sort of job.

[@marsterofnotrades]

I think we should be getting rid of the government and replacing it with one that will get rid of this stupidly until there are vehicles that are fit for purpose. A runner round town car no problem, an suv to take the kids to school no problem. a commercial for business or vehicle for remote area at the moment dose not exist.

[@PazLeBon]

@@marsterofnotrades ban suvs with single occupants

[@jamesj4150]

Very informative.

[@L2SFBC]

Glad it was helpful!

[@SteveBurns80]

NVES is just a bloody carbon tax! Lol And like you say, there's no suitable EV alternatives for the 4x4's and utes. And better battery tech is a very long way off. I liked how you mentioned that light vehicals only contributed to 10% of the total co2 emissions, this is also true globally, and this really shows how insane the NVES actually is, it will be like pissing in the wind. If we were really serious about reducing our co2, in a more timely maner, we would be focusings on the bigger picture, our reliance on coal, gas, deforestation, ect.

[@L2SFBC]

Well, every bit helps when you're trying to achieve a goal, be that reduce emissions, lose weight, or shave thousandths off a laptime. I do support an emissions standard. Just not unrealistic ones.

[@PazLeBon]

@@L2SFBC unless supplying your owm electricity you are at the mercy of power companies who can raise prices at will. that isnt a good direction of travel :/

[@ChrisRyan_Oz]

@@PazLeBon And you're not at the mercy of OPEC, et al for fossil fuel prices? At least it's somewhat feasible to supply your own electricity for your EV.

[@PazLeBon]

@@ChrisRyan_Oz not really , clean fuels are now only 5 euros per litre. i can actually use that personally.. or of course if i drove high miles id have solar not be on a planet destoying grid and at that mercy at all :)

[@jeanmorreau5028]

Yes it is a carbon tax and we should welcome that. Not many people know how much energy is wasted in the whole "well to wheel" story. We are grossly inefficient, and in nature that just doesn't work for long. My 2019 Tesla holds the electrical energy equivalent of 5 litres of diesel, and goes 340 km in ideal conditions. And that is nowhere near as efficient as me on a bicycle. That same "energy" would get me 4000 km! It's time we lost our complacency!

[@rich7447]

The easiest solution is to start buying vehicles with a GVM over 4.5t. My daily driver has a GVM of 6,350KG/14,000lbs and it really doesn't have much of a downside.

[@JohnDorward-os4jk]

I am extremely disappointed with this policy to the extent that it will be a game changer for me come election time. I simply cannot accept that EVs are a good long term solution. Clearly there are many obvious (such as charging and the source of the power) issues as well as less obvious issues such as cost of production, access to raw materials and disposal of waste. And I guess there is much more. Thanks again for another brilliant explanation.

[@rustykilt]

Its really about pricing motoring out of reach of most Australians. Everyone knows EV'S do not have the infrastructure to support the forced Government phasing out of ICE vehicles. For most Australians, EV'S are totally impractical. I have no argument for those where EV'S are a benefit.

[@franciscoshi1968]

Here is a good example of a possible solution to the towing problem. I have (access to) an electric van with 250km range. It works fine for what I use it. I want to use the van to go to a motorcycle race that is in a rural area and I need to tow a trailer. I also have an Ebike and need a way to charge it while I am there and the last thing I want is to have to buy a generator and petrol just for charging the bike two or three times a year. So here is my solution, I have put a battery (from a Tesla) in the trailer, connected it to a 20kW hybrid inverter which I can use for charging the bike, someone else in the team will take 6kW of solar panels to use a shelter and generate electricity. I can also use the battery in the trailer to extend the range of the van to 400km. Having batteries on trailers solves the range problem, you don't need to carry an oversized battery when it is not needed and it also allows faster charging (two chargers instead of one) and you can also put a generator on the trailer instead of a battery. There are lots of solutions. All that is needed is the incentive to make it happen.

[@L2SFBC]

Batteries on trailers don't solve the range problem; they put the range back to what it was before towing, and then you have two batteries to charge when you stop. The real solution is solid-state batteries.

[@franciscoshi1968]

@@L2SFBC there are batteries that have double the energy density of current lithium batteries. I got specs on some. The problem is they are still too expensive. I don't think we need to wait for solid state batteries.

[@jeanmorreau5028]

I think that is exactly the right way to go. Good on you. Can you use the trailer battery as home storage as well? That's what I would want. It seems there is lots of potential in this space for hub motors/e-axles to assist in traction and regeneration. There are a few companies developing this.

[@franciscoshi1968]

@@jeanmorreau5028 yes. I can use the battery on the trailer for storage. When I am not using the trailer it will be connected to the building mains and act as energy storage. The same inverter can also be used.

[@franciscoshi1968]

@@jeanmorreau5028 the problem with the trailer having drive is compliance with regulation. It would work much better than just having brakes because it would regen into the battery. Also it would be able to provide stability control and avoid trailer sway. If it was a dog trailer it could also be towed by a much smaller vehicle. I would expect a little hatch back could tow a 3T caravan.

[@BrianRaynor]

Another very detailed analysis, thanks Robert. Unfortunately a glaring flaw undermines the whole thing, and given your usual attention to detail it is hard to believe you're not aware of it. Perhaps handling it correctly would have undermined the conclusion you wanted to reach? At 6:43 you discuss the calculations over a fleet, but then later in the video seem to forget this even exists and do all of the calculations on a per-car basis. That's not how the NVES works. The examples shown at 10:16 would only apply if EVERY SINGLE CAR in the manufacturers fleet exceeded the threshholds, AND the manufacturer was unable to do a deal with another manufacturer regarding offsets. The Winners you identify at 11:32 would be able to sell offsets to other manufacturers at a price somewhat below the charges imposed by the NVES, providing an income to the winners and reducing the total costs for the losers. Doing all of the calculations for 2026 and 2029 on a per-car basis and implying that individual car prices could rise by the akmounts shown without acknowledging the fleet level calculations and the trading of offsets is misleading to the point of misinformation.

[@L2SFBC]

Sale of credits and debits was in the consultation paper but is not mentioned in the final legislation. Super Credits are also removed. The targets changed. Take a look at the legislation as passed not as proposed. Also even if they could buy and sell credits that would still force up non EV prices.

[@mancaveproductions00]

Australians need to wake up and join together to stop this madness happening..this is ridiculous our choices have been taken away..WAKE UP PEOPLE..

[@HardstylePete]

"The emissions number for a vehicle for a year is the number of grams of carbon dioxide emissions that are entered on the RAV (in grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre) in relation to the vehicle at11 the start of the interim reconciliation day for the year." Do you know where I can find the testing standards or legislation to covers this requirement?

[@L2SFBC]

I used the Green Vehicle Guide

[@HardstylePete]

@@L2SFBC Thanks. That helped. I was also thinking about the methodology used to determine these CO2 tailpipe emissions. For example the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV has very favourable results even if in real world long distance driving its getting around 5L per 100kms. I predict that car manufactures will work much harder to optimize for this testing, even if real world figures don't reduce as greatly.

[@triphunter7641]

@@HardstylePetethere’s a few engineers over at VW who could help out I’m sure😂

[@pauldavies4650]

I dont think America has the upper weight weighting in their calculator. I may be wrong, but I have heard this in a discussion of the American system, along with the chicken tax, which is why all their vehicles are getting/got bigger. Larger engine in larger vehicle, emissions compliant

[@doscwolny2221]

I knew we couldnt have an original idea here in Aus. Vehicles need to be made for purpose, ie more robust vehicles for regional australia and tradies. The suspensions on most modern cars die on regional roads and uses. Ergo, more cars will die and more enviromental damage as a result.

[@Christoph1888]

Is there a penalty for charging with coal fired power? I thought charging with mains power, which is 70% coal, had comparable emissions to ice vehicles with the current makeup of the grid.

[@L2SFBC]

No there is not. But, don't be thinking that charging an EV from coal is necessarily terrible...it's quite energy-efficient.

[@Christoph1888]

@@L2SFBC I know EVs are much more efficient. But I thought when you compared average kwh, say 20kwh per 100km in a medium SUV vs the equivalent in a petrol, that the grams of CO2 put into the atmosphere was similar. I've seen a few KZbinrs compare EVs vs hybrids vs petrol then comparing it to where the electricity came from say gas vs coal vs renewable, but could be mistaken

[@roflchopter11]

​@@L2SFBCIt's energy efficient, but coal is a much more carbon-intensive fuel than gasoline. Your CO2 per mile is likely higher than that of a modern-ish gasoline or diesel engine.

[@Christoph1888]

​@@roflchopter11that's what I thought.

[@CM303898]

Just noticed as I’m rewatching this, but 4,000 cars at +10 is +40,000.

[@davescott5506]

This really upsets me. I worked hard all my life to one day buy a brand new petrol v8 Holden. I will be hanging onto my old cars petrols and diesels as long as I can

[@Bigcountry_littlelegs]

I live rural, hybrid /electric is pointless when 90% of my driving is driving at 100km/h for half an hour to 5 hours at the time.

[@L2SFBC]

Yes largely dead weight. However at steady cruise aero is more important than weight.

[@Bigcountry_littlelegs]

@@L2SFBC yeah once ya get past 90km/h but half a ton is still doing no favours for it ether

[@barrythompson8813]

Plenty of EVs on the interstates between Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide. Most do 550km on a charge.

[@Bigcountry_littlelegs]

@barrythompson8813 I live rural the nearest town with woolies or Coles supermarket is an hour away the nearest place with a decent hospital is 2 hours away, can you make that work for an ev kinda but doing so will be killing the battery quicker as you need the 100% charge not 80% you are relying on slow chargers if you need a top up so there is an extra half to hour on your trip. Then there is the road conditions a c grade road is most of the seal, and the smoothest roads to drive down are the earth roads

[@wozzie1492]

I'm guessing this is how the Govt will be making up the short fall in fuel taxes from lower fuel consumption.

[@jeanmorreau5028]

And reducing our dependence on Saudi dictators.

[@rossevans1774]

As usual the government puts the cart before the horse. This NVES to lower road vehicle emissions is the same as closing coal power electricity generating stations. I say the same because from the 1890's manufacturers have spent $billions trying to develop an efficient, reliable, affordable electric vehicle with very limited success. Today electric vehicles all fall short in varying degrees, we still do not have an efficient, reliable, affordable electric vehicle. The similarity between this NVES scheme and the closure of coal power stations is, we still do not have a 'working' alternative to fossil fueled road vehicles and we still do not have a 'working' alternative to coal fueled electricity generation.

[@MattBlack6]

Car makers that only sell the higher emissions vehicles will be in trouble. I'm looking at you Ford and Isuzu and Ram. Not many offsets available in your fleets.

[@L2SFBC]

yep!

[@froggy0162]

This appears to use a similar calculation approach that the FCAI used to calculate price hikes on individual models (and parroted by the LNP). This was not only debunked, the FCAI was also referred to the ACCC for misleading and false claims. You cannot make any estimates on price hikes on individual models because it’s a fleet average.

[@L2SFBC]

You must have missed the parts where I talked about a fleet average, and said the $ penalty may not translate to price rise per model.

[@froggy0162]

@@L2SFBCand yet you’re talking about price rises by models….

[@BrianRaynor]

@@L2SFBC It is likely that almost EVERY viewer missed that part because you mentioned it early in the video, and then forgot it exists for all of the following calculations. The per-model calculations are grossly inflated and you should have acknowledged that more clearly, or attempted to provide better estimates

[@froggy0162]

@@BrianRaynorIt’s incredibly misleading. This sort of misinformation is sadly rampant, and eagerly picked up and repeated by clickbait hungry tabloids and vested interests (and politicians less interested in facts than scoring points…). To be clear dear viewers, these figures are complete bunk!

[@HardstylePete]

Can people move to light rigid trucks to avoid this scheme?

[@L2SFBC]

If above 4500kg, yes.

[@damon9701]

Great explanation, any thoughts on the potential growth of Hydrogen cars. Toyota for instance have the Mirai. Understand this is not a 4x4, but is this the future we should be seeking?

[@L2SFBC]

Hydrogen is one part of the solution but it will not ever rival electric, so those says "just replace EVs with hydrogen" don't understand the problems with hydrogen.

[@Wofinet]

It’s a tough one. For example the jimny - surely Suzuki can do better than that old lump? They don’t have to now but soon they will have to have a look for something better in the engine catalogue.

[@L2SFBC]

No need people still buy it! Commerical sense...

[@froggy0162]

This is not demanding electric 4WD - again it’s a fleet average where getting all the other stuff into EV where EVs work well so you can keep a diesel 4WD where it’s really needed.

[@L2SFBC]

So, with those numbers, how can anything other than an EV meet them into the future? The amount of EVs that would need to be sold becomes astronomical as the penalty rates go up and the targets go down.

[@froggy0162]

@@L2SFBCGood. Most people jsut don’t need a 4WD, they’re bought as status symbol and for soccer training runs… This is simply unsustainable, and “consumers preferences” simply need to take a back seat to the broader problems of high emissions vehicles being dealt with here. A shift in consumers towards EVs and lower emissions ICE that work for most people will still allow big diesel 4WD for those few people that do actually need one.

[@L2SFBC]

Can you provide data to prove your point?

[@froggy0162]

@@L2SFBCI think the emissions accounts released by the government each quarter amply demonstrate the need for a change!

[@L2SFBC]

" Most people jsut don’t need a 4WD, they’re bought as status symbol and for soccer training runs…" please provide data for that statement.

[@pabichpawel]

Great vid. Any reason why you didn’t include hybrids? This is what Toyota seems to be doing to stay under the limit.

[@L2SFBC]

Won't make any difference, the targets are such that not even hybrids could manage them. The pro-EV people don't like hybrids, and I think it was the Greens that wanted them out of any incentives.

[@lowtech_1]

Have to tradeup to a light truck.

[@franciscoshi1968]

I think these rules will give manufacturers an incentive to make more fit for purpose vehicles. Currently there is no incentive.

[@L2SFBC]

Yes the incentive will be there and that's a good thing. But it will leave people with no option but to pay more if there is no alternative.

[@franciscoshi1968]

@@L2SFBC let's wait and see what comes up. Worse case scenario we will end up with older vehicles until something suitable becomes available. There will be some PHEVs that may be able to meet the standard and still be able to run on fuel when needed. I would expect the way they will measure the consumption will be combined electric/ICE. We can end up with figures like the Outlander PHEV which claims 1.8lt/100km when in fact when running only on petrol it does 8l/100km. That would probably solve the problem for the next 5yrs. By then batteries and infrastructure may have caught up.

[@darshparmar7679]

I find new small engines sometimes use a lot more fuel towing heavy loads opposed to larger capacity engines but the bigger engines will be taxed more even when giving out less co2 emissions under load.

[@andyg9991]

Just look at what Porsche is doing with all their Ice vehicles going forward, they have increased the engine capacity (from 3.0 to 3.6 in the new 911) for this very reason as the next set of emissions standards take your point into account, not just some theoretical best case fuel usage test

[@shiftyparadigm7049]

Audi q7 and Mercedes gle 6 cylinder diesel in 2016 could tow over 3000kg with fuel efficiency less than 7L/100km, it must be possible to meet 2026 standards in 2026 if they could in 2016.

[@L2SFBC]

The problem for those cars is that they will need to meet Type 1 targets as they are not seperate-chassis.

[@einfelder8262]

I'll keep my GU for a while longer, maybe sell for more than it cost when I turn 80 in 7 years time :) It might reach 130,000ks by then.

[@L2SFBC]

That's a good strategy!

[@Bigcountry_littlelegs]

I can see older 4x4s and utes being remanufactured very soon

[@L2SFBC]

A good point!

[@nrs8043]

How do the Toyota Hybrid Utes fare?

[@L2SFBC]

Toyota's hybrid system in the utes makes little difference.

[@smilelots4me]

Insurance will go up, cost of ev charging will increase to cover fuel excise 50% at least, Goverment has already shown interest in taxing solar at home, Minimum 4 x power increase . This is not helping Australians only hurting us!

[@borisjohnson1944]

I think people will whinge about the price increases, as per usual, but pay it anyway. I live in a rural town in the SW of WA. It is on route to a lot of popular holiday destinations further south. School holidays and public holidays the influx of tourists heading to these places is astronomical. The rigs you see show that, even in these so called tough times, money appears to be no object. I follow a few camping and 4WD FB pages. The number of people touring long distance in large rigs is also (not quite) astronomical, and these are just WA based pages.

[@L2SFBC]

No, you're looking at a small percentage of flashy, showy rigs. Most people are cutting back, and those aren't the ones who post their rigs on the socials.

[@borisjohnson1944]

@@L2SFBC No, these are ordinary families touring or just going away for a few days. The rigs aren't 'flashy" as such, 4wds middle to top end, pulling camper trailers or caravans. Also they aren't posting their rigs but looking for campsites with a range of amenities, water, dump sites, toilets, cost (always asking for free ones but then want to be on the coast so not going to happen) etc. advice on sights to see.

[@blackbirdrider2]

Have you taken into consideration that most people are not as cashed up as you ? …. I do t think so.

[@borisjohnson1944]

@@blackbirdrider2 If that is directed at me then you are sorely mistaken. I live on the old age pension.

[@BernardSaniga]

Ive only ever owned a 4 cyclinder... None of my cars could go over 135km ... You dont need it to ... I never felt the need to buy a v8 ... I was happy my 4 cylinder triton ute i maintained it it ran very well ... They were wasting tyres and and petrol lets face it just wasting stuff...

[@dallasvanwyk]

This is the US's CAFE all over again. It will have unintended consequences in vehicle design and availability. Building more fuel efficient cars will not solve this problem; fewer overall miles driven is the only true end.

[@Unkownktm]

Ev produces more co2, go research how batteries are made, how much more mining is required to provide the the RM to make a battery. The list goes on.

[@TradieBET-we6oq]

$108b / 25 years is $4.3b per year. Share that amongst 20 million motorists is about $216 per year. I am totally in favour of improving emission standards, but it is just ramping up the efficiency way too quickly.

[@mawhim]

Should just put the fuel excise up. Say 10c/l/ yr. Make the cars cheap, but cost to run high. Put the gains to good use, or it can pay the road tax on behalf of people who adopt EV.

[@froggy0162]

I call bullshit on the “cost of living” crisis when the top three selling “cars” are hugely expensive and fuel hungry commercial based vehicles… These things are stupidity expensive, so not sure a relatively minor increase in price (if it actually happens given it’s a fleet average) will really make much difference.

[@NicholasCox85]

We've also just seen evidence of cars becoming more expensive as Toyota released that these Type 1 vehicles will only be available in a hybrid option. This means your Corolla or similar just got more expensive as you can't buy a straight petrol engine anymore.... all to offset the big, dirty landcruisers, Hiluxes and Tundras. Just make them pay more, not make the cheaper models more expensive.

[@L2SFBC]

I think that was demand, Camry hybrid was the top seller for a while as taxi/Uber drivers realised the $2-$3000 extra was well worth it over the car's lifecycle.

[@lowtech_1]

Watch the average age of a vehicle, on the road go up.

[@L2SFBC]

Yes, and with consequent effects on safety and fuel consumption!

[@froggy0162]

@@L2SFBCNot really. New cars have not been particularly efficient which is the whole point. And the older cars will still eventually come out of service and be replaced by the more efficient cars this policy has put on the roads. Long term it’s still a net positive.

[@froggy0162]

And with all these bloody Utes and SUVs around, clearly no one cares about safety…

[@lowtech_1]

Some people need utes, If you want houses built and stuff. It's not anti ev, but ev utes aren't comparable yet,with ice. Inconvenient I know.They will just have to pay the extra tax. Urban professionals (subsidise there own vehicles) this is called the "just transition 🙄 " Hopefully solid state batteries change this.

[@froggy0162]

@@lowtech_1A great many Ute owners however don’t need them… They’re a status symbol for many and you don’t often see one dirty and/or full of tools… Most tradies are better off in vans anyway.

[@Davidsmith-mc2no]

What about the BYD SHARK

[@Voidhawk001]

This is going to impact the used market also

[@L2SFBC]

Yes

[@melvynjames9028]

One issue that isn’t considered is the amount of CO2 that is generated to fuel the EV. Nuclear is off the table for electricity generation so if there is no wind or it’s at night gas or coal will enable electricity generation. Another point is how much CO2 is generated to get the lithium, cobalt etc out of the ground and refined? And even if it was all solar or wind where are these things made? Yes, correct China, where they use enormous amounts of coal for their manufacturing and where do a lot of that come from? Again correct, Australia, how obscene is that. Punish the plebs but allow the millionaires to make even more and of course nothing will ever happen about that because that would decimate our economy.

[@L2SFBC]

Coal-powered EVs are not an environmental disaster in the big picture, once the electricity is made then losses are small - if that's to be compared consider the cost of finding, transporting, refining and re-transporting oil. The whole mining thing - yes, EVs need those minerals, but so would any vehicle, and EVs can at least second-life their batteries or recycle, albeit with more energy use. It'd be nice to see huge incentives for solar panels which again would make EVs more attractive, and reduce coal-power dependence.

[@froggy0162]

I think you’ve missed the point here a bit. It is designed to move people to EVs, because EVs is what the car industry is moving towards itself. That’s not a call of the government who jsut wants lower emissions at a national level. Now, the point is to encourage more EVs for those use cases where EVs work well - which frankly is most people given Australia is one the most urbanised countries in the world. If a manufacturer can do that, then they can sell their Rangers etc at no penalty for those who do actually need one. No one is really suggesting you have to buy an electric 4WD. What it might do however is weed out a lot of idiots who buy a giant 4WD Ute without any need for one other than vanity and that will be a bloody great outcome!

[@L2SFBC]

I literally said "it's designed to move people into EVs". And why are carmakers focusing on EVs? Because of schemes like this. I agree that EVs work well for roadcars and support moving people into them for that use case. Can't see Ford selling enough EVs to offset Ranger and Everest any time soon.

[@froggy0162]

@@L2SFBCThen Ranger and Everest get more expensive. Which hopefully means less sold!! They are a pox on the roads and very few people actually need one. A lot less of them not only reduces emissions, it will improve the road toll that’s been going up as more of these bloody things are sold.

[@froggy0162]

@@L2SFBCThese schemes are pushing lower emissions - the car makers came up with EV as the way to do that. It’s like DPF and SCR is diesel - governments demanded lower emissions, it was up to the carmakers to work out how to meet that. Either way, if consumer preferences need to shift away from giant cars to meet emissions reductions, so be it.

[@L2SFBC]

How do you differentiate between those who need one and those who do not? And please define 'need'.

[@froggy0162]

@@L2SFBC”Need” - willing to pay a premium for a high polluting vehicle ;) Seriously though, the need aspect of the current suv obsession is the direct result of years of marketing. We could reduce fleet emissions jsut by marketing normal cars again. When the last time you saw an ad that wasn’t for an suv? People like to think they buy what they want, but advertising is a multi billion dollar industry built on knowing people buy what they’re told to… No one needs a giant ute to take timmy to soccer practice…

[@franciscoshi1968]

Watch the number of electric 4x4 and Utes offerings increase.

[@L2SFBC]

Certainly will!

[@060racing8]

I really think steps need to be taken using every reasonable option to push back against this stuff and see the government that is threatening to implement it is abolished. If peaceful change can not be accomplished, things will have to get messy .

[@L2SFBC]

I hope messy is peaceful!

[@andyg9991]

Its already passed parliament. The only option now is to try and have it watered down, but there is no chance of it being repealed as even if the Coalition was to win the next election, they would not have the numbers in the Senate to get the repeal enacted.

[@060racing8]

@@L2SFBC I think it would actually be pretty based to wait until you're 70 years old and if you still remember how much you absolutely hate the government try and even the score because death or jail is probably better than a nursing home.

[@barrythompson8813]

You sound like a dump trumper ! Aussies don't protest against corrupt pollies, especially if the footy is on, let alone 'get messy' !

[@andyg9991]

@@barrythompson8813 Dont know what your point is in calling them a "dump trumper" (whatever that is), but yes, Aussies in general are far more interested in the footy than their own wellbeing

[@ChrisRyan_Oz]

The future NVES speculation was dumb and a bit FUDish. Other than that the video was ok. With this NVES I wish there was some adjunct that manufacturers could use to convert existing vehicles from ICE to EV. As in, it added to their offset calculations somehow. After all, an ICE to EV conversion is a "double win" - one less ICE and one cleaner vehicle. Note that if something was done for this, part of setting it up would require more training/jobs, etc. As for fast charging for EVs having a detriment, this is mostly for older vehicles and it's generally no longer an issue. There's more advanced battery thermal management in place now. A recent example I saw was for a Lightning that's done about 100000 miles in about 2 years, mostly fast charged (from memory 700+ times) and still has 97% battery health. The F150 Lightning is $209K, not $250K, but that's still too high. As for the lack of charging infrastructure that would deal with a lot of range issues, perhaps we could swing some of the billions in fossil fuel subsidies Australia does every year into an accelerated roll out of chargers, transmission line infrastructure, battery storage and renewable energy generation. I bet if the money became available, the range issue would reduce significantly. Obviously battery tech, etc is required to improve the max distance a vehicle can go without needing a recharge - it's happening and with NVES there's extra incentive to do more. I also wonder how many utes are being bought now just because they are more tax favourable? I suspect a number of those could be switched to something else, even EVs. Perhaps then some of those manufacturers with mixed fleets (cars, utes, etc) can adjust the quantity of what they sell and play the offset game for some time and not adjust their larger SUVs/4WD.

[@L2SFBC]

Thank you, great comment! 1. I marked the future as speculation; why do you say it's FUD? Right now, I see pro-EV people very much against large batteries, 4x4s etc. Why would that not translate into legislation? It may not, hence I noted it was speculation. 2. The F-150 is around $250k once you consider onroads. 3. Many EV manuals I've read say to try and charge to 80%, and reduce use of fast charging, and not let it drop below 20% (current guidance from Tesla for example). I have seen data that says there's no effect, provided the battery is conditioned etc. Essentially, the point is that you need to manage the battery and that's extra work people typically don't need when they're on a trip, and you may need close to 0-100% fast-charging as opposed to a roadcar jumping from fast-charger to fast-charger, 30-80% each time. I can't see that sort of use being good for the battery? 4. Utes and tax - who knows who "needs" a ute vs just bought one anyway. 5. Charging infrastructure - absolutely! Need a lot of more that, but even if you can stop every 250km for example for 30-60 minutes, that's still increasing journey time by a fair bit. The bigger point was localised temporary increases in population such as holiday times. 6. conversions - nowhere near cost-effective unfortunately, and converted ICEs tend to make poor EVs compared to vehicles designed as such from the ground up. But, I do agree that's another area to explore, and possibly the high cost could be made less with incentives.

[@ChrisRyan_Oz]

@@L2SFBC For 1, I expect some reality to apply. We're getting semis that are battery powered. Energy density is increasing (and needs to) to have more onboard power for some types of vehicles. Inner city commuters? They're essentially there and just need the costs to come down (as what eventually happens with all tech disruptions). Rural/regional will need more as you've mentioned in the video. 2. Price on the Ausev website is around $209K, on roads are not $41K 3. The reason to keep within the 20 to 80 range is generally to do with the charging curve and the times to charge, nothing to do with degradation. Each EV has a charging curve where at some point it becomes much slower to add each %. The 80% figure is usually it. 4. Yes, I was wondering if the tax benefits weren't in place, how the market would like for the actual consumer demands. But as you essentially say, we can't know why a ute is being bought. 5. Again, the tech is improving all the time for charging. Recently a Polestar was charged (I think to the 80% figure) in 10 mins. There's development of even faster charging, so that 30 - 60 minutes will reduce quite quickly. Even now, the F150 Lightning can go from 20 to 80% in about 40 mins, although that's starting to look a bit slow these days. And with the range that can be covered between charges, having a break might be useful to help fight fatigue. Of course, what breaks a person needs is different for everybody, but at least for me I'm getting old enough that the charging time is rarely an issue any more. :) 6. Absolutely, the cost is such that you could buy a new EV - at least for those small mass market cars, so they are definitely not the target. However it might be a different issue for the sports cars, larger SUVs and 4WDs that might be converted for less than the cost of new. There are some places in at least Australia and UK that do conversions, e.g. of Land Rovers, etc.

[@L2SFBC]

I think AusEV have just reduced prices, having checked their website which has changed a bit. They started at $224k / $254 plus onroads which is well over the $250k I mentioned. Now it's lower and they're also talking about equivalent costs. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. My main point re 80% was in fact time to charge; namely when towing etc you'll often need to go say 5-95% as opposed to 20-80%, with consequent effects on charge time if not battery health. With bigger batteries in towcars that's quite a difference between a 130kWh battery going 10%-95% vs a 60kWh battery going 20-80%. Especially if you multiply that out with many wanting to charge at the same time. Consider also when towing the additional time if you need to ditch the trailer to charge - I would like to see more drive-through charge bays, but few have been designed as such. The speed of charging; there's always a headline figure, but that requires you to find a suitably fast charger, nobody else to be using the other bays, the battery to be ideally readied etc so it's not a figure to be relied on. However, even charging time isn't just the whole problem - it's availability of chargers, and concentration of demand during peak periods. These problems are by no means impossible to solve, it's "just" infrastructure build and tech advances like solid-state batteries, but we're a long way off both, and therefore in my view the legislation should reflect that, tightening over time, not now. I do not agree with the "EVs force you to take breaks therefore road safety" argument. Drivers should stop when, and as long as the human needs a break, not the machine, and EVs force stops for the machine not the human. EVs won't make irresponsible drivers responsible. Personally I like the idea of conversions and companies like Jaunt are doing great work. I hope to see commoditised kits which make converting vehicles like say MX-5s, Land Rovers and so on very cheap and easy, again possibly with incentives - I can't see anyone bothering with a Yaris. I would like to see old Leafs given new batteries, as in fact is happening already.

[@ChrisRyan_Oz]

@@L2SFBC I essentially agree with most of what you wrote there (although I didn't mean to imply that EVs would directly improve road safety - idiots are idiots and the vehicle type won't matter). Lots of areas have to improve, but there needs to be some push for it. Some of it is "chicken and egg" type problem (e.g. charging infrastructure) that should be handled by the government. We've had decades of inaction by the Coalition and slow, limited action by Labour on the progress that we need to move forward. Now that we're in more of a crisis situation we're going to have to pay for that stupidity and lack of foresight and leadership. If NVES had been started much earlier, or better targeted incentives used earlier, or better tax rules, or winding back fossil fuel subsidies, or... then perhaps the perceived aggressive timetable for NVES would not be such an issue.

[@jbattam]

I see car manufacturers profiteering from this. Because whilst they have the "credits" from Hybrid/EV's, I doubt they will pass this onto the consumers. This offset savings will be used to line their pockets. They will still pass on the NVES tax to consumers.

[@L2SFBC]

Credits don't do anything for a carmaker, the government doesn't pay them.

[@operation4wheelz]

I think this “light off-roaders” issue is a legislator having a brain fart.

[@wohnzimmeraquarium4174]

If the purpose of the measure is to reduce CO2 emissions, then the question arises as to how the electricity is generated in Australia. Will the additional consumption by EVs be green electricity? How is the fast charging network developed? Fast charging means a charging capacity of 150kW or more. If these requirements are not met, then there is no point in EVs

[@L2SFBC]

There is a point to it even without considering how the electricity is generated. Even coal-powered EVs have advantages in emissions, and also consider that vehicles pollute in population centres, coal stations away from the populated centres.

[@wohnzimmeraquarium4174]

@@L2SFBC That's true, but it doesn't play a role in the CO2 discussion. Even in your graphs, CO2 is always the relevant benchmark, which also corresponds to the political discussion. This is completely independent of the personal point of view in the discussion about CO2. CO2 is also the only substance in exhaust gases that cannot be reduced.

[@jbjb3372]

There's a whole lot I agree with and some things I need to ponder. Thoughts. Firstly, I can't give percentages but a huge number of four-wheel drives are to sold to people who use them to mount kerbs in cities. When I come from the farm to the city I can't believe how many four-wheel drives there are and why anybody would want to drive one around the city when a small car is so much more suitable. Secondly legislation has been shown over to move societies towards whatever the legislative goal might be. Civil rights legislation is a case in point. Human behaviour is difficult to modify without a push. Thirdly human engineering knows no bounds and it's almost frightening to see how China is developing in hi end engineering and technology. I'd be very surprised if solutions don't present themselves. Last year on a rural tour in American South I was astonished that how many of the farmers were driving gas not diesel. And there were warnings on all of the gas stations about the dangers of diesel to human health. Of course I have no idea if that is accurate but it was interesting because it was the opposite of what I have experienced in Australia. Finally if it stops some of the crazies who are damaging our beaches and sand dunes and digging up tracks in national parks all the better.

[@L2SFBC]

I'm not sure about "4x4s are only bought for the city" suggestion. SUVs yes, but frankly they're just roadcars, most of them 2WD. Agree with legislation moving the goalposts, that's what it's meant to do. Diesel emissions have particulate matter which is why they've fallen out of favour in Europe.

[@AquaMarine1000]

The weight of carbon dioxide in one cubic metre of the atmosphere at sealevel is 0.75 grams/m^3.

[@cwilliams4227]

So if we can get all the muppets in commuter cars driving to work and and back into an EV the rest of us can all drive around in a turbo diesel without have the "Tax" added to the price?

[@pabooney]

Would the government also punish the owners of the sports cars like the Mustangs with her registrations?

[@Broozer-fw3vl]

All well and good but where are we going to charge all these utes? Most are full of tools so on street is out of the question and a lot of us live in apartments so charging at home is out of the question too. I suppose we’ll just have to make our day even longer and sit at a fast charger for an hour every night. Definitely NFFP.

[@Expedient_Mensch]

Option 5: Build more efficient\cleaner cars. Just as unlikely as option 2.

[@HardstylePete]

Starting to run up to the laws of physics sooner than later. Big vehicles require a lot of energy to move through the air. This is why all the new EVs are designed to have such low aerodynamic drag, lower ride heights and low front bars.

[@L2SFBC]

Yes!

[@Expedient_Mensch]

@@HardstylePete yes, that was my point. Also, I think this will increase the number of older cars on the road, even as ICE technology develops to its inevitable limits. At some stage, the government is likely to increase the fuel excise, or something similar, to make older cars less viable.

[@aljoubert8749]

I think you missed the impact of PHEVs

[@L2SFBC]

No I didn't, cars need to meet the target and PHEVs won't.

[@aljoubert8749]

@@L2SFBC Not having a go at you but please explain this. Take for example the BYD Sealion 6 with ADR rated CO2 emission of 24g/km. How will that be effected? Surely that must be low enough? PHEVs will meet the targets so that is an oversight on your end.

[@L2SFBC]

Yes, 24 will be enough, and other hybrids do well too eg Yaris. There are also ICEs that meet some of the targets. What I'm focusing on here is 4x4s and sportscars which cannot meet the targets because the tech does not exist. The Sealion is not a 4x4 and nor can it tow much. If that sort of tech is developed, and it may be in say the INEOS Fusilier range extender, we may have a solution...provided those targets don't get any lower until the tech is able to, or nearly able to meet them. The targets should be a little out of reach to provide an incentive, but not too far.

[@roflchopter11]

2.7 l/100km is 87mpg. Totally infeasible, even for a hybrid. Even low drag EVs are only getting 110 MPGe or so. And if you're burning coal for the electricity, your CO2 emissions will be higher than an equivalent gas engine.

[@nigelliam153]

EV is zero emissions? Only if it’s charges on 100% green power. Taking transmission losses into account you could be charging with power that is only 17% efficient which would mean it’s co2 emissions would be much higher than a straight ice vehicle

[@stuartmanuell4207]

This shouldn't even be on the table until the charging infrastructure is sorted out. Especially given that foran EV battery to last anywhere near it's theoretical cycles, it should only be discharged and charged between 20 and 80%. If you use a rapid charge cycle too often, you will be lucky to get to 150k km before the battery is unusable, needs replacing or the car is written off, and then the up front carbon for making anotther battery reverses all the driving savings.

[@L2SFBC]

It's not that bad, modern batteries are much better at handling rapid charge and varying depletions. Also batteries can be recycled, or second-lifed in homes etc. There are many EVs with batteries 10 years old still going. Modern EVs have battery warranties typically of 8 years.

[@stuartmanuell4207]

It is that bad. Most recommendations are to operate between 20 and 80 % to optimize life. On average degradation is about 2.5% per year, depending on thermal management and other factors. Improvements have ocurred because manufacturers add caoacity buffers remotely, which is really false advertising the range. Batteries in hot climates degrade faster as well. Rapid charging more than 3 times a month will degrade a battery by at least 20% over a few years. There is data on this. Basically it comes down to Australia not being ready for this regulation. If the batteries are that good, why not invest in more grid storage? 70% of electricity is still from fossil fuel, reducing this is better bang for the buck instead of EVs. With the way they're presenting this the government clearly has confirmation bias.

[@spmsj]

Be interesting to see everyone go from Ford/Toyota to Ram 1500 or Chevvy Silverado as I heard thet are exempt

[@L2SFBC]

If it's under 4500kg, it'll be caught. So, yes, going over 4500kg might be an out.

[@alex98b627]

The biggest scam here is passenger and recreation vehicles being classified as Type 2. That category was intended for commercial vehicles. A Ford Everest is not a commercial vehicle. And most the 4 door utes being bought are not being used as commercial vehicles. They should all be subject to the Type 1 criteria as they are passenger vehicles not commercial vehicles.

[@L2SFBC]

Most 4 door utes are not commercials? Please provide data to back this up. And, if "most", what about those that are?

[@alex98b627]

The proof is the commercials for these vehicles. The manufacturers know who their customers are and they steer all advertising to these customers. They’re lifestyle vehicles. You think a Ranger Raptor is a commercial vehicle? A real “commercial vehicle” is a van, or a ute with a proper tray, which is why most vehicles you see that are provided by employers are those types of vehicles. Even car reviewers talk about Rangers etc being more about lifestyle capabilities than work capabilities. Heck, your channel is about camping and off-roading - it has very little to do with “work”. Just call a spade a spade. A similar phenomenon has happened in the US, but relates to safety measures. Vehicles over a certain size don’t have to conform to the same safety requirements as passenger cars. So what do the manufacturers do? Make huge “full size trucks” so that they don’t need to comply with the same rules as ‘passenger vehicles’. Does this tactic sound familiar…?

[@froggy0162]

I don’t think you can say what the cost impost would be on a specific model - it’s a fleet average. The cost on an idiot Ranger cannot be predicted without know what else Ford sells in a future year. If Ford pull their finger out and sell more EVs and normal cars to consumers then they can still sell their Rnagers without a cost hit.

[@L2SFBC]

Look at Ford's model range. It's Ranger and Everest, high-emissinons. Mach-E is a tiny niche, probably balanced by high-emission Mustangs. The ratios mean a price rise.

[@froggy0162]

@@L2SFBCSure - at its current model mix. But that’s the point - get the manufacturers off their arse and bringing in more efficient cars. And if they don’t, then it incentivise consumers out of stupid bloody utes that most of them do not need.

[@froggy0162]

@@L2SFBCBut the point is you jsut can’t prodict what the cost on a particular model might be.

[@L2SFBC]

Sure but the tech does not exist to deliver equivalents to 4x4s!

[@froggy0162]

@@L2SFBCSo what? Not that many people need them, and they can keep using current tech 4WDs until the tech changes. It’s all the other use cases for vehicles that’s the majority of the fleet that will do just fine with BEV and under NVES will allow old mate who really needs it to have his 4wD. I don’t quite get your focus of electric 4WD when it’s a fleet average standard. And if the fleet of a manufacturer is all 4WD, well tough shit they’ll have import proper cars or buy credits from Tesla and BYD. Stacking the Australian fleet with giant high emissions cars is unsustainable. It has to change.

[@A861967]

Lol yea this was well thought out by the government, and no the EV sport cars do not handle well, if you take them to a track you can’t race them, reason.. you need 4 water tankers in case they crash😂

[@BrunoBianco-bq1iw]

Rip new vehicle sales

[@toms5667]

I wonder how this legislation impact the 2nd hand 4WD market

[@L2SFBC]

Increase prices because new prices rise.