It's a typical anti-EV policy by a government that's opposed to them for various reasons. From a quick Google it appears that Victoria state has huge oil and gas refining and resource, so you can imagine the lobbyists have a lot of influence.
It's a typical anti-EV policy by a government that's opposed to them for various reasons.
It's a typical anti-EV policy by a government that's opposed to them for various reasons. From a quick Google it appears that Victoria state has huge oil and gas refining and resource, so you can imagine the lobbyists have a lot of influence.It is not anti-EV policy. The reality is that traditionally a lot of taxes are collected through the sales of fuel in order to have people who travel a lot, pay more to maintain the roads. There is nothing wrong with that and BEV owners will have to pay their share of the costs for keeping the roads in good order. BEV taxes are inevitable; the lack thereoff is simply a form of subsidy which will have to end at some point. In the Netherlands BEV owners will start paying road taxes after next year for example and likely there will be a tax per km as well coming soon.
Someone has to pay for the roads. Currently in the UK the payment is indirect through taxes on ICE fuel. That works: easy to collect and proportional to usage. That isn't a bad starting point for the future. I believe removing the subsidy on BEVs will have to happen, and it won't be unpopular.
It's a typical anti-EV policy by a government that's opposed to them for various reasons. From a quick Google it appears that Victoria state has huge oil and gas refining and resource, so you can imagine the lobbyists have a lot of influence.It is not anti-EV policy. The reality is that traditionally a lot of taxes are collected through the sales of fuel in order to have people who travel a lot, pay more to maintain the roads. There is nothing wrong with that and BEV owners will have to pay their share of the costs for keeping the roads in good order. BEV taxes are inevitable; the lack thereoff is simply a form of subsidy which will have to end at some point. In the Netherlands BEV owners will start paying road taxes after next year for example and likely there will be a tax per km as well coming soon.
It's an anti-EV policy when they exist in such low numbers; it's deliberately designed to reduce their adoption by a state with vested interests in oil continuing to be used for transport. I don't have a problem with EV's being taxed when they're a significant proportion of the vehicle market.
Someone has to pay for the roads. Currently in the UK the payment is indirect through taxes on ICE fuel. That works: easy to collect and proportional to usage. That isn't a bad starting point for the future. I believe removing the subsidy on BEVs will have to happen, and it won't be unpopular.
In the UK, taxes are not hypothecated. Roads are mostly paid for by council tax at the local level, and by central government funding which comes from everything. Trunk routes are paid through and maintained by central government except where adopted by the local authority. (It's complicated to say the least.) Needless to say, fuel taxes plus vehicle excise duty, take in around twice as much as is used to maintain their usage if you want to assign the taxes to a particular cause. The majority of the roads you drive on (your local area) are probably funded by your council tax, and not the petrol you buy. Sounds fair, right?
I agree someone needs to pay for the roads, though there's clearly not an imminent shortfall in terms of the money the government is actually spending (doubtless given the condition of many, more needs to be spent.) In the long term, some form of electric vehicle taxation will be needed, though it does present challenges when they can be filled up from virtually any electrical source.
3c per km is unreasonably high imo. What are fuel taxes, $1.50 a liter?
This would almost certainly contravene GDPR, and won't happen. The simplest way is to tax electricity at the point of use, and to charge more, the more is used, rather than discounting it for heavier users.And solar users pay no tax? No, road charging is the only way to make it fair, on the basis of replacing fuel tax.Yep. In the NL there are also plans to tax per distance travelled. But the problem is that the NL is a small country and there is a significant number of people that drive significant distances outside the country.and that is somehow completely different from people buying fuel (with its high taxes to offset the externalities such as road costs its use creates) in one jurisdiction but driving in another?
Per km road use fees already exist to solve this funding "problem" for EVs:
https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/registration/registration-fees/zlev-road-user-charge
the 2.6c/km rate puts EVs at equivalent taxation to a fossil burner with 5.9l/100km fuel consumption (perhaps a little higher than the current EU new car average)
I'm glad you agree (by omission) that EVs not paying tax is a subsidy that needs to be removed.
3c per km is unreasonably high imo. What are fuel taxes, $1.50 a liter?Your (absent) maths is crap, at $1.50 per litre (pure tax) and 7l/100km would be 10.5c/km.... what production car runs along at 2l/100km?
No. It is better to tax from the beginning so people won't complain about being hit wit a tax 'all of the sudden'. Or people claiming it is an anti-EV tax... In reality, the costs of BEVs have dropped quite significantly so subsidies in the form of tax cuts are no longer necessary.
Just received a notification by "Deutsche Bahn" (german railroad quasi-monopol company).
They are notifying me of some maintenance going to happen soon (there is a single track about 100m away) - they are actually installing charge infrastructure for electric trains.
The idea is to have battery powered trains, using quick charge on a couple of track segments (like 5km length each) and in stations.
On battery, these trains will go up to 140km/h and have a range of 150km max. (probably not both features at the same time).
Also I would have thought if hydrogen did have an application then train power would be a pretty good one - size of batteries vs a large hydrogen tank in place of diesel engine - but tank then needs to be sufficient to run for at least a significant part of the journey if the assumption is refilling hydrogen at a train station is not safe enough or too inconvenient. (Diesel trains aren't refuelled at stations, either.)
Diesel burns too, I doubt people would care that much. They're used to it.
Now Ammonia, those accidents are something special.
Phosgene
Diesel burns too, I doubt people would care that much. They're used to it.
Gasoline does burn pretty easily, but diesel fuel is actually very hard to set on fire at least in normal conditions.
Also I would have thought if hydrogen did have an application then train power would be a pretty good one - size of batteries vs a large hydrogen tank in place of diesel engine - but tank then needs to be sufficient to run for at least a significant part of the journey if the assumption is refilling hydrogen at a train station is not safe enough or too inconvenient. (Diesel trains aren't refuelled at stations, either.)
Liquid hydrogen being transported on trains through towns?
Diesel burns too, I doubt people would care that much. They're used to it.
Gasoline does burn pretty easily, but diesel fuel is actually very hard to set on fire at least in normal conditions.