NRMA article on EVs coming in July

[EVangelist]

In the May/June issue of NRMA's Open Road there were a couple of letters from EV fans asking why no EVs made it into the "Australia's Best Cars" list in the March issue, and that they should have an article on EVs.

The reply was "The next issue of Open Road (July) will look at the electric and hydrogen vehicles available in Australia".

They also said they will review Tesla Model X.

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are a joke but it will be interesting to read the article when it comes out.

[alison]

As an avid cyclist and public transport user I gave up on the NRMA years ago when I got sick of being painted as the enemy.

If their article convinces a few people to consider EVs then great. Overwhmingly people react to us explaining ours by stating they had no idea you could buy electric cars for any sensible amount of money.

On that topic, reviewing current Teslas is almost as relevant as discussing the new Maserati or McLaren. Model 3 may change that but why not instead use their clout to pressure Renault for the Zoe or Nissan to care about their current EV fleet? Or chase the government for incentives?

[4wardthinking]

""" On that topic, reviewing current Teslas is almost as relevant as discussing the new Maserati or McLaren. Model 3 may change that but why not instead use their clout to pressure Renault for the Zoe or Nissan to care about their current EV fleet? Or chase the government for incentives? """

You have hit the nail on the head.

Feral Government are not saying we are making it difficult to buy an EV, just suggesting they are too expensive to consider for the average person.

For some rather obvious reason, sleeping with a HFC possible manufacturer will give them control over the supply of one of the most freely available elements in the universe... which, sadly the alumni feel no one can produce. The energy needed to get H2 to distribution is almost identical to current fuels.
Anyone with half the IQ knows how lethal H2 can be, and it gives no warning.
Silly thing is, H2 is easy to produce in liquid form, and many will do so, me included if it becomes, like the old-tech NBN rubbish, mandated(read Dictated). I can only hazard a guess how many problems it is going to create.
Best one is sheer weight. The harbour bridge will need up-grading to carry the extra weight, the list goes on.

Yay!, I need to read about something I can not afford.

[4wardthinking]

What Australia really needs is unflavoured, independent opinions that are freely available to all.
I read the latest local 11yo paper, and now understand what torque steer is in a car.... the buffoon described, and defined it as wheel spin!
I'm guessing this badly informed twerp can just spell(according to his cert IV in spelling), automobile.

[EVangelist]

May 31, 2017 21:29:58 GMT 11 alison said:

As an avid cyclist and public transport user I gave up on the NRMA years ago when I got sick of being painted as the enemy.

I get where you are coming from.  On a number of occasions I have been irritated by the subtext of a lot of NRMA articles and advocacy, almost along the lines of a "drivers are the salt of the earth" mentality, and that any impost or inconvenience imposed on drivers must be resisted at all costs.

If their article convinces a few people to consider EVs then great. Overwhelmingly people react to us explaining ours by stating they had no idea you could buy electric cars for any sensible amount of money.

The level of ignorance out there about electric cars is extraordinary.  As long as the article is not a hatchet job, the more awareness the better.

On that topic, reviewing current Teslas is almost as relevant as discussing the new Maserati or McLaren. Model 3 may change that but why not instead use their clout to pressure Renault for the Zoe or Nissan to care about their current EV fleet? Or chase the government for incentives?

OK here I disagree.  Awareness is helped, even if the cars are expensive.  NRMA reviews plenty of expensive ICE vehicles too, and some people lust after them.  Why should BEV be any different.

I'm a bit conflicted by the concept of incentives.  I'm well off enough to buy expensive vehicles and I think it would be wrong for the rest of society to subsidise me, even though it's supporting the transition to a sustainable transportation future.  As long as the subsidies were means-tested, or to vehicles below a certain value, then OK.  I'm more interested in seeing mass adoption of EVs by people who probably wouldn't ordinarily consider them or be able to afford them (although eventually I believe BEV will get cheaper than ICE, unsubsidised, because they are ultimately much simpler to build).

[rusdy]

Jun 3, 2017 11:40:41 GMT 11 EVangelist said:

...
I'm more interested in seeing mass adoption of EVs by people who probably wouldn't ordinarily consider them or be able to afford them...

I struggle with this topic in the last couple of years. I myself (naively) think that human society (globally) need to put an end to mass ownership of any type of vehicle (whether BEV or ICE).

I really hope the society (globally) will realise (hopefully sooner) that automobile for personal transport is simply unsustainable. Yes, there will be privileged some who enjoy this benefit, but that shouldn't be the norm.

The solution will be combination of town planning (so that people use their feet or a bicycle), public transport (whether it's a shared scheme, etc) and economic restructuring (currently benefits the rich and penalise the poor).

One book that sums up my thought the above: ourrenewablefuture.org/

[alison]

Jun 3, 2017 11:40:41 GMT 11 EVangelist said:

On that topic, reviewing current Teslas is almost as relevant as discussing the new Maserati or McLaren. Model 3 may change that but why not instead use their clout to pressure Renault for the Zoe or Nissan to care about their current EV fleet? Or chase the government for incentives?

OK here I disagree.  Awareness is helped, even if the cars are expensive.  NRMA reviews plenty of expensive ICE vehicles too, and some people lust after them.  Why should BEV be any different.

They shouldn't - hence my direct comparison to other $100k+ ICE vehicles that are only relevant to the top 5% income earners. I don't get much from those reviews either, nor do my parents or the majority of my friends other than to gawk at. I do fully appreciate the halo effect, but that isn't going to drive actual purchases as much as bringing affordable options to our market for the remaining 95% to consider.

Or, if you wish, keep the flashy top market reviews, but ensure that the trickle-down expected from this awareness actually has something to trickle-down to in the more affordable end of the market. Then we can keep gawking

I'm a bit conflicted by the concept of incentives. I'm well off enough to buy expensive vehicles and I think it would be wrong for the rest of society to subsidise me, even though it's supporting the transition to a sustainable transportation future. As long as the subsidies were means-tested, or to vehicles below a certain value, then OK. I'm more interested in seeing mass adoption of EVs by people who probably wouldn't ordinarily consider them or be able to afford them (although eventually I believe BEV will get cheaper than ICE, unsubsidised, because they are ultimately much simpler to build).

Agreed. Whether you believe in incentives at all is a philosophical question that goes to overall politics of free-market vs. government intervention. The reality is that incentives have worked in other EV markets quite spectacularly, and should at least be considered here if we wish to increase adoption.
It could be similar to premium 60c solar feed in tariffs, which were scaled back (arguably too slowly) to 20c and then to 0c as the market caught up and the incentives were no longer required.

Government has intervened in the automotive market before (import tariffs artificially make locally-made cars appear cheaper) so it's not so outlandish to think they might do so again, especially if they also pulled their heads out enough to support a local EV industry in the wake of the international withdrawals.

And of course in other industries where for example well-off people pay extra Medicare levy to subsidise society as a whole, just like replacing end of life ICEs with EVs rather than another ICE would be from a climate perspective.

It's all wishful thinking anyway - nothing of use will happen with the current climate denialists at the helm. They are more likely to tear down Medicare Trump-style.

But yes we bought ours with our own cash, and would do so again (at second hand prices anyway).