Until I.C.E. cars are taxed for their tailpipe pollutions (more for gas guzzlers and less for fuel misers) electric cars are not playing on a level field. The money has to come from somewhere to subsidise the electric ones.

Lol the old Australian ignorance of the inevitable Chestnut story. Everyone needs to look up because I heard that the sky is falling. We don't need anything the world market tells us what happens not a handful of rednecks hanging on like grim death to ideas that worked in a 1950's world.

Sorry but reality check .... the piddly, tiny, and irrelative Australian market (that produces zero except raw resources) and fully survives on imports .... just gets zero say in the worlds direction, Australia gets whatever we are given as far as cars are concerned.

Whine and argue all you want it's 100% guaranteed we will be 100% electric like it or not it's unstoppable.

No incentives are nessasary as funding car purchases is a total waste of tax money. It would be much like the ludicrous amounts of taxpayers dollars they wasted and given away to American owned Ford and GM supposedly to keep cars available for Australians. Australia is not a leader it's little more than an insignificant prawn that puppets whatever the worlds powerhouse markets dictate. We simply don't matter except for our mineral wealth.

We should be subsidising renewables now and electric cars AFTER we have decarbonised our grid to at least 50%. Sensibly all electric cars would be sold in countries where they save a lot of carbon. Not here where they perhaps, maybe down the track might save a bit.

The Libs and the right have got it all wrong.

Provide incentives for the health of the world. Provide incentives for reducing emissions by increasing uptake of much healthier alternatives.

Aus wasted millions if not billions on the dumb American ICE manufacturers - Ford and Holden and they provided us with shit cars we didn’t even want. Aus has some of the raw materials that EVs need.... if the pollies had any brains, they would start local manufacturing here. We provide millions if not billions in incentives for big oil, mining and other industries (tax breaks, fuel excise exemptions) that stuff our planet up.... short term and narrow-minded idiots. The amount of sun we have in Australia - 95% of the population should be able to power their cars 95% of the time using solar and home batteries. V3 Fast chargers in the USA can also use solar and batteries to power EVs for the 5% of the population that travel more than 30km to/from work per day or go on holiday.

Guess what EV batteries can also be 70%-90% recycled now..... imagine in 10-15yrs time what tech we will have when todays EVs batteries die after 500,000-1mill kms.

Australia the backward country.

Lol manufacturing. Our powers above seem to think we can sustain an economy selling each other services only....

Because they forced shit cars we didn't want. Family sedans died 20+ yrs ago.

Utes, SUVs and compacts. That what Aussies want.

Put up your hand if you would buy a Renault Zoe if it were $5k-10k cheaper?..yeah, that's what I thought...and if you can afford ANY Tesla, you don't need a govt handout to buy it.

For Europeans that live in high density/small land mass cities, it's an easy step to go from their diesel powered Fiat to an electric one, but our geography is way different to Europe. Apples and oranges comparison if there ever was one.

Australia is one of the most urbanised countries in the world - almost 90% of the population live in urban areas. Yes, very large urban areas, but not sure that needs large SUVs or monster utes to navigate. Dreaming of towing a boat, dreaming of driving to Kakadu, dreaming of escape - whilst stuck in peak hour urban traffic jams.

The interesting issue you raise is that the urban sprawl in Australia is due to the high level of home ownership. Whilst the trend here might be towards downsizing and to apartments / units as the population ages, a lot of people still have a house, with a garage, with the potential to charge EVs (at low cost). In the Europe you described, most of the population live in smaller apartments, with no facility at all to charge from home. I think they will find it an extremely difficult step to go from a little Fiat diesel to an electric version, and I've yet to see any cohesive plan from any of the large European cities that does anything to address charging infrastructure on the massive scale needed. You would find that the intent of most is to get rid of private cars as soon as possible, whether they are ICE or EV. The longer term future will be level 5 autonomous vehicles operating within a geo-fenced zone, in some type of taxi / Uber setup. And no private vehicles allowed. A bleak future indeed for anyone that loves cars and driving.

And I wouldn't buy a Renault Zoe either. Over the next 5 years, you will see an exponential increase in EV model options, at least in some markets. Less so in Australia, I suspect. There is little incentive for it.

What if the Hyundai Kona Electric cost the same as the equivalent petrol version? How many people would opt for the electric version if there were no additional cost in doing so? I suspect quite a lot.

Yes, that would be different, but even the Kona is still a very small quirky crossover vehicle, reasonably priced EV Tucson or Sonata or Santa Fe would be a different story entirely.

I would buy electric in a heartbeat if the premium was palatable. If I could get a Hyundai Ionic for eg 35k DA the premium would be acceptable given fuel and maintenance savings.

I don't expect other road users or tax payers to pay for that. It is up to the manufacturers to improve technology and make the EV vehicles cheaper.

On one hand, I understand the idea of subsidising to speed up mass adoption, but on the other hand, car makers can potentially take advantage of it by slapping higher price tag than it should be.

Victoria totally missed the point of subsidising with the LCT exemption. Subsidising cars that only a small percentage of people can afford isn't going to help increase the adoption of EV. It's just another tax break for rich people.

If an idea is a good one, it doesn't need an incentive.
A good idea is all the incentive it needs - if its a great one.
To incentivise electric vehicles that mostly rely upon coal/gas fired power generation (Australia) or nuclear (Europe/China/India//USA) as their energy source, is verging on the ridiculous. Those that recharge at home using their solar PV's, well they are already subsidised via government solar credits.

That Australia has very highly taxed retail automotive fuels (disincentivised) which electric vehicles avoid, then they avoid this tax as well (another incentive for EV's). Despite using the same roads paid for, to a large part by fuel taxes.

So no matter how much the green zealots complain about the lack of direct subsidies for EV's, Australia heavily punishes those who drive fossil fuelled vehicles and use coal/gas fired electricity.
How bad an idea ,must they be if they need even more incentives than they are already enjoying?
And who pays?

Are potential EV buyers lined up around the block and order books full for months?
And please, EV's are expensive. It's not the fault of fossil fuels.
So choose reason as the best incentive and let the market decide....

no, good ideas still need incentive, eg. if you live in Vic and take the train to Melbourne and get off stations in the city before 07:15, the journey is free.
many new products will have "introductory" prices. when sale picks up, remove it.

You need to think about why early travel is encouraged and later travel is effectively penalised. Is it because the State Government wants travellers to better use the limited capacity of public transport by shifting the hours of use?

Why cant Melbournian's decide this for themselves?
Do they need to be told what to do by governments?
Standing in a train for a long time seems to be enough disincentive for any normal person, do you really need your government to tell you this?

Dangerous path down which you are going, Allen.

Your incentive argument seems to have nothing to do with emissions.
Why not encourage people to not travel to work but to promote work from home.
No need for incentives as the obvious savings on transport, time, inconvenience, productivity and emissions, should be incentive enough.
Or perhaps only intelligent people, realise this.

There are many incentives for those that want to be smarter - University HECS for example) how many are paying off that incentive?????

I suggest that if an idea is a good one, it will survive on its merits, in an intelligent and rational society.
We don't need a "Nanny" state (or perhaps a large number of people in VIC do......)

You completely missed the point.
You said "If an idea is a good one, it doesn't need an incentive", then I showed you an example of a good idea with an incentive.
That's enough car nut.

I didn't miss your point, you just failed to offer a good example.

Why if it is a good idea, do you need to offer an incentive?

Are you suggesting that many people won't respond to a good idea unless paid to respond?
How dumb are people in your world?
Ever heard of advertising to spread the word that they can travel for free?
Then, if sensible people fail to act, its not an idea that others think sensible.
Only paid people will react... really?

Stop talking nonsense.
A good example given.

In your opinion perhaps, but not mine....

Who would want to live in Victoria?

The biggest subsidies are in oil rich Norway ... emit CO2 in other countries?

More stupid them, CO2 doesn't stick to borders.

Same in the Netherlands, plenty of North sea oil and gas and then they force people to buy electric cars.

they didn't force you to buy their oil

I love the smell of Lutheranist guilt on a Sunday.

So do Tesla buyers all go for Victorian delivery? $17k saving then ship it to NSW for $300...

And how is this possible, if not having a VIC address?

rent a derelict apartment for a 6 month lease, $2080 for the full rent
Either that or a share house room, doing the same thing
Register under your address
Then you're all good to go

>fuel excise, a significant portion of which goes towards roads.

It goes into general revenue like income tax and almost everything else. It's disingenuous to link the two.

Exactly. A significant portion of it goes to welfare and public health care, not roads.

Petrol engine has about 15% on board energy efficiency , diesel at about 20% and EV at 60% including efficiency of charge/discharge cycle. Refinery's energy efficiency is about 85% while coal power station at 37% (32% to 42%). When adding this up, EV's energy efficiency is about 74% higher than petrol engine and 31% better than diesel.

This doesn't consider the energy used in fuel/coal/electricity transportation. Considering Australia more relies on importing fuels and local coal. EV should have more advantage in this front. This also assuming 100% of electricity from coal, while 24% of Australia's electricity from renewable source in 2019 and it's growing fast.

That 24% includes hydro which is all carbon powered using night time base load. 15% is closer.

You can look up the CO2 output per kWh in your state. Multiply by the kWh to fill the battery and then divide by the range of the car. This gives you CO2 per km and you can compare with the highway consumption of a comparably sized hybrid. This shows that CO2 savings are negligible or negative. Well to wheel is better but also marginal in Australia. We need to decarbonise the grid first. Ramping up demand for electricity doesn't make it greener.

Powering an EV off a coal driven grid is still 'greener' kilometre per kilometre than an equivalent petrol driven car. There's also the benefit in reducing foreign oil dependency, being less resistant to oil prices etc

If you want "greener" cleaner air, ban diesels, wood fired heaters and bush fires. If you want less C02, coal powered EVs don't help.

Positive point: Aus has a lot of coal.
Negative point: Aus relies too much on coal.

Did you read your post? That is completely inverted logic.

They don't make any sense whatsoever. A fact treehuggers conveniently overlook

You could apply that logic to pretty much all forms of welfare.

So we should subsidise the highest valued car manufacturer in the world mostly owned by one of the wealthiest men in the world, yep that makes sense to me.

He doesn't have an exclusive market.

I can't see the Aussie Government changing its stance on EV incentives for quite some time now after the huge budget blowout the pandemic has caused.
I imagine that the world-wide economic hit this has caused will stunt the EV/environmental cause for quite some time..

Hardly, unless the EU and other driving forces wind back their legislated plans.

Am very curious to know if there's a dealer delivery fee for EVs? Really, there's no ICE so no fluids to check or fuel to fill. Should be no fees, right? Maybe just a wash and it's out the door...

Still needs to be filled with fuel, just a different type which takes some time to get in there. Doubt checking the engine oil and coolant level takes more that 30 seconds. But the real point is that paying the dealer a delivery fee, after you've already paid for the vehicle (which you typically collect yourself) is simply a rort.

It seems that every other country has worked out that we need to move away from fossil fuels and to renewable energy. That fossil fuel pollution contributes to a decline in public health and proliferation of infectious disease. Australia is asleep at the wheel.

Every other country? India and China building coal power stations, Japan to reduce nuclear and move to coal, France nuclear, Canada coal....

if you calculate pollution per head then AUS and USA are # 1 and 2.