Loomio
July 14th, 2017 23:52

We've agreed to ban petrol and diesel. But what do we replace them with? And how?

Suzie Dawson
Suzie Dawson Public Seen by 493

We have agreed to create a policy to follow France in banning petrol and diesel.
Now the question is: what do we replace them with, what are the particulars of our policy, and how do we phase out the use of fossil fuels?

https://www.loomio.org/d/SMvb3Z7g/france-wants-to-ban-petrol-and-diesel-should-new-zealand-

Tane Harre

Tane Harre July 15th, 2017 02:00

Actually France only says ban petrol and diesel cars which makes the whole thing a lot easier. There are certain types of vehicle where diesel especially might still be needed (eg; trucks, heavy machinery, shipping...).

Possibly not, but there isn't current tech to cover those areas whereas there is current tech to remove fossil fuels from personal vehicles except maybe by natural gas powered engines.

Assuming that. We replace them with electricity.

IMO this would require
* Upgrading the grid.
* Mass uptake of solar.
* Manapouri to feed the grid.
* Natural gas turbine stations (unused hopefully) for energy supply security.

Helpful stuff would be
* Improved electric public transport.
* Improved electric heavy rail links.

Suzie Dawson

Suzie Dawson July 15th, 2017 02:22

you are a walking encyclopaedia @taneharre and I love it :)

Colin Smith

Colin Smith July 15th, 2017 22:59

Information from Ecotricity NZ on the manufacture of Lithium Ion Batteries.
https://www.facebook.com/EcotricityNZ/videos/931880270284406/

Fred Look

Fred Look July 16th, 2017 00:41

funnily enough the impact on the grid could be the exact opposite,

it would become largely redundant!
this because the storage capacity required for all these vehicles could be harnessed to provide peak smoothing and allow for distributed generation
with sufficient battery capacity (a prerequisite for transport) solar and wind is viable and grid capacity only needs to be average power ie several orders of magnitude less than current peak

David Sutton

David Sutton July 16th, 2017 10:12

What do we replace petrol and diesel with?

Imagine if a power source existed that was abundant, efficient, clean, safe, had a small carbon footprint, didn't create toxic wastes with horrible military uses, and worked day and night in all seasons. Such a technology could make a vast number of changes to how we live, and our planet could finally start to recover from the devastation humanity has inflicted on it. The desert could be greened through desalination. Potable water could be provided for people who do not have it now. Billions could have washing machines for the first time--imagine the human productivity and environmental benefits unleashed by that alone. Recycling of all sorts would become viable--think less large scale mining. Liquid fuels could be synthesized from the carbon dioxide dissolved in the sea, which would in effect be petrol without a fossil carbon footprint. So banning petrol would be unnecessary.

Suppose you were to learn that such a power technology was already developed and proven in the last century, but was abandoned for political reasons.

I invite readers to put aside their taboos around the N-word and to inform themselves about Thorium-fuelled Molten Salt Reactors. Here is a good starting point: http://thoriumremix.com/2016/ . Warning: the video linked there is 6.5 hours long. It is worth every minute. (If you jump over to YouTube, you will find it has a table of contents with links to the major sections. Also try speeding it up if you are short of time.)

If this technology is for real, and was widely developed, the main thing that politics would have to achieve would be to keep it under the control of we-the-people and not corporates. Ponder that.

Colin England

Colin England July 16th, 2017 22:36

If this technology is for real

It's not:

Myths and Misconceptions about Thorium nuclear fuel
Don't believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option
Quoting that Guardian article:

But even were its commercial viability established, given 2010's soaring greenhouse gas levels, thorium is one magic bullet that is years off target. Those who support renewables say they will have come so far in cost and efficiency terms by the time the technology is perfected and upscaled that thorium reactors will already be uneconomic. Indeed, if renewables had a fraction of nuclear's current subsidies they could already be light years ahead.

Basically, renewables are it.

David Sutton

David Sutton July 16th, 2017 22:56

Hi Colin, it's easy to cast an idea aside without much thought based on a quick search. I'd really appreciate some comments about the link I posted. The Guardian, not so much. I challenge you to give it an hour of your time without preconception.

IP Jo Booth

IP Jo Booth July 16th, 2017 23:00

Saw a great infographic on https://talkwellington.org.nz/2017/07/13/lambton-the-golden-smile/ about the changes that would come with less cars and more bulk transport.

Colin England

Colin England July 16th, 2017 23:01

You'd have to plan the transition. Building up both renewable electricity generation and storage while also building up infrastructure to remove petrol and diesel vehicles.

To do the latter requires building up the public transport so that people in the cities didn't need cars. We could go diesel on them to start with but there are electric bus technologies available. Electric trains are already here but we'd need to look at electrifying the entire railway network (Kiwirail replacing the electric main-trunk engines with diesel are actually going against the economics BTW).

The big one is the building of the infrastructure for the generation and distribution of the electricity to power them. This will require a combination of renewable generation from solar, wind, hydro and geothermal. This will require research into what is the best combination.

Get a plan in place with a defined objective and schedule and, most importantly, keep updating that plan. Considering our starting position we should be able to retire petrol and diesel vehicles fairly quickly (I'm not going to put a time-frame on it with some research).

Colin England

Colin England July 16th, 2017 23:04

I've looked into it for several years and it all comes down to: It's possible but not yet.

We have renewables now and they don't have all the problems of nuclear power and their economics make out better.

You seem to be the one dismissing the evidence without thought.

David Sutton

David Sutton July 16th, 2017 23:09

At least we can agree it is for real then, and it's just down to timing.

Colin England

Colin England July 16th, 2017 23:23

We can agree that it's possible. If it's economically viable is another question and from what I've read it's isn't when compared to renewables.

Fred Look

Fred Look July 17th, 2017 00:12

yup all those cars pouring into wellington everyday to go where ? ??

I could see a solution where the motorway from the bottom of ngauranga to the ferry was parking with light rail running from there Wellington would be transformed ! it is doable.

Jo Booth

Jo Booth July 17th, 2017 00:56

I agree - I drive into Wellington just to park for the day. $15 parking + $10 petrol vs $2+$7+$2 x 2 on public buses - but I can't take a car load of gear - so often choose the car for convienence - having a park and ride closer to the city with overnight storage would be ideal for tradespeople...

Bruce King

Bruce King July 17th, 2017 03:16

Agree with above comments that electric vehicles (EVs) are replacing those with internal combustion engines (ICEs). EVs are becoming technologically superior for the same price, as documented below. This is due largely to the efforts of Elon Musk, CEO of TESLA.

Musk says EVs will replace ICE on all vehicles other than rockets.
“Aircraft and ships, and all other modes of transport, will go fully electric — not half electric, but fully electric.” Link: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/elon-musk-electric-planes.

As commented above by others, this means electricity is a natural replacement for fossil fuels for transport - it will happen automatically.

So in terms of transportation policy, I would suggest encouraging what will be a natural transition.

A very important aspect is that vehicles are becoming autonomous much faster than most anticipated. Within a year or so they will have the capability of driving themselves!

Teslas can almost do this already. Musk claims a Model S will drive without human intervention the 5000 km (iirc) across the US this year, presumably with a human sitting ready to intervene if required. Link: http://bgr.com/2017/05/22/model-s-tesla-self-driving-new-york-los-angeles/

That is going to have all sorts of ramifications for traffic. E.g. cars will be driving people, parking themselves. It has even been suggested that car owners will 'let their cars off the leash' to roam around as self-driving taxis :)
E.g. Mercedes has promised this in just 3 years' time. Link: https://www.wired.com/2017/04/mercedes-promises-self-driving-taxis-just-three-years/

NZ should prepare for autonomous driving, and this can be part of Internet Party's policy.

As an aside, this topic relates also to our power generation policy.

NZ's electricity grid is already 75% renewable (Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_New_Zealand). IMO we should aim for 100% renewable grid by - to throw out a date range before detailed study - say, 2030-40. Basically replace non-renewable generation with renewables at retirement, which can be accelerated.

I would be happy if a 100% renewable NZ electric grid in the not-too-distant future becomes part of Internet Party's environmental policy.

DETAILED DOCUMENTATION:

For those interested in the details, the following documents the situation with EVs.

Where are we now with EVs?

The Tesla Model S EV is already the best selling vehicle in the, admittedly fractionally small, large luxury sedan segment of the market. Link: http://fortune.com/2016/02/11/tesla-best-selling-luxury-sedan/.
The Tesla Model X is doing well in the equivalent market for cross-over vehicles (~SUVs, depending on terminology). Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_X .

Tesla has just begun production of its first mass-market vehicle, the Model 3, which is a mid-size sedan with the base model selling for US$35,000 - approximately the median price for ICE cars in that segment.
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_3 .

Musk released a photo of the first production Model 3 just a week ago. Link: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/883900030163324930

Beyond that, Tesla has plans for all other segments of the market. For example, their full-sized truck will be unveiled in September: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/852580027178696704

Tesla Company has already surpassed Ford and General Motors in market value - it is now the highest value car company in the US. E.g.: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/tesla-general-motors-elon-musk-us-most-valuable-car-company-electric-hybrid-cars-ford-a7678541.html

The traditional ICE car companies are now playing catch-up and progressively switching to EV production.

For example, Volvo has just announced that by 2019 it will make only fully electric and hybrid-electric vehicles. Link: https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/07/volvos-electric-future/532659/.
[END]

Mad Kiwi

Mad Kiwi July 17th, 2017 15:21

Deisel Engines can run quite well on Bio Fuels & many Bio Fuels can be created via waste by products such as used vat oil & agricultural waste / Methane, (at least during a transition phase, but even as of right now) The Consumer should have the Choice of 50/50 Blended fuel or 100% biofuel, if it was available I would certainly consider switching / running on biofuel.
(such a shame so many bi-products with biofuel potential go straight to the land fill rather than providing any economic, environmental or practical benefit after its initial use - such a waste of potential 'energy')

I often think about the life cycle of all the products I consume,
for instance it's much better on the environment if our aluminium has been recycled rather than smelted from the dirt, many of the modern cars these days also use precious metals in the catalytic converters, unfortunately both examples of recycling financial incentives are the motivation before the environmental benefit, it is important to realise that all our vehicles have a limited lifespan.

NZ could encourage, invest & lead the world in ensuring that we make the most of all waste materials (particularly in transport), Eg. there are so many great examples of materials that can be made from our Tyres (have you seen those dangerous waste mountains? / on fire?)
- I've heard of a biofuel made from these, let's research & improve it!.

I have seen great things made from shredded tyres
(made into a compressed thread mat, the texture looks like threaded tobacco),an NZ company makes puzzle type mats for playgrounds from them (or did ..... was it viable? if not - why not?).

Solar panel technology is great, I've heard the latest panel is some kind of composite material that harnesses the complete light spectrum which minimises lost photons,
I've also been impressed they can make Solar Panels (flat) on a roll like wallpaper or carpet - just cut to length!.
all great, But I have also read that with the popularity of solar Panels they have now become their own kind of E-waste.

which kinda sucks, I'm not sure what can be done about it at this stage re: end of use/recycling - (insulation, stuffing, packaging materials maybe???).

(Sorry for the ramble :/ ,I guess what I'm saying is....)

What ever we replace our current system with, in the name of the environment it better actually be an improvement,
not just in the short term as warm fuzzies & virtue signalling on its own will simply not be compelling enough on its own,
we need to be smarter about the materials we use, the Bi-Products we create and the complete life cycle of the resources we use !!.

(P.S Fish & Chip oil kinda stinks lol, but it could be better refined & blended with other biofuels - not impossible, just a matter of R& D investment & a steady supply of 'waste' Bi-Products.

Colin England

Colin England July 17th, 2017 22:08

Deisel Engines can run quite well on Bio Fuels & many Bio Fuels can be created via waste by products such as used vat oil & agricultural waste / Methane, (at least during a transition phase, but even as of right now)

They can be, yes, tends to use up huge amounts of land though.

The Consumer should have the Choice of 50/50 Blended fuel or 100% biofuel, if it was available I would certainly consider switching / running on biofuel.

Why?

Or to be more precise, as they're such a limited energy storage we'd probably have better uses for them than personal cars.

NZ could encourage, invest & lead the world in ensuring that we make the most of all waste materials

We should have a plan to recycle everything. Landfills need to become a thing of the past.

But that's out of the scope of this thread.

Tane Harre

Tane Harre July 18th, 2017 03:41

Bio fuels aren't as efficient as electric power. They may provide small scale solutions where power can't be obtained easily but it will almost always be be better to use them to generate electricity than to power the machinery directly.

After this is an additional edit so @bruceking may want to read again and adjust like as needed.

I was just filling my generator when I thought there is actually a good case for bio-fuel in New Zealand in the South Island and central North Island.

Cold temperatures play havoc with batteries.

Bio-fuel could be used in these areas to solve this disadvantage if battery tech hasn't advanced enough.

Additionally, it might be of advantage to keep emergency services on bio-fuel as well.

Bruce King

Bruce King July 18th, 2017 10:43

"Cold temperatures play havoc with batteries."

True. EV battery packs have fairly serious thermal management systems to counter this, e.g. Tesla Model S: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/tesla-thermal-management-system-explanation.88055/

Due to incentives, 42% of new car sales in Norway are EVs: https://electrek.co/2017/07/04/electric-car-norway-tesla-model-x/

Mathew Innes

Mathew Innes July 22nd, 2017 01:17

If we could get our scientists working on making bio fuel, solar panel manufacturing here and hydro... h2o powered vehicles etc. it would mean our education system would be filled with people trying to support the whole system, rather than lose them over seas

Fred Look

Fred Look July 22nd, 2017 01:37

I think that the polluted water in Lake Ellesmere and others (high nitrates) could be used to grow oil producing algae.

inputs: sunlight and polluted water,

outputs: oil, nitrogenous fertilizer, and cleansed water.

life of project: until the water is too clean to support algae
co2 neutral.. win win

Nathaniel Fallow

Nathaniel Fallow July 23rd, 2017 01:49

Solar is not viable for utility-scale generation in New Zealand. We are too far from the equator and too cold. There is not enough land area to build solar plants here. This is not even getting into the significant amounts of industrial waste produced in the manufacture of solar cells and batteries, but fake greenies never like to acknowledge that.

The most viable option to get our electricity generation completely divested from fossil fuels is nuclear. Thorium is a relatively unproven technology and I do not support it yet; but "traditional" reactor designs in small, modular configurations are well developed and being implemented across the world. Nuclear is the safest, cleanest energy source in the world, both in terms of deaths per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced, and lifetime greenhouse gas emissions. This is not just fake news pushed by the nuclear industry, these are the actual facts as found by the IPCC, a non-partisan international organization dedicated to opposing climate change.

Continuing to oppose nuclear on the basis of 80s-era cold war hysteria and propaganda betrays that you don't actually know the facts about the technology or climate change, and either care more about your fake environmentalist street cred, or are actively getting funding from fossil fuel interests (as it has been proven that much of the anti-nuclear smear campaign has come from coal and oil).

Tane Harre

Tane Harre July 23rd, 2017 07:09

I am pro science but, have the same problem with nuclear that I have always had. You show me a country older than the amount of time it takes the nuclear waste to break down. Is there one?

Nathaniel Fallow

Nathaniel Fallow July 23rd, 2017 07:27

No, there isn't. But what makes nuclear waste more frightening to you than "regular" industrial waste? The production process for photovoltaic cells produces hundreds of times more toxic waste than a nuclear plant for the amount of energy those cells will produce. Similar issue with mass production of lithium batteries - they're incredibly polluting, and not particularly efficient for storing energy.

And this is not even going into the fact that nuclear waste can be reprocessed into more fuel for the reactors (as is done in France), drastically reducing both the volume and radioactivity of the leftover waste. This is easily and safely disposed of in deep repositories, while the GHGs from coal and gas plants replaceable by nuclear are not.

Nathaniel Fallow

Nathaniel Fallow July 23rd, 2017 07:44

Actually, I'll qualify my "no there isn't" statement RE: you asking if there are countries older than the time for waste to decay. Roughly 3% of nuclear waste is "High Level Waste" that will remain hazardous for thousands of years, and this requires geological repositories. The vast majority will be safe on the time scale of decades, not millenia, so I would actually argue that yes, there are several countries older than the typical lifetime of dangerous nuclear waste. I'll reiterate that this cannot be said for the waste produced by many other non-nuclear processes, which remains toxic indefinitely.

Colin England

Colin England July 23rd, 2017 07:49

Solar is not viable for utility-scale generation in New Zealand. We are too far from the equator and too cold.

[Citation Needed]

Although, there was that interesting article a few months back where a couple built an off-grid Passivehouse with lots of solar power who were generating enough to run their house and drive their 4x4 50 kilometres.

That would seem to put paid to assertion.

There is not enough land area to build solar plants here.

We have some of the highest roading per capita. If we converted those to solar roads we'd probably have more than enough.

This is not even getting into the significant amounts of industrial waste produced in the manufacture of solar cells and batteries,

That's a question of proper regulation and recycling.

The most viable option to get our electricity generation completely divested from fossil fuels is nuclear.

No it isn't. The nuclear cycle costs far more than it provides.

Nuclear is the safest, cleanest energy source in the world

There's a reason why NZ is called the Shaky Isles and building nuclear plants in that sort of environment is just asking for disaster.

But what makes nuclear waste more frightening to you than "regular" industrial waste?

The fact that there's nothing we can do with it afterwards. Normal 'industrial waste' can be recycled and put back into the production stream.

Josh Rich

Josh Rich July 23rd, 2017 08:03

Solar Roadways is a flop. They're working model broke in a week and thats without stress testing.

Because solar works on a small scale doesn't mean it can work on a larger scale either.

There's a reason why NZ is called the Shaky Isles and building nuclear plants in that sort of environment is just asking for disaster.

The modern plants have survived up to 7 and theoretically up to 10 earthquakes. Let alone areas in NZ which are not quake prone could be viable.

Nathaniel Fallow

Nathaniel Fallow July 23rd, 2017 08:22

I'm not opposed to solar on off-grid style set ups. If people build their house to be totally self sufficient, more power (haha) to them.

"We have some of the highest roading per capita. If we converted those to solar roads we'd probably have more than enough."

solar roadways were a scam.

"That's a question of proper regulation and recycling."

You mean the proper regulation that only the nuclear industry is subjected to, out of all power generating technologies? As a reminder, solar produces 300 times the toxic waste of nuclear, and is only actually regulated in Europe because everyone else asusumes they run on unicorn farts.

"No it isn't. The nuclear cycle costs far more than it provides."

Then why are the electricity prices in France, which has about three quarters of its electricity generated by nuclear, one of the lowest in Europe, while Germany which has invested heavily in "green" solar for decades has some of the highest (and incidentally, regularly imports energy from France, and emits significantly more carbon dioxide).

"There's a reason why NZ is called the Shaky Isles and building nuclear plants in that sort of environment is just asking for disaster."

I suppose this is a clever jab at Fukushima - the "disaster" that killed literally no one. What I find odd about the earthquakes argument is that Japan's fifty other operating reactors - including Fukushima Daini, only a couple kilometers south of Daiichi and subject to nearly identical earthquake and tsunami conditions - were shut down completely safely. Not to mention that Daiichi was a reactor designed in the 60s - modern designs have made significant improvements to safety, to the point of being passive, walk-away safe.

"The fact that there's nothing we can do with it afterwards. Normal 'industrial waste' can be recycled and put back into the production stream."

I addressed this before - nuclear waste IS recyclable. Only about 95% of the fissile material is burnt before being considered spent fuel - this is easily reprocessable and reburnable and is done in several countries. And again, radioactive waste decays in toxicity over time, unlike other toxic waste products. The amounts of waste produced by nuclear are dwarfed by everything else.

Tane Harre

Tane Harre July 23rd, 2017 10:53

I still can't think of a country that has been around for thousands of years I am going to disagree with you on that point.

As for what makes nuclear waste more frightening to me than regular industrial waste. It isn't. It is a risk that has to be assessed and decided upon. I just don't find any of the arguments compelling (especially in New Zealand) and I believe that we can leap both petrol and nuclear and go a better way.

As for photo-voltaic cell manufacture causing more toxins than a nuclear power plant. A difference is that I can go and pick up my solar panel and take it to be recycled. Another would be that at the current increase in efficiency less and less of them will be needed per person further bringing down the toxicity per head of population. I can also decide that I don't want to use them anymore as something else has come along that is better.

Never been fond of lithium batteries myself but they are advancing as well. Half the problem with batteries is that we never really spend much time advancing them until the 1990's. Now a days there is a new better battery every week.

Finally? French nuclear reactors. They don't have earthquakes (or at least very rarely). We do, very often.

Colin England

Colin England July 23rd, 2017 13:02

solar roadways were a scam.

Nope. Just need more development.

And having them would still be better than using standard non-performing road.

You mean the proper regulation that only the nuclear industry is subjected to, out of all power generating technologies?

No. Proper regulation that requires all resources used for any reason to be recycled.

What I find odd about the earthquakes argument is that Japan's fifty other operating reactors - including Fukushima Daini, only a couple kilometers south of Daiichi and subject to nearly identical earthquake and tsunami conditions - were shut down completely safely.

You obviously have no understanding of earthquakes and geology. Even my limited understanding tells me that the waves that earthquakes generate travel differently through different rocks. Living in Auckland I didn't feel the earthquakes in Christchurch but I did feel the one in Kaikoura. This difference means that structures will be affected differently based upon where they are.

Then why are the electricity prices in France, which has about three quarters of its electricity generated by nuclear, one of the lowest in Europe, while Germany which has invested heavily in "green" solar for decades has some of the highest (and incidentally, regularly imports energy from France, and emits significantly more carbon dioxide).

Perhaps it's economies of scale?
Germany also exports power. In fact, that may be why France has lower power prices - they don't export as much.

And again, radioactive waste decays in toxicity over time, unlike other toxic waste products.

/facepalm

All waste products decay over time. It's called entropy.

That said, nuclear waste takes thousands of years while most other waste products will only take a few decades. Properly recycled would probably take even less.

Pirate Radio Podcasts

Pirate Radio Podcasts July 23rd, 2017 13:28

Bonafide, long lasting eco-solutions, huh? Well, it sure is "funny" how virtually ALL these SUPER famous "Greens" like Al Gore et al. NEVER mention a SINGLE f#$%%$in thing about "THE PLANT." Genuine concern for the earth, our fragile ecosystems, & its sentient inhabitants? Seriously, WHO DO THEY THINK they're fooling? #HEMP4VICTORY https://vimeo.com/12891624

Josh Rich

Josh Rich July 23rd, 2017 20:14

I still can't think of a country that has been around for thousands of years I am going to disagree with you on that point.

Countries have been around for decades :)

Nope. Just need more development.
And having them would still be better than using standard non-performing road.

So its still an unproven tech so I would not base policy off it at the very least.

You obviously have no understanding of earthquakes and geology. Even my limited understanding tells me that the waves that earthquakes generate travel differently through different rocks. Living in Auckland I didn't feel the earthquakes in Christchurch but I did feel the one in Kaikoura. This difference means that structures will be affected differently based upon where they are.

This doesn't refute his original point and why can't that mean we can build reactors on better ground?

All waste products decay over time. It's called entropy.

We're talking in a realistic scale not thousands of years for complex carbons to degrade.

Suzie Dawson

Suzie Dawson July 23rd, 2017 20:57

This was brought to my attention and given the Michael Hastings incident I'm surprised I hadn't thought of it myself sooner: apparently all electric vehicles are computer-based and therefore hackable.

I'm definitely not down with the security risks of the IoT and this extends to vehicles. As a person of interest and a hunted journalist, yes, hackable vehicles bothers me a great deal. Especially given the testimony of people like Richard Clarke etc...

so what does that leave us with, biofuel?

Just a couple of source links:

  1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/22/car-hacking-just-got-real-hackers-disable-suv-on-busy-highway/?utm_term=.037bd263164c

  2. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/22/security-experts-hack-into-moving-car-and-seize-control.html

  3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/michael-hastings-car-hacked_n_3492339.html

Bruce King

Bruce King July 24th, 2017 00:41

Yes, the hacking of cars is a big issue. Your 3rd reference in particular is sobering. This is not specific to electric vehicles (EVs) though. It relates to multiple control systems for the vehicle's functions and is becoming universal to all new cars.

Looking at your links, I don't have access to the first one but the vehicles in other 2 are both internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles: a Jeep Cherokee and a 2013 Mercedes C250 coupe. So this issue doesn't speak either for or against EVs.

Suzie Dawson

Suzie Dawson July 24th, 2017 08:00

Hey... sorry didn't mean to imply only electric vehicles are hackable, clearly all new computerised vehicles are hackable as you say, but rather that 100% of electric vehicles are hackable and yes I definitely think this is concerning :(

Blake Bedford-Palmer

Blake Bedford-Palmer July 25th, 2017 10:39

Yeah, pretty much every car in the last 5 years has what is called a CAN bus, Control Area Network, Which nearly every part of the car uses to communicate.. For example when you turn the lights on, you are sending a message over the CAN bus asking the lights to turn on. Its the same for large vehicles like buses and trucks too.

Where this goes wrong is when the cars entertainment system is internet connected and there are exploits allowing a way in, of course if you have physical access to the car you can do anything.

Any way, I know this has already been decided and I'm late to the discussion, but instead focussing on banning them, I think it would be better to incentivise moving to electric and making sure the right infrastructure is there and that they are affordable.

In a few years electric cars will be more common and the cost should come down with more viable distance etc, petrol and diesel will pretty much just fade out naturally, but that's not to say you couldn't give them a little push.

But if people who buy a petrol car in 2020 are able to get 20 years of use out of it that sounds fair.

Then there's commercial vehicles to think about.

IA

idiom axiom July 26th, 2017 00:47

A fully optioned Tesla Model X goes for NZ$250k, how much will it cost me after the Internet Parties subsidies? Like $50k?

$200k worth of free car for everyone!

Blake Bedford-Palmer

Blake Bedford-Palmer July 26th, 2017 05:44

You are choosing one of the most expensive options... The Tesla Model 3 will probably be around $50K NZ, A Nissan Leaf can be had cheaper than that.

Bruce King

Bruce King July 26th, 2017 20:52

Daymond Goulder-Horobin

Daymond Goulder-Horobin July 26th, 2017 21:59

I mentioned that on Discord the other day, I think the difference is that they plan on banning the Sale of new cars and vans from 2040 to curve the usage of petrol and Diesel without going after the culture of Motorsport too much. The hope is that by this time electric cars will be more developed and in hopes cheaper to produce and be bought. And then perhaps 2060 onward ban them entirely once the culture is curved down.

IA

idiom axiom July 27th, 2017 08:42

So a low income family will be forced to buy a $50k car if they want to drive anywhere?

Tane Harre

Tane Harre August 2nd, 2017 01:30

Colin England

Colin England August 2nd, 2017 03:30

Any way, I know this has already been decided and I'm late to the discussion, but instead focussing on banning them, I think it would be better to incentivise moving to electric and making sure the right infrastructure is there and that they are affordable.

This is one of those ideas that sounds reasonable but is way off the mark as it takes longer (some people simply won't move), costs more (having to double up on infrastructure) and allows loopholes that can be rorted for personal gain (see Double Dipton).

Colin England

Colin England August 2nd, 2017 03:30

So a low income family will be forced to buy a $50k car if they want to drive anywhere?

Good public transport removes the need to drive at all.

And, yes, public transport should also be free to use.

IA

idiom axiom August 2nd, 2017 03:34

Cars for the rich, public transport for the plebs. So egalitarian of you.

Colin England

Colin England August 2nd, 2017 03:36

In a well developed society the 'rich' take public transport.

Tane Harre

Tane Harre August 2nd, 2017 05:27

Public transport has never worked very well for rural areas.

IA

idiom axiom August 2nd, 2017 22:51

Public Transport will be hosed in a few years with autonomous electric cars. Go anywhere you want, when you want, no need to park.

Only economic competition will be trains ans New Zealand doesn't begin to understand how trains work.

Colin England

Colin England August 2nd, 2017 23:12

Public Transport will be hosed in a few years with autonomous electric cars. Go anywhere you want, when you want, no need to park.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of economics and physical reality.

Even making cars electric and autonomous doesn't make them economic. They'd still cost far more than public transport. There will be some but not enough to cover the rush hours when most people are going to/from work.

Only economic competition will be trains ans New Zealand doesn't begin to understand how trains work.

Trains would be part of the public transport system. And, yes, we've been poorly developed by successive governments who built roads over trains resulting in that misunderstanding.

Colin England

Colin England August 2nd, 2017 23:14

Rural areas may well end up being where electric, autonomous vehicles work as their proponents describe.

IA

idiom axiom August 21st, 2017 08:31

Mazda just announce a jump of 30% in efficiency in petrol engines. Across their entire range. So efficient they will have lower emissions than electric cars on coal grids.

Fortunately the Internet party banned this and all similar advances.

Tane Harre

Tane Harre August 21st, 2017 08:47

IA

idiom axiom August 21st, 2017 08:52

Which Mazda says will have higher emissions in certain regions than their new petrol engine.

EV's don't run on magic.

IA

idiom axiom August 25th, 2017 20:30

Oil won't be running out any time soon. Which means as we try to move away from it, it will get cheaper.

Countries that move away prematurely based on ideology stand to take an ever growing economic hit.

http://www.aei.org/publication/we-should-view-americas-most-prolific-oil-field-the-permian-basin-as-a-permanent-near-infinite-resource/