Battery Electric Vehicle News / Enjoying the Transportation Revolution

zeupater

silverwhistle said:

Bit heavy on the sarcasm there Z, even if I think JF was talking UB*.

I'd also observe that within the EU with 27 nations keeping an eye on things that this is also a bit unfair: "- at least it ensures that ICE sales are directly subsidising BEVs as opposed to being lost somewhere deep within the opaque coffers of the EU and likely diverted to a random form of bureaucratic administration somewhere along the line".

Frankly I suggest that there are more checks and balances in the EU than within our own wonderful monarchy..

* unmitigated ..

Hi

Agree, really heavy, but IMO a totally justified retort considering the content, context & tone of the post it referred to!! ...

Anyway, regarding the observation above ... my personal experience with the way the EU works leads to a conclusion that there's plenty of unnecessary administration cost involved and 'reserved' monies may not always be forthcoming within supposedly agreed timescales .... a good example for illustration is to consider the aggregated cost implications of currency triangulation requirements ( https://www.icjce.es/images/pdfs/TECNICA/B2%20-%20FEE/B25%20-%20FEE-Euro/FEETriangulation.pdf ) when the Euro currency was being launched as opposed to simply setting exchange rates at levels where a single A4 sheet tabulation available to all concerned would have sufficed saving EU industry literally billions of wasted investment in whatever currency you'd like to apply!! .... as for 'checks & balances' vs 'opaque coffers', well, of course, that really relies on being subjected to a reasonably transparent external financial audit process and having the books successfully signed off, but I don't think that any more need be said about that! ......

The point here is that one passenger vehicle manufacturing business is willing to subsidise a competitor through a form of fleet emissions pooling in order to mitigate their own exposure to paying a target punitive levy to the EU ( https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/regulation_en ) . This effectively ensures that (i) monies earned within the automotive sector remain within that sector for the long-term benefit of the sector as a whole, and (ii) unnecessary administrational overheads are avoided, the whole effectively operating as a low-cost guaranteed ring-fenced system. The 'alternative' would involve payment of the fleet emissions levy to the general EU coffers where there is no apparent undertaking/guarantee  to ring-fence received funds to either low(/zero) emissions vehicles or even to the wider scope of  energy, climate change or environmental schemes/projects, hence the logical conclusions would be that there would be (i) costs involved in the EU's central administration of the scheme, and (ii) remaining monies derived from the scheme could be allocated to and spent on any scheme that the EU effectively sees fit! .... this brings us back to the term 'opaque coffers' because the lack of the full transparency availed by external audit results in no-one being able to follow the money trail - and that's why the term was used! ...

HTH - Z

michaels

I'll ask again - surely it is quite straightforward to work out the emissions value of each ev sold by a car company that would otherwise have to pay the fine?  Anyone seen any figures for this?

I have done some maths - does 18k Eur per EV sound right?
Consider a car maker that sells 1m ICE cars with average emissions of 96g of CO2 and a target of 95g.  The EU fine payable is 1g x 95 Eur/gcar x 1m cars = 95m EUROs
Now suppose they also sell 1 EV and it is in a market where each EV counts double bubble in 2020.

Now they are selling 1m and 2 cars and the average CO2 is 95.99981g.  The EU fine payable is 0.99981g x 95Eur x 1,000,002 cars = 94,981,950 EUROs
So selling that one electric car has reduced the fine by 18,050 Euros.

Can this be right?  Is each electric car sold in 2020 worth 18,000 EUROS to the manufacturers bottom line?!

And half as much in 2021 etc when it is only counted once?

zeupater

michaels said:

I'll ask again - surely it is quite straightforward to work out the emissions value of each ev sold by a car company that would otherwise have to pay the fine?  Anyone seen any figures for this?

Hi

As no-one seems to have helped to do your donkey work for you  .... as it's an EU requirement it's readily available in full on the European Commission's website! ...

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/cars_en

Note the latest fleet target changes 2020/21, the application of the levy across the fleet & the latest applicable emission thresholds! ... 

HTH - Z

ABrass

michaels said:

I'll ask again - surely it is quite straightforward to work out the emissions value of each ev sold by a car company that would otherwise have to pay the fine?  Anyone seen any figures for this?

I have done some maths - does 18k Eur per EV sound right?
Consider a car maker that sells 1m ICE cars with average emissions of 96g of CO2 and a target of 95g.  The EU fine payable is 1g x 95 Eur/gcar x 1m cars = 95m EUROs
Now suppose they also sell 1 EV and it is in a market where each EV counts double bubble in 2020.

Now they are selling 1m and 2 cars and the average CO2 is 95.99981g.  The EU fine payable is 0.99981g x 95Eur x 1,000,002 cars = 94,981,950 EUROs
So selling that one electric car has reduced the fine by 18,050 Euros.

Can this be right?  Is each electric car sold in 2020 worth 18,000 EUROS to the manufacturers bottom line?!

And half as much in 2021 etc when it is only counted once?

It's not that simple, the first g/km is less. It also misses the current exclusion of the 5% most polluting cars of a fleet from the stats.

It's really only applicable in one situation, Tesla and FCA. No one else does emissions pooling at the moment.

Also you're missing the super cap.

A cap on the super-credits is set at 7.5 g/km per manufacturer over the three years.

michaels

ABrass said:

michaels said:

I'll ask again - surely it is quite straightforward to work out the emissions value of each ev sold by a car company that would otherwise have to pay the fine?  Anyone seen any figures for this?

I have done some maths - does 18k Eur per EV sound right?
Consider a car maker that sells 1m ICE cars with average emissions of 96g of CO2 and a target of 95g.  The EU fine payable is 1g x 95 Eur/gcar x 1m cars = 95m EUROs
Now suppose they also sell 1 EV and it is in a market where each EV counts double bubble in 2020.

Now they are selling 1m and 2 cars and the average CO2 is 95.99981g.  The EU fine payable is 0.99981g x 95Eur x 1,000,002 cars = 94,981,950 EUROs
So selling that one electric car has reduced the fine by 18,050 Euros.

Can this be right?  Is each electric car sold in 2020 worth 18,000 EUROS to the manufacturers bottom line?!

And half as much in 2021 etc when it is only counted once?

It's not that simple, the first g/km is less. It also misses the current exclusion of the 5% most polluting cars of a fleet from the stats.

It's really only applicable in one situation, Tesla and FCA. No one else does emissions pooling at the moment.

Also you're missing the super cap.

A cap on the super-credits is set at 7.5 g/km per manufacturer over the three years.

I don't think the 5% worst polluter removal makes any difference to this analysis and the supercap only really comes into play for a manufacturer once they sell more than approx. 8% of their fleet is zero emissions.  Basically if you are a car manufacturer unless you are already meeting the target then each ev you sell in 2020 reduces your fine by 18k and 15k in 2021, eventually falling to 9k over time or if the supercap applies.

Obviously you are going to charge the consumer what you can get away with but there will be huge pressure for manufacturers to shift every ev they can produce.

zeupater

Hi

All depends on how the described logic is applied across the average levy/unit & adjusting the total unit build, for example, does an actual build of 1m+1 cars result in a levy based on 1,000,002 (+1!) or 999,999, that being the 1,000,001 minus the initial double allowance for the BEVs ?, which would describe some form of logical error having been employed! .... anyway, however the logic is applied what needs to be realised is that the scheme is both designed to encourage the uptake of BEVs and financed directly by the parts of the automotive industry that don't comply, furthermore, the advised changes to the scheme ensure that failure to move into a position of compliance simply results in progressively larger payments down the line ....

Just knocking together a quick spreadsheet using a slightly different logic (based on a pretty realistic premise of maintaining sales but changing mix) to the variables used in recent posts suggests that the manufacturer averaging 96g could initially mitigate levy payments by moving around 11000 of the total 1m build from ICE to BEV ASAP, however, further changes in the scheme accounting for BEV build require further shifts away from ICE to BEV to avoid the punitive payment returning ....

Quite an incentive to encourage rapid development of low emission product ranges .... effectively, it's your money Mr Automotive Sector, spend it on improving your product offerings, give it to others through the pooling system to ensure that they compete directly with your product offerings, or have it taken from you .... seems like a fair choice when put that way!    

HTH - Z 

joefizz

EVandPV said:

joefizz said:

Oh and I never said there wouldnt be battery trains etc, .

Oh I think you did .....

joefizz said:

They are also dependent on subsidy, will prove increasingly expensive and not available to everyone (probably will never be battery trains, busses, heavy transport etc etc).

Hmmm, maybe I should explain the definition of the word 'probably' ;-)

Martyn1981

joefizz said:

EVandPV said:

joefizz said:

Oh and I never said there wouldnt be battery trains etc, .

Oh I think you did .....

joefizz said:

They are also dependent on subsidy, will prove increasingly expensive and not available to everyone (probably will never be battery trains, busses, heavy transport etc etc).

Hmmm, maybe I should explain the definition of the word 'probably' ;-)

Any chance you could explain it on Ken's 'Alternative to Green & Ethical Threads' thread, so we can get back to BEV's? Thanks.

joefizz

zeupater said:

Hi

Agree, really heavy, but IMO a totally justified retort considering the content, context & tone of the post it referred to!! ...

I was only replying to your post about your research not being able to find out the information. Now if I was being really sarcastic I would have said sitting in your conservatory asking your cat isnt what I would consider research.
To be fair, in our previous interactions your research seemed to be limited to using google. Im glad that now you are using the valuable resources of the EU sites for getting base information directly rather than others who wait 2-3 years for rehashes of PR spin or somebody on youtube to make a video about it.
The post I made about the EU RFC (sorry keep calling it an RFC but its not but thats the term I normally use) had over 270 odd replies from stakeholders when I waded through it. Thats businesses and countries applying for a green deal slush fund. In there if you will wade through all of them are pie in the sky applications, things that had been mothballed for various reasons and things which are never going to see the light of day but may lead to further research which will.

The green deal could be a bit of a gold rush as far as green tech is concerned in a number of industries, with a lot of money magic'd up by the ECB for projects which would normally be unfeasible and inefficient. BEVs so far have been the 'easy' option. Its evolution, not revolution.

My own 2007 diesel mpv is french and had an 'electricque' version based on a van and france specified anything used for the post service had to have an electric version for city use. Lead acid batteries but still at some point I can fit an electric drivetrain to it, find some newer batteries and continue on as normal, hence the spending the last few weeks replacing all the suspension etc, the stuff entropy normally kills a car with. People think electric cars started with Tesla but its just evolution. The Green deal gives the once in a lifetime opportunity for revolution, which really hasnt been funded for decades.

As with other posts I also recommend researchgate for stuff you wont find on google (other research sites are available).

Martyn1981

Lots of BEV news with more commercial vehicle offerings, Norway's growing BEV fleet helping it to meet its targets to reduce CO2, and more on the Arcimoto Deliverator, based on their gorgeous FUV (disclosure - a vehicle I like so much, I bought shares in the company):

Electric Trucks & Vans From Fiat, Citroen, & Volvo Coming Soon

People may or may not want to buy electric cars (US manufacturers still insist that is the case), but the demand for electric trucks and delivery vans is ratcheting up as fleet managers fall in love with their low operating and maintenance costs. Fiat and Citroen are introducing new electric vans for the European market and Volvo Trucks (which is not the same company as Volvo Cars) is getting ready to offer its electric box trucks to commercial customers in Southern California.

Norway May Achieve Emissions Reduction Goals This Year, Thanks To More EVs & Higher Public Transportation Usage

8 years ago, the Norwegian government established carbon reduction goals, but Norway has never achieved any of the annual targets — until now. Preliminary data suggests this year the country may indeed meet its goal of limiting carbon dioxide emissions from all sources to 48.6 billion tons — precisely the target established in 2012.

Arcimoto’s Deliverator Paves The Way To Sustainable Deliveries In Los Angeles With Hyrecar

Arcimoto has officially added its fully electric Deliverator delivery vehicles to the Hyrecar fleet in Los Angeles, California to enable gig drivers to take advantage of a purpose-built electric delivery vehicle. The vehicles are well suited to empower delivery drivers to maximize earnings with a vehicle that’s right-sized for delivery with a lower cost to operate than a comparable gasoline-powered vehicle.