Singapore fines Tesla owners for high emissions

[DaTT]

This makes me chuckle. Singapore residents who bought Tesla vehicles apply for the zero emissions tax rebate, instead get hit with $15k pollution tax.

By most commonly-held definitions, the Tesla Model S is a zero-emissions vehicle—the all-electric vehicle has no tailpipe, and emits no exhaust while driving. That's not a convincing argument for Singapore's Land Transport Authority, however: The agency hit Singapore's first Tesla Model S owner with a tax of S$15,000 (roughly $10,840), ranking his electric sedan in the dirtiest category of high-pollution automobiles.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/news/a28417/singapore-government-fines-tesla-model-s-owner/

 

[master_shake_]

fucking retards...

 

[Phanuel]

Why don't they fine ICEs for the electricity used to process petroleum into petrol as well?

 

[Brian Stirling]

I can only guess that if the guy said he recharges his car from his home solar system his fee would double!

But, given Singapore's oil and gas industry I'm not terribly surprised that they'd go after this guy.

Singapore is dubbed "the undisputed oil hub in Asia"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_industry_in_Singapore


Brian

 

[Howard]

Wait a... what?

 

[monkeydelmagico]

Have you seen the smoke cloud those Teslas throw when they catch fire? Good call Singapore Land Transport authority!

 

[Torn Mind]

Teslas might indeed be zero emission in the sense no exhaust is spewed out. But it is true that guzzling down electricity also generates emissions...typically at the power plant.

The question is whether the actual figures are accurate, or just conveniently chosen for government to make some pretty coin.

 

[Slappy00]

Teslas might indeed be zero emission in the sense no exhaust is spewed out. But it is true that guzzling down electricity also generates emissions...typically at the power plant.

The question is whether the actual figures are accurate, or just conveniently chosen for government to make some pretty coin.

I would say that with electricity as a power source there are more options to lower the carbon emissions via renewable or nuclear power sources. SO just because it uses electricity, doesn't mean that it is polluting at the same rate.

 

[Subyman]

Most ICEs are around 20% efficient then they have a driveline loss of roughly 15%. Fossil fuel power plants are roughly 30% efficient for old technology and 50% for combined cycle. Then there are transmission losses through the grid of an average of 6% in the US. Charging a battery is normally around 90% efficient. An electric motor is roughly 80% efficient. Driveline losses are much less on an electric car due to direct drive, let's say 2%.

ICE total efficiency: 17%
Electric car: ~19% using traditional power generation

Then you need to add in the extra emissions used to build the batteries over the lifetime of the car and you likely get back to the efficiency of a normal ICE. The major gains come from being able to use solar, wind, tidal, or nuclear to power the car.

 

[Brovane]

Most ICEs are around 20% efficient then they have a driveline loss of roughly 15%. Fossil fuel power plants are roughly 30% efficient for old technology and 50% for combined cycle. Then there are transmission losses through the grid of an average of 6% in the US. Charging a battery is normally around 90% efficient. An electric motor is roughly 80% efficient. Driveline losses are much less on an electric car due to direct drive, let's say 2%.

ICE total efficiency: 17%
Electric car: ~19% using traditional power generation

Then you need to add in the extra emissions used to build the batteries over the lifetime of the car and you likely get back to the efficiency of a normal ICE. The major gains come from being able to use solar, wind, tidal, or nuclear to power the car.

Electricity is also required by refineries to refine fuel.

 

[DAGTA]

Most ICEs are around 20% efficient then they have a driveline loss of roughly 15%. Fossil fuel power plants are roughly 30% efficient for old technology and 50% for combined cycle. Then there are transmission losses through the grid of an average of 6% in the US. Charging a battery is normally around 90% efficient. An electric motor is roughly 80% efficient. Driveline losses are much less on an electric car due to direct drive, let's say 2%.

ICE total efficiency: 17%
Electric car: ~19% using traditional power generation

Then you need to add in the extra emissions used to build the batteries over the lifetime of the car and you likely get back to the efficiency of a normal ICE. The major gains come from being able to use solar, wind, tidal, or nuclear to power the car.

What about the emissions produced while transporting gasoline to gas stations?

This has been explored, in depth, on other sites. Teslas always come out ahead in thorough analysis.

 

[AdamK47]

Singapore doesn't mess around.

 

[Topweasel]

Keep in mind that this kind of rule isn't just about the C02 and other gasses exhausted by the car. Its probably a back door for making sure future electric cars don't add more than needed stress on the power infrastructure. We use eMPG here to try to give a value for cost to cover both EV and Hybrid designs. But right now no one really cares about power efficiency considering the cost of power when dealing with EV's. Eventually if Electric cars are the future, you will start to see more balance, competition, and maybe regulation on either on power efficiency, with cars going for performance, distance, and everything in between. In places where the power situation is strained even before accounting for a large portion of the populace adopting electric cars, I would expect this type of regulation.

 

[SSSnail]

Doesn't surprise me, that government is ran by a bunch of robots. We're not talking about robots with IBM or Google AI, but more circa 1980s DOS programs.