by frog
Although it won’t be New Zealand’s first electric car, it will be the first fully electric production model. But wait, there’s more! The conversion to fully electric will take place here, according to a press release from Hyundai today.
The project is in collaboration with engineer, Ross Blade who developed the Getz retro-fit electric car. He will be setting up a production facility based around a projected sales base of 200 plus vehicles per annum.
The electric Getz has a top speed of 120kph with a range of 120km on a single charge with a fast charge extending the range for a day’s running to approximately 200km. This makes it a fantastic vehicle for running around town being small, easy to park and of course having absolutely no emissions.
It is a myth that the Greens are totally anti-car, (or dairy for that matter). We just recognise that humanity is bumping up against resource limits and that we need to break our addiction to them and offer more sustainable choices.
Anyone who thinks we can just switch all of our existing petrol infrastructure for electric and just carry on with business as usual is deluded. Nevertheless, electric cars must be part of the mix that weans us from our unsustainable, climate destroying ways.
This announcement is great news. The Getz retrofit is an important niche player, as a huge percentage of automobile trips are just a few kilometres each way, or daily commutes. It also begins the long hard slog of replacing our petrol infrastructure with something more sustainable.
Congratulations, Hyundai. I didn’t order the first one which is due in November. But I wish I had!
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Any data on vehicle manufacturing efficiency?
Remember in the 80s when taxi drivers started converting to LPG? What’s the prognosis for converting my shitbox Camry (which really does need a new engine) to electro?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Am I getting moderated? Fair enough, but any chance of building in a message to that effect? Looks like post failed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Paradox – Yup. You’re getting moderated for using that sh*t word in your post. Sorry, but I don’t manage the moderating software, just clean it out once or twice a day!
As for your Camry, have a troll of the net. there are heaps of conversion kits out there, and reviews from users too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I trust he builds in the slow overnight charge option and that electricity retail companies allow us to charge our cars at the off peak rate.
What’s more the kit should include the option of a Prof Boys under floor charging plate so that all you have to do is drive into the garage and park over the plate and the charging begins. Avoids the risk of driving out while still plugged into the wall.
If the plates are by parking meters ever meter becomes a re-charge point.
We would never have to go to a service station for energy again!
So let’s keep building those roads. We are going to need them for the electrified vehicle fleet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>We are going to need them for the electrified vehicle fleet.
Indeed. But the greenery are still under the impression that the car requires oil to run.
Cognitive dissonance, perhaps….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Anyone who thinks we can just switch all of our existing petrol infrastructure for electric and just carry on with business as usual is deluded.
Nobody is suggesting that. It will likely happen slowly over time, and only if Peak Oil turns out to be correct. Which it may well do….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I trust he builds in the slow overnight charge option and that electricity retail companies allow us to charge our cars at the off peak rate.”
I don’t quite follow – is this the current situation Owen?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peak oil is not an IF. It is a WHEN. Peak oil is a simple geological fact of life. The only debate is when it will happen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Talk about missing the point. For the sake of argument, let’s say Peak Oil is 100% certain to have already happened.
The car is here to stay. As are roads. Plan for ‘em.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>> The car is here to stay. As are roads. Plan for ‘em.
Until the whole country is covered in tar seal?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# BluePeter Says:
September 26th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
The car is here to stay. As are roads. Plan for ‘em.
………
Make developers pay for additional infrastructure. Why should we subsidize them?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh, I know these are people with needed skills who will make us all richer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kjuv, Get real. The amount of land covered by roads increased by less than 20% in the last century, ie the first century of the motorcar. The amount of roads covered by tarseal, on the other hand, increased by 10,000% during the century. Actually, nine-tenths of that occured during the third quarter of the century, less than one-twentieth occured in the final quarter despite traffic doubling.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If public transport was better, we wouldn’t need to waste land and money on more roads.
I’ve used excellent public transport systems. I’ve lived in places where I didn’t need a car, most recently 6 months in Toronto.
It can be done and it’s actually cheaper than endlessly building roads…which is why many cities and countries invested in public transport instead – to save money.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Want To Stop Sprawl? Curb Immigration
“A new study suggests the only way to put a stop to rampant suburban sprawl is not better planning and zoning, or even encouraging people to move back into the cities, but by curbing immigration… the Center for Immigration Studies and NumbersUSA Education and Research Foundation released a new study that already has drawn criticism from anti-sprawl activists.”
https://www.planetizen.com/node/11076
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OutinFront,
Sure public transport is an answer, however we have a problem in new ealand in that we dont have enough money to build it.
To build a decent public tranport system NATIONWIDE, not just Auckland, Wellington, etc. requires more money than New Zealand has.
It cannot be raised from taxation, becasue to do so hinder productivity from the tax payers plus reduce the volume of money availalbe for the tax recipients (state servants, superannuantants, benificiaries, the heatth and education systems,etc.).
We have unfortunately a leftish government to which borrowing is not aceptable, privat epublic partnerships are not bearable and where private enterpriase is totally a sin.
So sure lets plan, budget, timeline and build a public transport system.
Problem area is the budget one. Where is the money to come from?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Until the whole country is covered in tar seal?
You don’t need to concern yourself about that, because the notion is pure, alarmist fantasy – possibly inspired by Jonni Mitchell.
>>Make developers pay for additional infrastructure. Why should we subsidize them?
You don’t. You subsidse Public Transport.
Public transport has its place, and we should certainly have it, but it is only feasible for limited usage – mostly work travel in urban areas.
For everything else, the car is king.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“If public transport was better, we wouldn’t need to waste land and money on more roads.
I’ve used excellent public transport systems. I’ve lived in places where I didn’t need a car, most recently 6 months in Toronto.”
Yes Toronto has a good public transport system, but it also has fourteen lane motorways.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 10:34 am
>>Make developers pay for additional infrastructure. Why should we subsidize them?
You don’t. You subsidse Public Transport.
…………
Media Statement Property Council of NZ
30 March 2006
Reckless 481 per cent levy increase means thousands of young families would be driven out of North Shore City’s residential property market
Some new home owners and young families in North Shore City could be whacked with a bill of up to $11,252 just to fund footpaths, cycleways, public transport and car parking. The new schedule of proposed charges is set out in North Shore City’s draft 2006 Development Contributions Policy.
Connal Townsend, National Director of the Property Council of New Zealand, said the proposed levies are reckless, staggering and will quickly make whole suburbs of North Shore unaffordable to young families.
“At the very least new home owners in certain parts of Albany will be charged over $8,200 in development contributions designated to fund transport initiatives. If North Shore City adopts a higher funding scenario, many young families will be faced with a bill that exceeds $11,000. That’s an increase of 481.6 per cent, and that’s just to fund transport.
“Once other development contributions are levied by North Shore to fund wastewater treatment, stormwater, water, parks and other community infrastructure, young families who are seeking to buy their first home are faced with a $20,000 bill.
[talks about young families, but ignores immigration. Apparently Owen McShane and those who advocate for developers are unaware of the immigration phenomena]]
http://www.propertynz.co.nz/Files/National_submissions/Media%20stateme nt%20(NSCC%20development%20contributions).pdf
New Levy to help cover infrastructure costs of Manukau’s rapid growth
24 January, 2005
From 1 February 2005, property developers and owners applying for resource consents will be charged a Development Contribution Levy to help pay for the cost of Manukau’s rapid growth.
The new levy will also apply to relevant building consents issued after 31 May 2005.
Manukau is New Zealand’s fastest growing city. The population grew by 8,600 last year, with about 3000 new homes and hundreds of new commercial building projects completed.
Manukau City Council’s Senior Policy Analyst for Development Contributions, Gary Pritchard says this growth, while creating opportunities, also puts great pressure on current facilities and creates the need for new and upgraded infrastructure. The Council’s new Development Contributions Policy, allowed for under the Local Government Act 2002, provides a way of recovering some of these costs of growth from those who create new development in the city.
http://www.manukau.govt.nz/default.aspx?id=2418
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stephen,
My understanding is that not all domestic power distributors have the double metering for charging night rates. However, my comment was directed to the risk that if we electrified the fleet night rates may disappear because of the extra boost in consumption. This would be reasonable in the long term but it would discourage the switch if it was introduced too early.
Kjuv and others.
Like many, you assume that roads were invented for the motor car. Most roads in the world and especially those in cities were built hundreds or even thousands of years before the motor car was even thought of.
The Romans built roads and so did the Ancient chinese.
The carry out a multitude of functions quite apart from transport.
The last calculation I saw suggested that given the only roads dedicated to motor cars are motorways and major arterials the roads attributable to motor cars are only about 3-4% of the typical urban area. Buses and mini buses and shuttle buses and taxis all need roads too – not to mention the commercial vehicle fleet.
The big cities of the world are now depopulation – for a host of reasons and that means old fashioned public transport – especially rail based – will play a declining role in future. Residential density has little impact on transport use but job density does and jobs are spreading through the urban area as work activity becomes less offensive than in the 19th century.
I walk to work but live in the country,. I use my car a couple of times a week to do the shopping, visit clients, go to friends, and drive to the airport and the like.
Just as the distinction between town and country is disappearing so too is the distinction between public and private vehicle transport. The private car will soon be able to plug into or physically join networks which will give us the best of both worlds.
Relax and enjoy it.
Cars are already more energy efficient and greenhouse gas efficient in their whole of day use than buses and trains in their whole of day use. And the difference will only increase.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You can see why developers are into funding National and the Act rat and why they are the “invisible elephant” in city councils.
http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/services/devcons/default.asp
Li ke or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Car companies don’t sell cars with a life-time of petrol. They just sell the car.
Likewise, the electric car company does not need to sell the battery. The battery can be interchangeable.
The new model will be like the mobile phone model. Give the car away, charge them for the “minutes” (battery recharge via a network of stations)
Agree with Owen – rail is dead. Too inflexible, too expensive, and utterly redundant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Anyone know how much these electric Hyundais will cost?
I would have thought a plug-in hybrid would be a more attractive vehicle for New Zealand’s needs. At least with a PHEV, you can do over 200km a day if you need to without having to buy/rent a second car – such as when taking a holiday or a day trip.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A wealth of silliness here so I can’t resist commenting:
> Peak oil is not an IF. It is a WHEN. Peak oil is a simple geological fact of life. The only debate is when it will happen.
I thought you claimed it had already peaked? I’ll bet you $1000 oil supply will be higher in 5 years than now. Peak oil is a silly myth brought on my people who simply don’t understand the incentive that a high price gives to find more. The fact is that environmentalists are trying to create peal oil by banning drilling in the first world.
Peak oil is in no way a geological problem. It is almost entirely due to ‘above ground’ issues
> Until the whole country is covered in tar seal?
Give me a break. Take a look at this:
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/ser1997/html/chapter8.3.html
Built-on land apparently adds to 4% of NZ’s area, and that includes urban housing, shops, factories, etc. Rural roads and railways are 160,000 hectares and a completely new state highway from Cape Reinga to Bluff would consume no more than 5000 hectares, which is 0.02% of land area.
By contract, DOC controls 30% of our land.
> Make developers pay for additional infrastructure. Why should we subsidize them?
Who do you think buys the houses that the developers build? Do you really think developers pay those infrastructure fees? Maybe you think developers are so thick that they don’t build these costs into the price of the houses? If the council charges $15,000 to subdivide a section, where do you think that money really comes from? I’ll give you a clue – if you buy the section then you pay it.
> If public transport was better, we wouldn’t need to waste land and money on more roads….It can be done and it’s actually cheaper than endlessly building roads…which is why many cities and countries invested in public transport instead – to save money.
I doubt it. Maybe in areas of abject urban crush. If public transport costs so little why do we taxpayers have to subsidise it by 50%? Who’s to say we want this cheap and nasty option? Maybe we like private transport more and are prepared to pay for it?
As to rail, I can’t believe we are still debating that this might be the transport of the future. Rail is so demonstrably inflexible – witness the trucks which must do the last few miles. The only way rail can compete for freight is with regulation forcing trucks off the road. Envrionmentalists are well aware of this.
Rail for commuters is not going to last forever either. Council land regulations have managed to increase housing density in many areas to where public tranport attracts significant support. But as technology moves on and people and jobs spread out, this is going in reverse. In the UK a massive campaign has created the urban crush and kept ‘out-of-town’ shopping malls to a minimum, because environmentalists know that people prefer them.
Environmentalists exhort us to look to the future (as they imagine it, wrongly as it happens). But most of them are firmly locked in the past.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Who do you think buys the houses that the developers build? Do you really think developers pay those infrastructure fees? Maybe you think developers are so thick that they don’t build these costs into the price of the houses? If the council charges $15,000 to subdivide a section, where do you think that money really comes from? I’ll give you a clue – if you buy the section then you pay it.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Developers are charged fees but given the influence they hold on councils and government$, how can we be sure they pay a fair share? Why do rates keep rising? Why do we need new roads, more electricity etc?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In NZ house prices respond to positive net migration but to accommodate an increasing population we need more infrastructure (motorways, powerlines, sewerage treatment etc). It is very unlikely developers aren’t significantly subsidised by the existing population.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I would be interested in hearing how much more enviromentaly friendly charging your car with electric (that came from a coal powered station) is than using petroleum.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh the point is that developers don’t pay ANYTHING. They simply pass the costs on to the consumer. Just like any other regulation / environment initiative / etc. Don’t kid yourself that the people you hate are suffering… Taxes simply flow through the economy to the consumer.
>Why do rates keep rising?
Because our councils have no incentive to live within their budgets. If their jobs depended on it, rates would not rise.
> Why do we need new roads, more electricity etc?
To improve our sorry little lives. Go live in the UK for a few years if you want to see what happens when demand outstrips supply on roads. India’s a good place to try out living with electricity blackouts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>>Built-on land apparently adds to 4% of NZ’s area, and that includes urban housing, shops, factories, etc.
Yes, I admit to dabbling into a little hyperbole! (And thanks for the link, Optimist). It is just that claims like ‘the car is here to stay’ seem to lack both a respect for both the environment and the hopefully synergistic advance of human morality and human ingenuity. ‘Transport is here to stay’ is infinitely more palatable. We need to move away from our worship of the car in its present form at least.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ozymandias said:
“I would be interested in hearing how much more enviromentaly friendly charging your car with electric (that came from a coal powered station) is than using petroleum.”
Totally irrelevant in New Zealand. As electricity demand for electric vehicles increases, the extra power stations will not be running off coal. Some peaking plant will run off gas but the majority of the extra energy will come from wind, geothermal, wave, tidal, biomass and/or hydro sources.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Optimist Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
jh the point is that developers don’t pay ANYTHING. They simply pass the costs on to the consumer. Just like any other regulation / environment initiative / etc.
……….
They can’t pass the costs on if the buyer finds the price too high. Suppose we set a point where we say that the existing infrastructure is fully utilised at point x and beyond that we will need to upgrade. There needs to be sufficient benefit to the existing population to justify building new infrastructure. Unfortunately our society is run by interest groups to a significant degree and those opposed to growth are ignored (except by Winston).
“Go live in the UK for a few years if you want to see what happens when demand outstrips supply on roads.”
In the UK the population keeps swelling and for whose benefit….. developers and associated business lobbyists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Imagine a windmill charging an electric car which struggles against the wind; it’s a bit like a hydro electric power station lifting water from a well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“It is just that claims like ‘the car is here to stay’ seem to lack both a respect for both the environment and the hopefully synergistic advance of human morality and human ingenuity. ‘Transport is here to stay’ is infinitely more palatable. We need to move away from our worship of the car in its present form at least.”
Your stance is religious.
The car is an example of human ingenuity. Morality has nothing to do with. PT also creates an impact on the environment – in many cases more so than the car. Is it therefore immoral?
It is not about worshipping anything. It is about solving transportation problems.
The car solves most of those problems better than the alternatives.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
> “It is just that claims like ‘the car is here to stay’ seem to lack both a respect for both the environment and the hopefully synergistic advance of human morality and human ingenuity. ‘Transport is here to stay’ is infinitely more palatable. We need to move away from our worship of the car in its present form at least.�
Get ready for:
- automatic cars to ferry the kids around
- flying cars
- robot cars to fetch things
In 20 years you will look back on 2008 as a golden age of the car, before it got re-invented, and consumed a whole lot MORE energy.
On the other hand if you don’t want to drive a car, don’t. Leave the rest of us to our secular lifestyles outside your environmental world. We’re happy enough. This massive ball of rock doesn’t seem to care much about the cars either.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Your stance is religious.
>>In 20 years you will look back on 2008 as a golden age of the car, before it got re-invented, and consumed a whole lot MORE energy.
Faith in technology is also covertly religious. To my mind ‘religiousity’ is not erroneous per se. We just need to question the assumptions that our particular beliefs unearth. For instance, it seems reasonable to continuously consider the environmental and social impacts of both new and well entrenched technological activities and advances (eg cloning and motor transport, respectively) in the light of the forever changing current state of affairs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
We have, and we conclude that public transport is not the answer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“In 20 years you will look back on 2008 as a golden age of the car, before it got re-invented, and consumed a whole lot MORE energy.”
I can’t wait for 2001 when we will be travelling through the Galaxy on a Pan Am space craft.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I conclude that public transport is not the whole answer. No one thing is. PT is part of the answer. Electric cars are part of the answer. Electric trains are another part. Even the hydrogen economy may be part of the answer – although I am not sure just which part or how big a part
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
V8 petrol cars are the answer. What is the question?
Environmentalists are far too precious about transport. We are simply not running out of oil. In a decade the first world (of which we may be part) will look back on petrol cars as noisy, low performance and old-fashioned, a bit like an old computer. There will still be heaps of them around, but they will be like laptops without WiFi.
As cars become more automatic they will take more trips, but we may use less cars overall through automatic taxis, etc.
But transport is about getting people from A to B via the shortest and fastest route. The exception is tourism I suppose, so rail will have some value there. Maybe NZ could try to have the most antique rail in the world?
Buses will be for those who can’t afford cars and have plenty of time on their hands for stops, detours and changes. I didn’t say everything will change.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“V8 petrol cars are the answer. What is the question?”
What kind of cars do the most selfish drivers drive?
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The US is now in a revolution to hybrid and plug-in vehicles which will provide more than 4.1 times per passenger mile efficiency using electrical energy for propulsion than using a gallon of gasoline. That difference will increase as vehicles like the GM VOLT, which will get something like 100 mpg equivalent energy, come onto the market.
Here are some 2008 vehicle efficiency data in miles per gallon:
City Highway Vehicle
48 45 Toyota Prius Hybrid
40 45 Honda Civic Hybrid
34 30 Ford Escape Hybrid
33 44 Smart ForTwo by Mercedes
29 35 Toyota Yaris
21 22 Chevy Tahoe (SUV) Hybrid
SOURCE: Government Technology 2008 September issue
As vehicles become more efficient using electrical propulsion as shown above, the difference in cost per passenger mile will improve even more for passenger vehicles over the cost of public transportation.
Therefore, more and better roads will be needed and maintained, especially for places in the US, since places in the US with high rise buildings are comparatively sparse. Note too that hybrids are more efficient in city/suburb driving where most people live than for highway driving; however highway driving is still more efficient for hybrids than for most gasoline only propelled vehicles.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The difference in petrol used per kilometre by a SUV and by a Suzuki Swift is greater than the difference in petrol used per kilometer by a Suzuki Swift and an electric car.
My point is that we’ve had the technology to cut down on petrol usage for many years. What we lack are sufficient incentives.
Cue the carbon tax.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
…or a slightly more complicated Scheme…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
icehawk, It has taken a 100% increase in the retail price of petrol to eliminate per capita traffic growth. To be effective at reducing tha absolute amount of traffic a carbon tax will need to have at least the same impact on the retail price, not just add a few cents.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Peak oil is a silly myth brought on my people who simply don’t understand the incentive that a high price gives to find more. ”
Optie,
Do you think the same is true of Peak Islands too? That the lack of undiscovered islands to conquer, which the europeans encountered around 1820, simply gave them enough incentive to find more, which caused there to be more islands?
Natural resources are not unlimited. You cannot *always* find more by merely increasing the demand.
35 years ago we had a petrol crisis. And the result was increase in oil supply. That’s because back then vast tracks of the world had never had a decent geological survey, and sudden rise in petrol prices gave an incentive to get out and get mapping. But it isn’t the early 70s any more.
Though “Peak Oil” is an oversimplification. The real question isn’t the amount of petrol supply. The problem is the diminishing returns – we’ve long ago found all the easiest to extract fields, and in the 70s we went after the less easy stuff (oil rigs in the cold seas off Scotland and Norway are *not* a cheap or easy way to get oil). We’re now onto much more marginal finds. If it costs vast amounts (of dosh and energy) to extract the oil then it’s not worth it.
“I’ll bet you $1000 oil supply will be higher in 5 years than now.”
What index would you use to measure that? I may be willing to take that bet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Optimist – Just where did anyone (except you) say that we were running out of oil? It is head in the sand cornucopians like yourself who say that. The Peak Oil crowd does not. It is a straw man that you fantasysts love to knock down. Peak oil means the end of the cheap and easy half of the oil. Nothing more. It also means that the market will struggle to find suitable low cost alternatives, particularly when those of you who regularly deny the laws of physics insist that there is no problem, and that the market will solve everything. The market will solve nothing. People will. But first they have to understand the facts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How are people not the market?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
People are the market, Frog. The market is the sum of their decisions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>first they have to understand the facts.
They need to understand that cars don’t require oil to run.
But I fear oil is too much part of the earth religion for greens to talk any sense when it comes to transport policy….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OK Greenfly, this one doesn’t look like a ‘bot.
The question is, what IS it. It looks like a real person pushing on the thread, the link on the name is to a travel web-site. The opinion stated is little more than a grammatically correct summary.
Travel Guru – tell us who/what is your purpose here?
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)