Christopher Tan, Straits Times 14 Mar 10;
I have been an advocate of electric vehicles (EVs) since the early 1990s, when a battery-powered brigade led by General Motors, Ford and Nissan rolled out the first production EVs in modern times (electric cars actually date back more than 100 years).
But I am having second thoughts, and not because the 1990s EV initiative blew a fuse and died.
Don't get me wrong. I still think electric cars have a place in greener and more efficient mobility. But they are not the only solution.
In recent years, conventional cars have made dramatic leaps in efficiency.
Technologies such as direct injection, dual-clutch transmissions (with up to eight speeds), twincharging (where both supercharger and turbocharger are employed in one engine), and automatic stop-start systems (which turn off the engine when you come to a stop, and restart when you step on the accelerator) are now becoming common.
Diesel engines too have advanced. Volkswagen's new Polo 1.2TDI Bluemotion, for instance, emits only 87g of carbon dioxide per km - well below the 120g/km average which European manufacturers must meet by 2012 under the European Union legislation.
Industry observers reckon manufacturers with guzzlers in their lineup will exploit loopholes in the legislation. Because if they roll out electric models, they will be able to use carbon credits as an offset that allows them to make up to 3.5 big SUVs for every electric vehicle they sell.
This practice might in reality lead to higher emissions and oil dependence on the whole.
A recent study by Oxford University concluded that the most effective way of cutting vehicular emissions would be having lighter, smaller petrol and diesel cars.
The Singapore Government is setting aside sizeable resources to 'test-bed' EVs. A multi-agency taskforce led by the Energy Market Authority has been given $20 million for the scheme.
The test fleet can also plug into another tax exemption scheme announced in Parliament the previous week. The scheme, which is technically open to all types of vehicles worthy of research but is expected to be used up largely by EVs, will cost the Government about $75 million in tax revenue.
So the EV test-drive can incur up to $95 million, in real cost and opportunity cost.
Is such an exercise worth so much in tax money, especially when it is open only to companies and institutions?
True, governmental subsidies are necessary for EVs to take root. This is because such cars cost twice as much as conventional cars.
Britain has set aside £230 million (S$482 million) in similar subsidies to kick-start EVs and other new-tech green cars. But the man in the street can partake of the grant, enjoying around 25 per cent off a car's sticker price (up to £5,000 each) from 2011.
The British plan will help about 50,000 motorists who want to go green.
The Singapore plan will help offset the cost of up to 3,000 cars, which are likely to be owned by fleet operators, transport firms, and corporations and institutions at large.
Individuals who want to own an EV will either have to lease one from the corporations, or buy them at showroom prices minus a 40 per cent reduction in the Additional Registration Fee (the main car tax) granted to cars such as those which are CNG-powered and hybrids.
In the latter, real savings work out to be less than 10 per cent of the purchase price because such a car will be eligible for a far lower scrap rebate at the end of its lifespan.
In my opinion, we should rethink vehicle 'test-bedding'. Specifically, is there a better way of finding out how EVs or other new vehicle types perform in the Singapore environment?
The British subsidy method is one alternative. But instead of skewing it towards EVs, the end-user grant should be open to all forms of ultra low-emission vehicles. As mentioned, these do not have to be fanciful newfangled models that run on hydrogen or solar power, but cars which are nonetheless superior.
For instance, the VW Golf 1.6TDI Bluemotion covers 100km on 3.8 litres of fuel and emits 99g/km of carbon dioxide - figures comparable to a petrol-electric hybrid's.
Yet, because of the punitive taxation system for diesel cars here, an owner of a Bluemotion Golf will pay $2,740 in road taxes a year, versus $976 for a leading Japanese hybrid.
And in the case of the Polo Bluemotion cited earlier in this article, its carbon footprint is equivalent to that of an electric car. Yet its buyer will not qualify for any special tax breaks, and will in fact have to bear the hefty diesel taxes.
Volkswagen currently has one of the most efficient models on the market, but other manufacturers are also working on improving the internal combustion engine.
Daimler, for instance, has prototypes of the Diesotto engine, which combines the best qualities of a petrol and diesel power plant in one. Lotus has been testing a two-stroke Omnivore engine, while Fiat has just introduced diesel-rivalling MultAir petrol engines to its range.
Singapore would do well to keep pace with developments on all fronts, and not be overly dazzled by any one technology. Perhaps a carbon-based taxation system will be the best way to go - where cars are taxed according to their overall environmental impact, and not according to their technology.
This holistic approach will allow end-users to make intelligent choices and in turn influence the course of the industry - not the other way around.
Piecemeal measures will only give rise to abuse and ridicule. We are already seeing examples here, in the form of indiscriminate and clunky CNG conversions.
Most of the owners who have strapped bulky compressed natural gas tanks onto their cars did so only to enjoy the 40 per cent ARF cut. Many rarely fill up with CNG, and run their cars predominantly on petrol.
The result? Heavier cars with poorer efficiency and higher emissions. Which make a mockery of the green vehicle rebate.
