This article was received from the International Energy Association that New Zealand is a member of.
Despite near-term challenges in some markets, based on today's policy settings, almost 1 in 3 cars on the roads in China by 2030 is set to be electric, and almost 1 in 5 in both United States and European Union
More than one in five cars sold worldwide this year is expected to be electric, with surging demand projected over the next decade set to remake the global auto industry and significantly reduce oil consumption for road transport, according to the new edition of the IEA’s annual Global EV Outlook.
The latest Outlook, published today, finds that global electric car sales are set to remain robust in 2024, reaching around 17 million by the end of the year. In the first quarter, sales grew by about 25% compared with the same period in 2023 – similar to the growth rate seen in the same period a year earlier, but from a larger base. The number of electric cars sold globally in the first three months of this year is roughly equivalent to the number sold in all of 2020.
In 2024, electric cars sales in China are projected to leap to about 10 million, accounting for about 45% of all car sales in the country. In the United States, roughly one in nine cars sold are projected to be electric – while in Europe, despite a generally weak outlook for passenger car sales and the phase-out of subsidies in some countries, electric cars are still set to represent about one in four cars sold.
This growth builds on a record-breaking 2023. Last year, global electric car sales soared by 35% to almost 14 million. While demand remained largely concentrated in China, Europe and the United States, growth also picked up in some emerging markets such as Viet Nam and Thailand, where electric cars accounted for 15% and 10%, respectively, of all cars sold.
Substantial investment in the electric vehicle supply chain, ongoing policy support, and declines in the price of EVs and their batteries are expected to produce even more significant changes in the years to come. The Outlook finds that under today’s policy settings, every other car sold globally is set to be electric by 2035. Meanwhile, if countries’ announced energy and climate pledges are met in full and on time, two in three cars sold would be electric by 2035. In this scenario, the rapid uptake of electric vehicles – from cars to vans, trucks, buses, and two- and three-wheelers – avoids the need for around 12 million barrels of oil per day, on a par with current demand from road transport in China and Europe combined.
“The continued momentum behind electric cars is clear in our data, although it is stronger in some markets than others,” said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol. “Rather than tapering off, the global EV revolution appears to be gearing up for a new phase of growth. The wave of investment in battery manufacturing suggests the EV supply chain is advancing to meet automakers’ ambitious plans for expansion. As a result, the share of EVs on the roads is expected to continue to climb rapidly. Based on today’s policy settings alone, almost one in three cars on the roads in China by 2030 is set to be electric, and almost one in five in both the United States and European Union. This shift will have major ramifications for both the auto industry and the energy sector.”
The report finds that manufacturers have taken major steps to deliver on the strengthening EV ambitions of governments, including by making significant financial commitments. Thanks to high levels of investment over the past five years, the world’s capacity to produce batteries for EVs is well positioned to keep up with demand, even as it rises sharply over the next decade. The pace of the transition to EVs may not be consistent and will hinge on affordability, the report emphasises.
In China, more than 60% of electric cars sold in 2023 were already less expensive to buy than their conventional equivalents. However, in Europe and the United States, the purchase prices for cars with internal combustion engines remained cheaper on average, though intensifying market competition and improving battery technologies are expected to reduce prices in the coming years. Even where upfront prices are high, the lower operating costs of EVs mean the initial investment pays back over time.
Growing electric car exports from Chinese automakers, which accounted for more than half of all electric car sales in 2023, could add to downward pressure on purchase prices. Chinese companies, which are also setting up production facilities abroad, have already seen strong sales of more affordable models launched in 2022 and 2023 in overseas markets. This highlights that the composition of the main EV-producing economies is diverging considerably from the traditional auto industry.
Ensuring that the availability of public charging keeps pace with electric vehicle sales is crucial for continued growth, according to the report. The number of public charging points installed globally was up 40% in 2023 relative to 2022, and growth for fast chargers outpaced that of slower ones. However, to meet a level of electric vehicle deployment in line with the pledges made by governments, charging networks need to grow sixfold by 2035. At the same time, policy support and careful planning are essential to make sure greater demand for electricity from charging does not overstretch electricity grids.
Accompanying the Global EV Outlook 2024 are the Global EV Data Explorer and the Global EV Policy Explorer. These online tools allow users to interactively explore EV statistics, projections and policy measures worldwide.
54 Comments
Except of course thats not at all true, once the economy is back into an expansionary phase you'll be watching the EV portion of new car sales trending up, and the combustion portion trending down.
Start by increasing the PED duty (or put petrol cars on RUCs) to remove the massive subsidy new efficient hybrids get and watch as petrol sales drop off a cliff for market segments where there are viable EV equivalents.
Hi Pragmatist,
Hope this gets your attention. Could you answer this question for me? Consider the following ...
TNZ says this:
"Vehicles weighing less than around 6 tonnes do almost no damage to roads and so they impose very similar costs on the road network. For this reason, all light RUC vehicles pay the same RUC rate – $76 per 1,000 km (from 1 July 2020)."
Source: https://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/RUC-CAM.pdf
So far so good. But ...
If a vehicle weighing less than 6 tonnes does almost no damage - but roads must be built much stronger (at greater cost) to accommodate much heavier vehicles - who is paying for the extra cost?
I.e. If a road for vehicles of less than 6 tonnes cost $1m but a road to carry vehicles greater than 6 tonnes cost $3m - who is paying for the extra $2m?
Is the total $3m spread among all road users?
Or it the extra $2m recovered from only the vehicles that forced costs up by the additional $2m?
I am still looking for a definitive answer to these questions. But as you seem to be knowledgeable in this area I hoped you could point me directly to the answer.
https://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Paper/Infometrics20Economi…
Infometrics has this to say on Council's funding roads ....
"Local body property rates are a vexed issue. Income from local body rates (and expenditure on passenger transport) distort the operation of the CAM. Most reviewers recommend excluding rates income completely from the CAM unless there are certain types of expenditure that can be directly attributed to property ownership, with rates being reduced accordingly."
The lack of chargers is not being addressed as there is no market to address in NZ. It's too small to warrant the epic wall of BS that you have to chew down at every turn to put one in and get it hooked up.
The only reason we have Chargenet is that they are given the chargers for free by the government to put them in and then rip the public off on the charging rates.
Given the introduction of road user charges you would need to charge at home to make the EV worth the hassle anyway so maybe there is no problem.
Its weird as we all know EV's are inevitable as the price to purchase one declines and battery technology gets better? Just look at Norway
New figures released by the Norwegian Road Federation say 82.4 percent of new cars sold in the country last year were electric, up from 79.3 percent in 2022. NZ could be the same, yet we think ICE cars are the future in a country rich in renewable energy..?
I now pay the same RUC charge per km as a dirty diesel yet I do not emit cancer causing particles that enviably increase our cancer rates/health costs, or need a bunker oil dirty ship to sail around the world and then a heavy truck to follow me so I can "fill" up.
NZ clean and green..yer right..
Norway has a few ideas (if we forget that Norway's petroleum funded sovereign fund is currently at $1.7T and pays for all their green investment) I like these ones:
"As EV adoption continued to increase in the 2000s and 2010s, the Norwegian government stepped in to ensure charging points were easy to use and equitably distributed. It invested 7 million euros to create 1,900 charging points by 2011. " - Direct action
"Since more than 82% of EV users in Norway charge their vehicles at home, housing associations can apply for grants that subsidize up to 50 percent of the cost of buying and installing communal chargers. The Norwegian government also created “a law that parking garages have to establish the basic infrastructure, like having the electricity available,” says assistant general secretary of the Norwegian EV Association Petter Haugneland." - PPP done right.
How does Norway afford to be a trendy ev nation??
"Norway is among the top 20 exporters of oil and the second-largest natural gas ".......thats how..
RUC are there to provide a fund for road maintenance.. an expense EV bludgers have avoided up till now..
Diesel users already pay a climate levy on their fuel..
Modern diesel engines are surprisingly low on particle emissions now anyway..
Why did a nation like Norway, with all its oil and gas invest in electric vehicles. The answer is simple its a better more efficient form of transport. Norway like NZ also has a lot of cheap electricity. The country makes more from exporting oil and gas to nations who don't understand simple maths. Modern diesel engines are a dying breed no company is investing in new internal combustion engines. Who can afford to fuel them?
No, taxpayer are subsidising all road users, but particularly light petrol vehicles to a massive degree.
While you are right about the damage done to the road surface, what you have failed to account for is the shear amount of roading that is there simply to cope with the volume of light cars.
About $6 of your $76/1000km RUC is paying for road wear, the rest is paying for all the other crap that is part of having roads, like signage, median barriers, and the cost of having to make Auckland motorways 8 lanes wide.
“About two thirds of the cost of building new highways goes into making them strong enough for large vehicles, which are mainly trucks. Excluding events such as storm damage, about 80% of all road maintenance costs are the result of the damage caused by trucks.”
“Yet, the trucking industry pays less than 23% of the costs of building and maintaining these highways.”
If the trucking industry had to pay its fair share all of a sudden the economic case for rail and coastal shipping would be far more favourable.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2212/S00111/trucks-do-the-most-damage…
"The amount they pay is calculated using solid engineering principles so they pay in proportion to the damage/wear they cause. "
Were you referring to two passenger vehicles of the same weight, one ICE and one EV? If which case you are mostly right (except when Total Cost, which includes environmental damage, is included and then you're likely to be mistaken.)
But if you were referring to truck vs. a car then you're way wrong. The damage becomes exponentially higher as the weight transferred by each wheel increases. This means that not only is more damage done by heavy vehicles, it also means roads cost much more to build (and maintain) to accommodate heavy vehicles.
RUC rates differ from those indicated by the Ministry’s cost allocation model
24. Legislated RUC rates do not align precisely with the rates suggested by the Ministry’s CAM, both now and in the past. Four factors contribute to these differences:
24.1. Because the NLTF expenditure profile changes from year to year, the costs sought to be recovered, and so the rates calculated by the model, can shift up and down. One change over recent years has been an increase in common costs – which apply equally to all vehicle types – and a reduction in road wear related costs (on a per-kilometre travelled basis). This causes the CAM to indicate an increase in light vehicle rates (which are largely comprised of common costs) and a decrease in heavy vehicle rates (which are largely comprised of road wear costs).
24.2. The long-standing approach to previous changes to RUC rates is that they only ever increase or remain static even in circumstances where the CAM suggests they should be reduced. This delivers additional revenue but can create situations where the rates set in regulations over time become higher than what the cost allocation model suggests certain types of vehicles should be charged.
24.3. Previous RUC rate increases where either all rates have been increased by the same percentage, or a minimum increase has been applied, even to rates that the CAM suggested should fall.
24.4. In recent years, rate increases have been subject to limits, or “ceilings”. Rates have not generally been increased by more then 10 percent in any one year, even where the Ministry’s CAM indicates they should. This is desirable to increase certainty and reduce economic shocks to owners of particular vehicle types, but has led to some legislated rates falling below the rates calculated by the Ministry’s CAM.
25. The cumulative effect of these four factors over a long period is that light vehicles pay less than the CAM indicates they should, currently by about 13 percent, and some heavy vehicles pay more than the CAM indicates they should. For some vehicles, particularly heavy trailers, this results in charges exceeding CAM rates by 40 percent or more.
From https://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Cabinet/cabinet-paper-RUC-…
But, hey, what would the Minster of Transport ( It was Twyford at the time) know, compared to the all-knowing interest.co.nz common-taters.
This is just referring to Diesel RUCs, but modern light petrol powered vehicle pay even less, as all the EV owners know, it has been beaten to death in various forums how something like a Prius pays about half what a diesel or EV on RUCs does to maintaining the roads.
So without us being able to understand the CAM model (an engineering-led cost allocation model) you want us to accept the Transport NZ paper submitted to Cabinet as gospel? Are Transport NZ likely to be completely impartial in such matters? I doubt it.
So ... were Cabinet, like us, expected to take the Cabinet paper as true, balanced and correct, and unbiased, without a thorough understanding of the CAM? Golly I hope not! But maybe they were?
They already pay via a portion of the taxes on petrol - a much better system as it isn't open to avoidance by disconnecting the speedometer and means that drivers don't have to remember to buy more RUCs.
And yes, I know people with modern diesels vans and utes that have had a switch installed to turn off the electric speedometer (and hence, the odometer). It's not just old cable driven speedometers that can be easily disconnected.
I agree, a fuel tax WAS a much better system when cars were much of a muchness, not much difference between a kp Toyota Starlet and a Ford Escort, unfortunately that is no longer the case, a prius or other efficeint hybrid uses very little fuel compared to a V8 falcon, so it does not pay anything like its fair share of the roading costs, so we just need to about double that portion of fuel tax till they pay their fair share...
Norway has also spent a lot on their public transport to reduce the need to use cars - and like here, it's a also long, skinny country with few people, a lot of coast and challenging terrain.
To go any distance here, most seem to choose to drive intra-island or fly inter-island as the alternatives are impractical.
Electric cars should hardly be up there as a target.
Damazing depreciation, Chinese subsidizing their industry with already low salaries vs the west leading to teach wars and accelerated western decline.
Plus the depreciation and fact that currently they are less environmentally friendly than petrol cars.... why subsidize or encourage that?
Possible hybrids are a better solution for now. Take up of those will be driven by the cost of living anyway.
Who told you battery electric cars are less environmentally friendly than petrol cars? Wake up.
As for subsidy's the reason we don’t refine oil here is because the last government wouldn’t give tax dollars to a private company who couldn’t make a profit.
If you want energy security we need to use electricity. We own its production and already have great infrastructure just need to add more roof top solar and batteries.
Oil is too valuable to burn, when we have more efficient and cleaner tech.
The reason the Marsden refinery closed was not "lack of profits".
Rather they saw what Gull was doing re importing fuel from Singapore and worked out they (oil companies) could make even more money.
The decision to close and then sabotage Marden Point refinery will come back to bite NZ on the arse..
The owners sabotaged it. Instead of mothballing the plant they made sure it couldn't be recommissioned in the future.
A tanker of crude used to last us for months(i stand to be corrected)
Now we have at best about 14days supply. We import all and sundry petroleum products from around the globe.
Some of it is of questionable quality.
Remember the jet fuel saga? "Since November 2022, there have been three jet fuel shipments which have failed to meet testing requirements"
Last year all the interisland ferries(incl Bluebridge) had issues.Fuel wasn't mentioned but that would possibly explain why this unprecedented fiasco occurred..
Marsden point produced our Bitumen for nz spec.Now we take any old crap that's cheap(wonder why road repairs don't last?)
I think the closure is already biting us in the arse .A world " event" restricting shipping could really bugger us up..
Any restriction on oil would stop most people from doing business, all the more reason for progressing energy security. We have no control over oil being pumped here we do own and control our electricity production from renewables. Surly it makes more sense to be sending billions of dollars on own renewable fuel and infrastructure. America is spending trillions on energy security with the Inflation Reduction Act. We need every home and business to have solar on the roof with battery support as a minimum.
A 'race to the bottom' will ensue ...
An EV's price - at this point of time - includes massive development and setup costs. But these are falling as the monies invested are now spread over many more vehicles and many setup hurdles (e.g. regulations) are now history. Economies of scale are now being realized and will continue to grow. And an EV is cheaper to produce, and to own.
So what happens to existing ICE prices? They'll fall too as a surplus of manufacturing capacity results in the carrying values reducing. On the demand side, consumers, now faced with a viable and mainstream alternative to ICEs, will shop with their wallets. (They've been up market items until recently and people with up-market asperations are far less price sensitive.) A proportion of ICE sales are guaranteed as an EV can't ever be a viable alternative. (The proportion is much smaller than many would have you believe.)
And once we have a 'price war' between EVs and ICE, prices will drop for both.
But another phenomenon will enter the fray - design.
Current EVs look like ICE vehicles. But they need not. Their components are quite different in size, shape and weight, e.g. an EVs 'gearbox' is tiny, their 'engines' can be placed inside a wheel and can be made tall or flat, battery 'packs' can be packaged into many differing shapes, etc. (Obviously there are engineering considerations to each change.)
The next 10 to 20 years could get very interesting indeed.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.