> “What Elon Musk wants to produce is a lifestyle,” Zulkifli said Wednesday when asked about the entrepreneur’s comments. “We are not interested in a lifestyle. We are interested in proper solutions that will address climate problems.”<p>Electric cars are poor, even counterproductive stand-ins for long term solutions such as public transportation and the elimination of the suburban commuter lifestyle. They hide a multitude of externalities forced on the public and not paid for directly by owners or manufacturers.<p>Climate change aside, it's not hard to imagine a country as densely populated as Singapore opposing electric cars.
In Singapore they have monopoly on car servicing and distribution. C&C takes care of Benz and Performance motor for BMW. Then Japanese and Korean cars are also by single distributor entities. They control the price and the market.<p>Also Oil and Gas is core industry for Singapore economy. So when anyone fills gas it helps government revenues and generate jobs. Climate is not the primary concern given the small footprint of Singapore.<p>Also if Tesla comes in Singapore as it is perfect place for its range BMW, Benz which are the primary brands will suffer heavily. Also thousands of jobs repairing gasoline engine, oils, filters will be lost. Since electrical car do not have as many mechanical moving parts as traditional gasoline car it will reduce maintenance costs and car servicing and parts related business.<p>So Singapore won't let Tesla setup up easily. It will be taxed higher than other electrical car companies which works on fringes and do not threaten the oil and gas related automobile jobs and taxes.
They're not wrong. Buses, trains and cycling don't have the appeal of a sporty private car, but in a dense city they're much much more efficient.
Isn't that the commonly understood strategy of Tesla?<p>You can't start with the environmental benefits as the main selling point, it has to be a good car. Especially when Tesla started, the base cost of EV tech was extremely high, so the only market-competitive 'good' car you could build on top of it was a luxury car focused on optimising performance, comfort, brand, etc, with a very high price tag.<p>Obviously as the price of the base tech falls, a mass market car will emerge that's actually good, and sells, bringing the environmental benefits along with it not as a primary thing but a secondary one. That's the way it has to work (fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective). Also seems that's exactly what Tesla is doing, I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
> <i>"it would be difficult to develop adequate charging stations with 85% of the population living in high-density, government-supported housing."</i><p>This is a common fallacy. If there is already somewhere to park the car, then you already have somewhere to install charging. In a highly developed city like Singapore, the electric grid already extends almost everywhere.<p>> <i>"hydrogen is a better long-term solution than electric vehicles for decarbonizing transportation, in part because of the carbon footprint from mining the metals needed to produce car batteries and the issues around their eventual disposal."</i><p>Batteries aren't free, but neither are electrolizers and fuel cells (limited life span, large quantities of platinum and rare earth metals needed for catalysts, etc). The lifecycle efficiency of battery electric vehicles is much better than for hydrogen fuel cells, and the infrastructure requirements are much more managable.
Singapore has always been super anti personal vehicle... they have a big excise tax on personal vehicles. Far removed from the context of America where everyone has a car
Any time you see an article promoting hydrogen as fuel, be suspicious - it's likely being promoted by the oil industry.<p>As of 2000, 95% of hydrogen production is sourced from 'steam reforming', basically breaking off hydrogen gas from fossil fuels: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen#Steam_reforming" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen#Steam_reforming</a><p>Sure, everyone knows you can get hydrogen from nice clean electrolysis but it's not nearly as cheap (energetically) as getting it from fossil fuels.<p>Anyways, the oil industry would be relatively happy to a move to hydrogen so they could continue being the primary suppler of fuel.
Accessibility and empowerment are important to liberal society. The fact is that there is high demand for motor vehicles even in large municipalities for children/families, the disabled, the elderly, or anyone moving large packages. This is a plurality of the populace, even in urban centers. Banning cars in favor of public transit will greatly reduce their mobility and their voice in society. Electric cars are a great way of serving this demand with a much smaller local and global environmental impact. The fact that the wealthy also enjoy the comfort of private vehicles doesn't make them immoral.<p>Certainly we can use fewer, greener parking lots. Certainly we can use better public transport. Certainly the _majority_ of transit in Asian and European metros is public, and should be in America. But a plurality of transit even in the densest hubs is private. There are plenty of cars, and there is plenty of real need for them.<p>Condemning cars is reductionist and elitist, and at the risk of an ad-hominem attack, usually advocated by those who can afford expensive taxis when they need them, and don't often need them since they are young and single.<p>Maybe the dynamics will change with self-driving vehicles whose hiring will be more economical than ownership. But that is so far not a practical short- or medium-term reality.
I found the last paragraph particularly interesting. I have a friend who is a real car enthusiast; he owns several classic cars which he maintains himself and takes to car shows. A few weeks ago he said that he believed that hydrogen fuel cells were the future, not electric cars.<p>I don't know enough about hfc's to have an opinion but I followed the link they gave and it looks like they could still be a way off in terms of practicality.<p>Anyone here have an informed opinion they'd be willing to share?
I really love the pragmatism of the Singaporean Government sometimes. Other countries are nowhere near as pushed for resources and consequently don't do anywhere near as good a job as them of facing big, gnarly problems like this. Kind of a pity, really.
I'll just leave this here to add a bit more background:<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_industry_in_Singapore" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_industry_in_Singapore</a>
Bicycling to work everyday is about Climate.<p>Edit: <a href="http://www.globalstewards.org/reduce-carbon-footprint.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.globalstewards.org/reduce-carbon-footprint.htm</a>
Singapore is in an interesting position, because anything they do to mitigate air pollution pales in comparison to the Malaysian fires that annually fill their air. It’s hopeless until the situation with their geographical neighbors change.
Electric cars may be a lifestyle, but electric mopeds are a solution. They reduce congestion, consume far less energy per mile traveled, and are generally a greater way to get around the city - especially if you join a club and share the devices among a group of people who are interested in maintaining them and using them effectively.<p>So, all Tesla really needs to do is make an e-moped. I'd sign up immediately - I love my Unu, but it needs a bit of the Tesla flair...
if you have 'clean' electricity mix e.g. France (dominant nuclear), Norway (dominant hydro) then I consider electric car as 'ecologic' (after few years lower CO2 than conventional car).<p>For other places around the world where electricity is more 'dirty' just drive some small car with combustion engine and maintain it as long as possible. Small car needs less energy for transport then heavy electric vehicles.
If SG moved directly to EV share cars, and did some structural planning around them, We really would be living in the future. The french can keep jetpacks, I want a land based transport system which keeps roads as public utility value.
also <a href="https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/08/22/electric_vehicles_wont_help_carbon_emissions_target_say_mps/" rel="nofollow">https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/08/22/electric_vehicles_w...</a>
Just thinking about the headline.<p>Turning EVs into a rich persons lifestyle is a good way to start a boom down the line.<p>The rich people will often be positioned to put pressure on politics and businesses as well, and they want to be able to charge their shiny toy, right?<p>Suddenly everyone wants a big screen in an EV cause’ it’s cool; ”Oh, look at this rich, happy dude in his awesome toy on insta!”<p>Queue really, really cheap long range model 3... <i>cough</i><p>Changing an already put in place lifestyle where needed (US? Europe). I personally can’t tell yet if EV is the way to go, but at least it’s something. Musk is obviously convinced.<p>So, what I’m saying is that Elon might very well be going for climate/environment, not to say there’s better ways. Awesome public transit for example.
> <i>“What Elon Musk wants to produce is a lifestyle,” Zulkifli said Wednesday when asked about the entrepreneur’s comments.</i><p>It sounds more like he wants to turn Tesla into a taxi service:<p><a href="https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/22/tesla-plans-to-launch-a-robotaxi-network-in-2020/" rel="nofollow">https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/22/tesla-plans-to-launch-a-ro...</a>